Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 11 February 2009, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Pearce, Petrie, Parkes and Forde. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
I move:
That Main Committee order of the day No. 2, government business, relating to the condolence motion on the Victorian bushfires, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day relating to the Victorian bushfires motion of condolence moved by the Deputy Prime Minister being called on at 2.00 pm today prior to questions without notice.
I am advised that the member for McEwen will be returning to the House today after a week of absence due to the circumstances of her electorate being particularly adversely affected by the Victorian bushfire tragedies. It would be appropriate that the member for McEwen be given the opportunity to address this House at 2 pm. She will be the final speaker in the debate over the condolence motion and then it is anticipated that the condolence motion will then be carried in the usual respectful manner.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts I present the committee’s report entitled Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—On 27 November 2008, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon. Peter Garrett, introduced a bill for an act to create a right to resale royalty in relation to artworks and related purposes. In his second reading speech, the minister stated:
The introduction of this bill marks a landmark day for Australian visual artists, whose right to an ongoing economic interest in the value of their artistic works will be appropriately recognised in Australia for the first time.
Following the second reading speech, and at the request of the minister, the House of Representatives resolved as follows:
That the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 be referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts for consideration and an advisory report by 20 February 2009.
The committee, of which I am chair, rose to the challenge presented by this tight time frame and were prepared to undertake what was at times a very complex examination of various aspects of the bill. I particularly want to thank the members of the committee and the secretariat, who worked tirelessly to make sure that this report was presented within the time schedule determined by the parliament late last year. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Mr Peter Keele from the secretariat in that regard.
The committee was mindful that the primary aim of a resale royalty scheme was not just about raising additional income for artists but, more importantly, putting our visual artists on an equal footing with authors, composers and performers who receive an ongoing financial benefit from their creative efforts. The committee advertised, and received 40 submissions. It held public hearings in Canberra on 5 and 6 February, at which evidence from 20 witnesses was taken. Those witnesses, I believe, represented a range of views across the visual arts sector.
The committee found that there was widespread support for a resale royalty scheme, but most of the supporters felt that the current legislation would deliver very little by way of royalties to artists at the beginning of the proposed scheme. Some argued also that the scheme was out of step with other schemes already in place around the world. However, there were others who believed any sort of royalty scheme would only favour the already successful artists. Some also felt that the imposition of another levy on art purchases would adversely affect the primary art market and future resales of artwork could go offshore to be sold in markets where no such scheme exists. Of course, our committee took account of these competing views throughout its deliberations because we wanted to ensure that the establishment of a resale royalty scheme delivered real benefits to as many artists as possible while at the same time did not impact adversely on the primary art market.
While a number of issues were raised throughout the inquiry, the success or otherwise of the scheme came down to two important issues—firstly, whether existing artwork should be included in the scheme from day one and, secondly, whether individual artists should be able to opt out completely and have the right to collect the royalty given over to them personally. While it was not the stated aim of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to put forward a scheme whereby the first resale of existing artwork would be excluded from the royalty scheme at its commencement, it did so because it was advised that the inclusion of all resales from the outset could render the scheme unconstitutional.
The committee was told that the scheme, as currently proposed, will deliver very few benefits to artists for many years. This is due to two factors—the low turnover of artwork and the exclusion of the first resale of existing artwork after the commencement of the scheme. While the first factor is simply part of the dynamics of the art market, more importantly the second factor has been influenced by the interpretation of whether the first resale of existing artwork falls within section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution—that is, the acquisition of property on other than just terms. So the arguments about this part of the bill were very legal and technical in nature. Having considered all the submissions and taken evidence from a number of witnesses, the committee came to the view that there was in fact conflicting legal advice regarding the treatment of existing artwork and, considering the importance of this matter, it has concluded that further legal advice should be obtained before proceeding with the bill. If the scheme goes ahead with the exclusion of existing artwork, a number of other unintentional problems will arise. In particular, it will be difficult to verify which resales are eligible for a royalty payment and which resales are to be excluded.
With regard to the second matter, the committee was very mindful of the inalienable right pertaining to this scheme, in line with the Berne convention, and that no-one should be able to take that right away from the artists. Getting the balance right between upholding this important principle and delivering a viable and sustainable scheme is not easy. However, after weighing up all these competing interests the committee has concluded that this right is not compromised by the decision to appoint a sole collecting society as long as the artists can still choose to say no to the collection of that royalty owed to them on a case by case basis. However, we believe that the administration of the scheme would be compromised if artists elected to collect the royalty themselves or appointed another art market professional to undertake the collection.
Central to the establishment of a resale royalty scheme in Australia has been the objective of providing real benefits to Indigenous artists and their estates. Indigenous artists would greatly benefit if all resales were included in the scheme from day one and if the scheme were structured in a way so as to recognise the possibility of communal ownership of artwork. In order to ensure that all artists, in particular Indigenous artists, are aware of how the scheme will operate, the committee has also recommended that some of the funds set aside to establish the scheme be used to educate and inform all participants.
I am very grateful to the committee members and to the secretariat, who have had to work through a number of very complex issues in a very short time frame. Those members of the committee have endorsed the findings as presented in the report tabled today. If a resale royalty scheme is to be established in Australia it should be designed to benefit as many artists as possible, be clearly understood and be properly administered. In that regard we have made 10 recommendations to improve the bill before the House. The committee has concluded that, subject to the recommendations made in this report, the bill should proceed.
I commend the report to the House.
Does the member for Throsby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Debus:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I continue to speak in relation to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Schedule 2 in this particular piece of legislation is an important schedule that deals with the administration of justice offences in the Crimes Act. Maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system and the integrity of the legal process is important to ensure civil society and to ensure that people have confidence that when they are in the terrible position of facing criminal charges and facing their accusers, the DPP, and their friends and relatives they will get a fair deal, and that the judges are impartial, that the jury is unbiased and that no-one can tamper with witnesses. The amendment in relation to part III of the Crimes Act is very important. It deals with fabrication of evidence, intimidating witnesses and aiding a prisoner to escape lawful criminal detention.
The amendments in this bill deal with administration of justice offences. They correct a drafting oversight. They also increase the penalties for a number of offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice offences, the penalty for which has been increased to 10 years imprisonment, which I think is consistent with what my constituents in Blair in Queensland would believe to be a fair penalty. It is a very serious offence to interfere with the integrity of our criminal justice system and court process, and having the term of imprisonment increased to 10 years is appropriate in all circumstances. It is consistent with the Rudd Labor government’s policy to ensure that anyone who obstructs, perverts, prevents or tries to defeat the legal process in an improper way should be subject to the strongest possible criminal sanction in all circumstances. Of course, this brings things into line with the other jurisdictions—states and territories—in Australia.
Schedule 3 deals with improving the operation of the DPP to ensure that the state and territory counterparts of the DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions, have joint conduct of criminal trials. It is about ensuring that there is a single prosecuting authority involved in the prosecution of all charges and that we make more effective use of court resources. One of the problems we have in Australia with our federal system of government is the duplication of resources. Accordingly, it is important that we streamline the processes, functions and powers of the DPP Act to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions can delegate functions and powers—for example, his staff—to a state and territory public prosecutions section or a Crown Prosecutor. It is important that we do not duplicate and that we save taxpayers’ dollars, and ensure that things are done efficiently and effectively and with the best use of taxpayers funds. This amendment is particularly important in that regard.
Schedule 4 deals with a particularly difficult area that has been vexing the Australian community for a long time, and that is the area of money laundering. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 established the framework for AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the body that established a robust detection regime to ensure that the misappropriation and laundering of approximately $4.5 billion in Australia ceases. It is very important that, when money crosses borders, it be done lawfully. People can press buttons in different parts of the world and transfer money. We do it all the time in Australia. There would be barely one individual in this House who has not transferred money across the internet between bank accounts. Transferring money in a lawful way is crucial to maintaining our tax system and ensuring that taxpayers’ dollars are used well. We need a system in this country that detects and deters money laundering and terrorism financing. We cannot have a situation where people are involved in these types of activities.
According to a report that the Australian Taxation Office sent to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in July 2008, there is a very worrying phenomenon—that is, about US$5 trillion to US$7 trillion is held in tax havens and secret banking establishments and jurisdictions. AUSTRAC has sophisticated capabilities to track the flow of international funds. But we need to make sure that we are ever vigilant to maintain the integrity of our system, so information which is gathered by AUSTRAC and those involved in this process, particularly the Australian Taxation Office, should not be revealed in a way which compromises potential prosecutions. We have seen the Australian Taxation Office actively involved in work to crack down on money laundering. Project Wickenby is one such task force which has been funded in a bipartisan way by the previous government and also by the current government to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can minimise corporate misappropriation of funds to ensure that taxpayers, both corporate and individual, pay the right amount of tax. AUSTRAC, which monitors money movements into and out of Australia, plays an important role. Information which could be considered to be AUSTRAC information should simply not be disclosed for the purpose of court or tribunal proceedings or investigations which could compromise the kinds of prosecutions which the ATO have been initiating in circumstances such as, for example, Project Wickenby.
The amendments in this particular bill deal with that aspect as well. Information relating to suspect transaction reports is of a similar nature to information relating to suspicious matter reports. It is important that we extend the prohibition to suspect transaction reports and preserve the anonymity of businesses which provide information; otherwise, how can we gather the kinds of information we need to ensure the integrity of our Australian Taxation Office and the intelligence-gathering processes, which are so important in all circumstances to clamp down on money laundering?
The other amendment which I briefly wish to deal with deals with the repeal of section 55D of the Judiciary Act. It is the case that our states and territories have their own comprehensive legislation to regulate the legal profession and themselves. The amendments in this particular provision simply get rid of an otiose provision which used to govern what happened in certain territories of this country. It is important that we clear up this aspect of the legislative books, so this amendment gets rid of an unnecessary piece of regulation in the circumstances.
Finally, this bill, which does so much to improve the capacity of our regulatory bodies and our criminal prosecution bodies to deal with identity crimes, is an important piece of legislative reform which the Rudd government is committed to. It deals with offences related to identity crime, it deals with possession of information and it also deals with what I would describe as the equipment offence. Importantly, it also provides a mechanism for victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate from a magistrate to ensure that they can be assisted in negotiating with financial institutions. The improvements in the administration of the justice offences will add a lot to the integrity of our legal system, and the DPP amendments will improve the efficiency of our criminal justice process. The amendments with respect to AUSTRAC will help with the protection of information for the purpose of investigations into money laundering and the prosecution of those criminals who rip off the Australian taxation system and taxpayers across Australia with their nefarious activities which the average taxpayer could only dream of. It is a disgrace that people engage in these types of activities, when honest taxpayers like those in my electorate of Blair pay their taxes. When these honest taxpayers—who are school teachers, public servants, carpenters, bricklayers and shop assistants—pay tax, they expect corporate high-flyers to do the same. Improving the protection of sensitive information is an important reform which will enable the successful prosecution of those criminals who are engaged in white-collar crime.
This is an important piece of law reform in terms of the criminal justice system. I support the bill. It is part of the great reform agenda of the Rudd Labor government with respect to criminal law. There are those who think that Labor governments are soft on crime, but we are not just hard on criminal activity; we are hard on the causes of crime. This bill shows just how determined we are to stamp out white-collar crime and just how committed the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs are also to ensure that Australian taxpayers get their just deserts when it comes to the money they pay in taxes. I support this bill. I commend the government for their initiative. This is an important reform and it is indicative of the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to justice and equity in all aspects of our society.
The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 implements recommendations made by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee in relation to identity crimes. The bill inserts three new offences into the Criminal Code and will allow victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate which may assist in re-establishing their credit histories.
The Model Criminal Law Officers Committee was established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for the development of a national Model Criminal Code for Australian jurisdictions. In April 2007 this committee released for public consultation a discussion paper on identity crime. Twenty-six submissions were received from a range of organisations including state police forces, government agencies and associations, with the final paper being published in March 2008. The offences recommended to be inserted by the committee include: the offence of dealing in identification information, the offence of possessing identification information and the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation.
The item on dealing in identification information makes it an offence for a person to make, supply or use identification information with the intention of representing themselves as another person for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission, of a Commonwealth indictable offence. This offence will be punishable by up to five years imprisonment. An example of this kind of offence which is outlined in the explanatory memorandum is where a person uses identification information of a business—such as trading and financial information—to pass themselves off as that business with the intention of importing a prohibited good, such as an anabolic steroid, under the Customs Act 1901. It will not be necessary to prove that the person knew the offence they committed was a Commonwealth indictable offence—only that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the person made, supplied or used the information with the intention of pretending to be another person in order to facilitate the indictable offence. This item also applies even if it was impossible to commit the indictable Commonwealth offence at the time—for example, where the attempted importation of an anabolic steroid was detected and stopped before importation could actually occur. It is also not a defence if the person or business to which the identification related to consented to the use of their identification.
The second item to be inserted makes it an offence to possess identification information with the intention of using that information to engage in conduct that constitutes an offence under the item of dealing in identification information. This offence is punishable by up to three years imprisonment. The example given for this offence is where A possesses identification information about B, and A intends to use that information to represent themselves as B, with the intention of committing or facilitating a Commonwealth indictable offence. As this is a preparatory offence, the penalty is lower than the main offence of dealing in identification information. It is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person possessed the information and that they intended the information to be used to engage in the prohibited conduct of dealing in identification information. Once again, absolute liability applies as it is not necessary to prove that the person knew that their conduct was prohibited and the defence of mistake of fact is not available.
The third item to be inserted is the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation. It will be an offence to possess equipment to make identification documentation where the person intends to use, or allow another person to use, that equipment to make documentation for the purpose of engaging in the offence of dealing in identification information. The offence will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment.
Three factors must be shown beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the person possessed the equipment; (2) that they intended that they or another use the equipment to make identification documentation; and (3) that they or another will use the documentation to engage in prohibited conduct under the main offence of dealing in identification documentation. Because this is a preparatory offence, it is not relevant whether the equipment is actually capable of making the identification documentation; only the intention to do so is relevant. Once again absolute liability applies, as the person need not know that the conduct they intended to engage in was an offence of dealing in identification information. Absolute liability is appropriate for this required element of each of these three new offences—that is, the intention to commit or facilitate a Commonwealth indictable offence—as it does not relate to the substance of the offence but refers to a jurisdictional boundary between Commonwealth, state and territory legislative powers. The bill also applies an extended geographical jurisdiction to the three identity crime offences being inserted. This means that the three offences extend to conduct by an Australian citizen or an Australian body corporate outside of Australia. It will not be a defence that there is no equivalent local offence where the crime took place.
The other important aspect of this bill is the item allowing a person who has been a victim of identity crime to approach a magistrate for a certificate that states the manner in which the identification information was used. This certificate may assist victims in negotiating with financial institutions to re-establish their credit rating or remove fraudulent transactions. The definition of who is perceived to be a victim in this item is broader than the definition of those whose identification information is the subject of the offence. The example given in the explanatory memorandum is where A uses another’s identification information to impersonate a Commonwealth public official—which is a Commonwealth indictable offence—to convince C to part with a large sum of money. Although C’s identity information has not been dealt with, they have suffered harm as a result of the identity crime committed by A and would be able to apply for a victims certificate. In order for a certificate to be issued, a person must present sufficient information so that the magistrate is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the facts of the offence of dealing in information have been established. The magistrate does not need to be satisfied as to the identity of the perpetrator of the identity crime, nor is it necessary for criminal proceedings to have taken place against an alleged perpetrator.
The bill also contains a range of other amendments to clarify and improve the operation of justice legislation in the Commonwealth. The Australasian Centre for Policing Research defines identity crime as a generic term to describe activities in which a perpetrator uses a fabricated identity, a manipulated identity or a stolen or assumed identity to facilitate the commission of a crime. The use of false identities for committing crimes is not a recent phenomenon. The English Forgery Act was passed in 1870 to deal with fake stock certificates. Identity is how you are identified as being you—for example: physical or biometric identifiers such as photographs, fingerprints, voice prints and iris scans; written identifiers such as passports and licences; and financial identifiers, including bank and employment information. The impacts of identity crime are various. There can be direct and indirect financial impacts, such as loss of savings or damage to one’s credit rating; psychological impacts from the invasion of a person’s privacy, which can result in trauma, stress and reduced participation in society; national security impacts, such as the fictitious social security numbers, false identities and fraudulent documents used by the 9-11 hijackers; and other intangible impacts, such as access to citizenship and social services or falsely acquiring a professional qualification or affiliation.
The cost of identity crime in Australia is difficult to measure and there are few statistics available on its impact. The 2003 report Identity fraud in Australia: an evaluation of its nature, cost and extent by the Securities Industry Research Centre of Asia-Pacific claimed that identity fraud cost Australian large business $1.1 billion in 2001-02. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 2007 there were 499,500 victims of identity fraud—383,300 of these were victims of credit card fraud and 124,000 were victims of identity theft. Based on these figures it is thought that security tokens such as bank cards and passwords are easier to forge than biometric traits, which are far more difficult to forge, replicate, misplace, share or guess. Mobile phones and laptops which recognise fingerprints are now commercially available.
Biometrics is not a new concept. In 1879, the French police inspector Alphonse Bertillon came up with a system of body measurements, such as arm and foot length, to identify repeat offenders. Britain had established the fingerprint classification system in 1896, and Scotland Yard began collecting fingerprints thereafter. Australia was close behind with the first fingerprint bureau being established at the Darlinghurst Gaol in New South Wales in 1902. Biometrics requires traits that are unique and do not significantly change over time. Currently fingerprints, face and iris are the most popular traits. Biometric recognition has formed the basis of automated border control systems in many countries, such as fingerprinting with the US-VISIT program in the US and our facial recognition based Australian Customs SmartGate system. Facial images and fingerprints are also taken from those detained in immigration detention and have helped identify illegal fishers who have re-entered under false identities. Facial recognition is also used to accurately identify those sitting the citizenship test. The technology involved in biometric systems is evolving all the time to prevent false readings from doctored or faked traits. For example, systems have been developed to detect fakes, such as plastic fingers, with sensors that can detect heat and other signs of life.
The potential for biometric systems is infinite. The Office of Payroll Administration in New York City is installing biometric timekeeping systems. To clock on and off, employees simply place their hands to be read. It is thought that this system will save around US$60 million annually in record-keeping expenses and help prevent identity fraud. However, the development of these types of systems needs to be balanced with the community’s consensus on privacy based on their evolving needs and views.
Identity crime is a major concern to government agencies, law enforcement, private organisations, financial sectors and individuals. This bill addresses the current deficiencies in our laws governing these crimes and I commend the bill to this House.
I rise today to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008, which implements the identity crime offence as recommended in the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee’s final report on identity crime. The report was released in March 2008 by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. This is significant legislation and I want to go into some of its various components. The issue of identity crime is certainly of increasing prevalence in our community. I do not think there would be a member in this House who has not had people come to their electorate offices complaining about some aspect of identity fraud that has affected their way of life—fraud emanating from the proof or otherwise of their identities, or the replication of those identities in other circumstances.
The bill introduces three new identity crime offences to part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. With the exception of South Australia and Queensland, it is not an offence in Australia at present to assume or steal another person’s identity, except in limited circumstances. Existing offences in the Criminal Code such as theft, forgery, fraud or credit card skimming do not adequately cover the many and varied aspects of identity crime and certainly have not kept up to date with the emergence of new technologies that help facilitate those intent on perpetrating identity crime. Technology is available now to scan somebody’s fingerprints. Various laptop computers on offer these days have these sorts of scanning technologies, if you have the suitable program. Even some PDAs or handheld devices do similar things. Scanning and capturing someone’s fingerprints is not all that hard to do.
We hear a lot these days about the various devices that can be deployed to capture people’s identity around ATMs. Apart from some villains in New South Wales at the moment who are blowing up ATMs, there are some very high-tech criminals who have made a career out of capturing other people’s identities so they can in their own time raid people’s bank accounts. These things are occurring and the problem will escalate simply because of the emergence of technology that can be adapted to help facilitate that.
The bill proposes that offences be framed in general, almost technologically neutral, terms to ensure that the new forms of identity crime as they emerge will still be captured. I think this is a very positive aspect of this legislation given the emergence of technology. The definitions include: firstly, dealing in identification information with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning a Commonwealth indictable offence, punishable by up to five years imprisonment; secondly, possession of identification information with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning, or conduct that constitutes, a dealing offence, punishable by three years imprisonment; and, thirdly, the possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing, facilitating or commissioning, or conduct that constitutes, a dealing offence, punishable by up to three years imprisonment.
These measures are needed. This is not simply a Commonwealth innovation; this is supported not only by the Commonwealth but by the attorneys-general throughout this country. There is no barrier to crime. It is no secret that criminals do not observe the constitutional or geographic boundaries of states and territories. Therefore, matters of law enforcement that this legislation deals with must be handled in a way that provides a similarity of operation right across the nation.
With identity crimes there are always going to be victims. As I said, people come to my office complaining about how they think they have been affected by a fraudulent credit card or mobile phone transaction—something appears on their bill that they are not aware of. These are all elements of identity crime. There are provisions in this bill that will assist victims of identity crime. I think it is quite appropriate that they be included. There is no doubt that identity crime can cause damage to a person’s credit rating. It can create a criminal record in some cases. The victims can incur tremendous expenditure not only in terms of time and effort but also in terms of the cost of trying to restore their records or their credit rating—in other words, getting back to the position they were in prior to the identity fraud happening to them.
A person’s identity can be used for citizenship material, Centrelink payments and medical services and to gain professional qualifications. It was not all that long ago that a Qantas engineer falsified information that had this fellow working on jet aircraft. So it can be used not just for personal gain in terms of cash but also for movement, transactions and personal things such as inappropriately applying for positions of employment. So it is important that victims can have some redress other than simply going off and notifying the police, which they should do. They also have to be able to speed up what they can do to remedy the position they now find themselves in personally. I understand that individual victims can spend up to two years trying to restore their credit rating. It is not an easy task to go through all that. You do not just go and ring up the credit agencies and it just occurs; you actually have to go and prove these things. That is why this amendment is particularly important to the victims of identity crime, because it allows for a person to approach a magistrate for a certificate to be issued that shows that the person who appears before the magistrate has been the subject of identity crime and which indicates that the person’s personal information has been misused. That certificate is not the be-all and end-all; it does not rectify a person’s problems. It is designed to assist victims of identity crime in negotiating with their financial institutions to re-establish their credit ratings with other organisations, including places such as Australia Post, telephone companies et cetera, to clear up as quickly as possible those residual problems that they face resulting from identity theft.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 establishes a pretty robust regime for detecting and deterring money-laundering activity and financing of terrorism. This is another crucial aspect of this bill. Section 4 of the bill contains several amendments which will establish a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information and, secondly, will strengthen safeguards and protect against disclosure of this sensitive information as collected by AUSTRAC. As Australia’s financial-intelligence-gathering unit, AUSTRAC possesses and analyses information on suspicious transactions that occur in accounts, money movements et cetera. It is not a law enforcement organisation per se; it is an intelligence-gathering agency which operates and supplies information on a restricted basis to people such as the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, the Taxation Office and others. It is a very significant intelligence-gathering organisation and one which is central to modern law enforcement techniques throughout this country.
I had the opportunity to visit AUSTRAC only last year. What I understood from my meeting with them is that in 2007-08 they searched through more than 15,000 operational matters at the request of various agencies who are permitted to subscribe to AUSTRAC. In terms of tax revenue alone, I think last year something like $76 million of direct tax revenue resulted from their activities. For the last 10 years that figure comes in at $685 million. That is just the tax aspect and has nothing to do with areas of law enforcement and operations conducted by the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police or other agencies. It is very much a high-powered financial-intelligence-gathering operation. It would qualify to be referred to as robust in terms of its approach. Its information is obviously very valuable.
This bill strengthens the safeguards and protections in regard to that information. Whilst as a country we should be proud of organisations such as AUSTRAC, we must make every effort possible to ensure that the information that is collected is only used for the purposes specifically required and that we have significant restrictions on how that information can be used not only with respect to other organisations but with respect to citizens themselves. It was a very valuable excursion to go and visit that organisation. AUSTRAC is staffed by very professional people, a number of whom have been drawn from other areas of intelligence-gathering operations, particularly the Australian Federal Police and also state and territory police organisations. The chief executive officer, Neil Jensen, runs a very good ship. It is very impressive to see not only what they do on a day-to-day basis but the capability that organisation has. I for one am very proud that we have that sort of facility, but it also indicates that we should be very careful in how that information is not only gathered but used. It has to be used only for the intended purposes. The amendments to this act go very much to strengthening that.
The amendments also deal with matters relating to the administration of justice—in particular, in respect of both the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and the Financial Transaction Reports Act. The bill also increases the penalties for the offences of perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, from five years to 10 years imprisonment. This change reflects the government’s view that defendants who seek to obstruct or pervert the course of justice should be subject to strong criminal sanctions. The amendments will bring these penalties into closer alignment with the penalties for similar offences in other state and territory jurisdictions. As I said, law enforcement is very difficult if we have dissimilar arrangements that apply in different parts of the Commonwealth. It is important that, where possible, we have such similarity—not necessarily under one national code but certainly so that laws do not operate in such a way as to provide significant differences between the states and the Commonwealth in the application of laws on law enforcement and policing. All that would do is to create legal loopholes for people who do not need to benefit from those loopholes. I think we need to have consistency in our judicial regime in that respect to ensure that our law enforcement officers are not all put through different hoops in how they go about enforcing the law on similar offences or the same offences as they apply across the various jurisdictions.
The amendments also deal with aspects of the Privacy Act. The bill amends the definition of ‘enforcement body’ in section 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 to include the Office of Police Integrity, the OPI, in Victoria. This is a technical amendment that provides the OPI with the same status that similar law enforcement bodies have under the act—bodies, for instance, such as the Police Integrity Commission in New South Wales and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. It allows the OPI to go about its investigations with the same degree of freedom but with the restrictions that are imposed under the act in respect of the privacy of persons et cetera. Whilst it is simply admitting the OPI into that aspect of it, I think that is a very important aspect to ensure that the integrity regimes that apply in all of our jurisdictions are consistent. There is no point having greater professionalism introduced into our law enforcement areas if we have varying regimes of different standards in not only ensuring the efficiency of those areas but ensuring that they are all operating with appropriate integrity as required. Ensuring that the OPI is also brought under the Privacy Act amendments is certainly a major contribution, particularly in the state of Victoria.
There are a few other minor things that occur to me—probably not minor in that respect. This bill also contains amendments in respect of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to streamline the processes for alcohol and drug testing. This, again, goes to the issue of integrity. As I understand it, this is something that has been discussed and agreed to by the Australian Federal Police Association. This brings that in line with those agreements that have been made. There are further amendments that are made to streamline the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, but given the time I think I will let some other speaker deal with that. (Time expired)
It seems quite common these days that I tend to follow the member for Werriwa in talking about crime and these sorts of matters. I welcome the opportunity to add to his comments. In seeking to make a contribution on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 today, I had a close examination of the schedule within the Criminal Code Act 1995, chapter 9, the chapter that deals with dangers to the community. As we know, this bill will insert three identity crime offences into the act as division 372. The first offence carries a five-year penalty for dealing in identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence. The second offence, carrying up to a three-year term of imprisonment, is the possession of identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence. The third offence, with up to three years imprisonment, is the possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence.
Although this bill deals with a number of amendments, the offences relating to identity crimes are the ones that I wish to speak to today. Some may express a little surprise that, despite all the good work done in this area by the previous government and the federal agencies, no offences were finally brought to legislation. But there are good reasons for that, which will be covered by me soon. Nevertheless, I do think it is important to recognise the past achievements and the cornerstone of the recent work on identity security and crime. That of course is the great work done by the then Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, who was responsible for the National Identity Security Strategy of April 2005, obviously with the clear support of the departments behind that strategy.
The strategy was aimed at combating the misuse of stolen or assumed identities. The ongoing development of the strategy was provided for from the 2005-06 budget, with $5.9 million over two years. That included funding for the pilot scheme, the DVS, the Document Verification Service. Within the context at the time we should remember that, while the strategy was announced in April, it was at COAG on 27 September 2005 that identity security was considered at a special meeting on counterterrorism. Agreement was reached on the development and implementation of the strategy. That intergovernmental agreement also agreed to the development and implementation of a national document verification service to combat the misuse of false and stolen identities and to investigate the means by which reliable, consistent and nationally interoperable biometric security measures could be adopted by all jurisdictions.
I recall at the time some of the discussions about the National Identity Security Coordination Group, a collection of significant representatives from agencies under each government; the Council of Australasian Registrars for Births, Deaths and Marriages; Austroads; and the Privacy Commissioner. I understand that 31 agencies were represented, and also five working groups, to focus on proof of identity and enrolment processes, security standards on the proof of identity documents, a document verification service, the integrity of identity data and authentication standards. This demonstrated the complexity of the task and the complexity of the relationships between agencies that would have to implement the strategy and the processes, let alone the task of bringing into the process the banks and the financial institutions. It was at the Council of Australian Governments meeting between the then Prime Minister John Howard, premiers and chief ministers that the intergovernmental agreement was signed on 13 April 2007. I believe that COAG noted the progress that had been made and the good work that had been done.
In the budget it was announced that the identities of Australians would be further protected by the rollout of the National Documentation Verification Service. That was funded by the then Howard government, with funding of $28.3 million. It should be noted that the Howard government had for some time been promoting the issue of identity crime and identity security measures with a very good folder and resources, even for individuals, to promote the issue.
It should also be noted that, on 20 April 2007, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee further advanced the issue with the release of a discussion paper for public comment. I am informed that 26 submissions were received and they were generally supportive of the defences put up—and by ‘defences’ I mean the promoting of the issue to make people more aware of what the threats were—and of the establishment of identity crime offences. That committee then advanced some of the suggested changes in creating model offences.
Finally, on 27 and 28 March 2008, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General released the final report on identity crime. That report addressed the nature, extent and cost of identity crime, the state of action in other countries and the circumstances existing in Australia. As I previously stated, the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee offered suggested offences as part of its final report. The committee’s final report also suggested that courts be able to attest to the identity of a person where the court is satisfied that the person is who they say they are and that they are a victim of identity crime. The value of such a proposal is that a certificate would help in enabling that person to re-establish control of their affairs.
It has been increasingly clear that identity crime is a growing threat. Technological advances have provided opportunities and encouragement for criminals to gain from crimes. At the simplest level, the theft of identification information can be used to pass a person off as another person. In fact, the possession of a fairly benign bill, taken from an unlocked letterbox, is sufficient to obtain membership at a video hire shop. Is it a form of identity theft? Absolutely.
The list of information that can assist a criminal to gain from another person’s identity includes not only obvious documents such as a passport, a drivers licence or a credit card et cetera but the numbers on those documents, which also have great value. That is all before the skimming of information from cards, stealing electronic signatures and undertaking other, higher technological options for stealing and then converting information to some criminal advantage.
I wish to take this opportunity to recount an experience I had recently in Brisbane whilst travelling to a committee hearing on a train. A young woman was speaking on her mobile phone to a friend. It was a loud conversation that went on for some 15 minutes. I noted on that visit that these sorts of conversations seemed to be far more frequent than on our trains in Perth, where such conversations tend to be conducted in more hushed terms, but maybe that is something about Brisbane! However, this young lady decided to share a number of details of her private life with me and other nearby passengers. She discussed the government’s cash handouts, as this was in early December, and said that she was going to use the money to pay off her credit card debt.
While that was a legitimate use of the money, unfortunately, she went on to tell her friend that her computer at home was broken and asked her friend to help her transfer money on her behalf. She then gave the name of her financial institution, her account number and her password to her friend, all in the same loud manner in which she was conducting the conversation. She then left the train. I wonder how many other people have done the same sort of thing in such a public place? Hopefully, not very many. I hope that no-one present at the time took advantage of the situation, but it just goes to show that we must all be on our guard to protect identity and financial information. In this case, it would have been very easy to steal money from her. It clearly highlights an extreme example of a very casual approach and of the need to protect important information. In this matter, the loss of money could well have been the outcome, but the greatest threat would have been the use of such information to then assume this young lady’s identity. That is the greatest threat, as it could have devastating and long-term negative impacts on her life. The loss of identity information could see her with great debt accrued by another person in her name, a compromised credit rating, a range of other legal liabilities and a long-term fight to resurrect her standing, all potentially as a result of reckless talk on a train.
Before moving into a discussion of the actual offences proposed, I will just return to the matter I raised at the start, where I said that some people may be surprised that it is only now that offences are being introduced. Clearly, I refute that, because the approach up to this time has been careful because of the complexities involved. This was never going to be a shoot-from-the-hip, rushed event. If it were to be successfully introduced, it could not be rushed. It is therefore clear that progress has been made at an appropriate pace, and I, for one, welcome the advances made.
Moving now to the offences, I begin with proposed section 372.2. This relates to the possession of information with an intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a section 372.1 offence of dealing in identification information. Clause 372.1 covers the making, supplying or using of identification information where a person intends to try to pass themselves off as another person.
Finally, clause 372.3 covers the possession of equipment to make identification documentation. That would include, but is not merely limited to, current apparatus such as credit-card-skimming machines, data storage mediums, laminators, card printers, embossers et cetera. In any case, in the future there will be further developments that will threaten the safety of personal identification information, and the absence of prescriptive definitions of such equipment is the right approach to ensure that more advanced equipment is not excluded in the future.
Moving beyond the bill, it would be wrong of me not to reflect on the threats and provide some warnings for the community. We should remember that we have a vulnerability at all times in this modern age. Naturally, I remind everyone that a letterbox that can be locked and ensures that a person cannot reach into the slot is always the best option. You do not want to provide easy access to your bills or bank account details. But that is up to all of us to decide for ourselves. At the more technologically advanced end of our lives, we should not respond to emails asking us for personal details. I would also caution against allowing anyone to take our credit cards beyond our sight, as information can be extracted from the card, and identity and account security can be compromised.
Given such threats, I also take the opportunity to mention the work being done by the Western Australian Police service and, in particular, the good crime prevention work and law enforcement work being conducted by the Ballajura police. This small but highly effective station is led by Senior Sergeant Ian North, although for some time Ian has been seconded and Sergeant Narelle Woods has been the acting OIC. A testament to the effectiveness of the leadership team and the dedicated and hardworking police at Ballajura has been the reduction in burglary numbers. The station covers the residential suburb of Ballajura and the light industrial suburb of Malaga. In November last year, there were 47 burglaries across the two suburbs. Last month, there were just 19, which is a stark comparison with November and even the previous January, which had 49. I thank the Ballajura police for their great and dedicated service to the residents and local businesses.
I also mention the work done by Constables Geoff Bull and Johan Wepener last Thursday, who, through their persistent and relentless investigation, linked an alleged carjacking outside a Malaga business to a ram-raid and theft of a motorcycle the week before—great police work undertaken by Constable Bull, who is still on probation, and Constable Wepener, who is on transition from the police in South Africa. Clearly, we are fortunate to have the services of these two excellent policemen in our local area.
In concluding, I say that the process that has resulted in legislation arriving here has been an extended one. It has been necessarily extended, with due regard to the complexity of the matter. A great many defences against the scourge of identity crime were established by the Howard government, with awareness being greatly highlighted over the last five years. Ultimately, though, we need to make sure that, when such crime is detected, appropriate legal action can be taken, and this is now what we need. This bill has my support.
I too rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Whilst we often rise in this chamber to talk about laws and occasionally rise to talk about justice, it is great that we have a timely combination of law and justice here. This is an important bill, which will beef up the legislation dealing with identity crimes and also ensure better support for victims of identity crime.
From the moment we are born our identity begins, and information that is unique to each individual serves as proof of who we are. I find this legislation particularly timely because I have a five-week-old son. It is amazing to see even in the last five weeks, from the moment he was born through to now, how much he has changed. Also, writing another speech for a motion about adoption that the member for Forde has put before for the House has made me particularly think about what our identity is. I will be speaking in support of the motion by the member for Forde later tonight. For the sake of the chamber, I will mention that last year I met for the first time a nephew who was adopted out by my sister when he was born, when she was only 15. It was interesting meeting someone who was 35 who was my nephew but who I had obviously never met before in his life and just seeing how easily he fitted into the family and how his identity fitted in there, but he also had an entirely different life, obviously, growing up in Darwin and the like. It is interesting how much our identity is shaped by nature and nurture and all those things that we do in our life.
On a very basic level, our identity includes details such as our name, our date of birth, our address and our parents’ details. As we move into adulthood, more information is added to our identity: bank details, a drivers licence, perhaps—although it is amazing the number of people who never have a drivers licence—passports, marriage certificates, education qualifications, employment history, perhaps our residential tenancy history and maybe even our criminal history or an absence of a criminal history. That is becoming much more common, certainly in Queensland, where you need to get a blue card to do any work around children. All of these details create a unique profile which we use to interact with society, government and other organisations.
Our identity is a representation of who we are and a safeguard of our privacy and protection. Not only does it safeguard us; it also safeguards society as a whole, because it makes sure that others are aware of our place and who we are and that we are who we profess to be. It has been spoken about in the chamber today as being a modern problem, but obviously identity theft, or duplication, has been around for a very long time. I did some preliminary research and found that a young slave in Egypt, called Moses, was substituted for someone else. That was a bit like identity fraud. I then researched a little further and found that in one of William Shakespeare’s plays, The Merchant of Venice, one of the heroines, Portia, disguises herself as a man, as Balthasar, a young doctor of law, and assumes the role of a judge and saves the life of Bassanio’s friend Antonio in court. People would probably be familiar with the speech she makes about the pound of flesh. I cannot recall it exactly, so I will not quote it. Obviously identity fraud has been around for a long time but now, in the modern world, in the information age, identity crimes are on the rise. It is thought that high-speed information flows and remote communications, as well as the large volumes of personal information now available on the internet, have led to this surge. I would like to say a special hello to all of my good friends in Nigeria who constantly email my office and offer wonderful things to me. I point out to them that there is no need to keep emailing the office; I will get back to them as soon as I am able to.
The other example I want to bring to the attention of the House is that of Frank William Abagnale Jr. You might remember him if you saw the movie Catch Me If You Can. He was played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Back in the 1960s he was infamous for passing bad cheques worth about $2.5 billion in over 26 countries over about five years. During that time he used at least eight aliases to cash bad cheques until he was eventually tracked down—not by Tom Hanks but by the FBI. He went on to train the FBI in how to combat identify theft, and I think he is still a trainer with the FBI.
So it is not a modern phenomenon but we need to be as prepared as possible. Better technologies to prevent fraud are being developed, but so too are high-tech methods to forge documents and steal identities. The true extent of identity crimes is unknown, of course, as we are only really aware of the ones that are caught. In 2001, as part of the Scoping Identity Fraud Study of the Attorney-General’s Department, Geoff Main and Brett Robson said:
There is widespread agreement by all organisations that identify fraud already represents a significant problem, that is likely to grow further. The lack of statistics on the incidence and cost of identity-related fraud makes the total cost to the community impossible to accurately quantify.
That is still the case today, eight years later. The best estimates we have from the Securities Industry Research Centre of Asia-Pacific indicate that identity fraud costs big business in Australia, more than $1 billion per year. In the United States the economic impact is estimated to exceed $50 billion annually.
In the case of stolen identities, individuals face an emotional struggle in coming to terms with invasion of privacy, loss of savings and many years of time and effort spent in restoring their credit rating. A name like Graham Perrett is not such a common name but even before I was elected to parliament I had already met a baker by the name of Graham Perrett and an accountant by the name of Graham Perrett. In fact, the accountant and I went to the same dentist and had an appointment mixed up. Getting an extra filling was not something I was interested in but I was interested in seeing how easy it would be to be a bit duplicitous and gain some advantage. I have sympathy for the John Smiths of the world and the like.
Not only does identity fraud impact on businesses and individuals; identity crimes can facilitate much more serious crimes like terrorism and people-smuggling. For example, you need only think of the September 11 hijackers and their use of false social security numbers, false identities and ID documents to plan their evil deeds without detection—maybe detection did occur but it was a little too late.
Identity fraud is a serious crime and there is no doubt this parliament needs to act. The Criminal Code includes some identity offences such as credit card skimming, fraud and making a false document. However, given the extent of identity fraud and the potential for greater crimes, it is astounding that it is not already an offence to assume another person’s identity, except in limited circumstances in Queensland and South Australia, where legislation is already in place.
The bill before the House implements the recommendations in the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee final report on identity crime to introduce new offences associated with identity crime to the Criminal Code Act 1995. These include making, supplying or using identification information to pretend to be another person for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence, with a penalty of five years imprisonment; possessing identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, with a penalty of three years imprisonment; and possessing equipment to make identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, with a penalty of three years imprisonment. The bill also takes into account the global nature of these crimes by applying them to Australian citizens or body corporates outside Australia. This bill also ensures that these offences will apply to emerging identity crimes which come about in the future as a result of new technologies, because you can be sure that, as new technologies develop, so too will new criminal opportunities. The price of identity security is eternal vigilance.
I particularly welcome the measures in this bill that support victims of identity theft. The bill creates a certification system to help victims rebuild their reputation. As I said previously, identity crimes can damage a person’s credit rating and it can cost significant time, money and effort to negotiate with financial institutions to restore a true record and transaction history. I have had to deal with a lost credit card a few times and go about cancelling cards and the like, but I cannot imagine what it would be like when someone deliberately takes your details and uses them in a criminal way. Under this new system, a victim of identity crime may approach a magistrate for a certificate that states the manner in which his or her identification was used. This certificate would then help victims to deal with financial institutions and rebuild their credit rating.
I am sure most members of the House of Representatives would have had the experience of someone coming into their office after they had been put on a rental black list for whatever reason. If you cannot get bricks and mortar organised over your head because of someone destroying your credit rating, things may then become incredibly difficult. You can spiral right down into homelessness if you do not have the proper support. Under this system we are giving as much support as possible to the victim of the identity crime.
This bill also contains measures to provide greater protection for the integrity of the justice system. The maximum penalties for perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice will be increased from five years to 10 years. This shows how seriously the Rudd government takes this offence, and hopefully the message will get out to people that a seemingly harmless thing like taking a letter out of a mailbox can lead to very, very serious consequences. Hopefully that message will get out there, especially to young people. Once when I was waiting in the line at Queensland Transport someone in front of me—although I do not know his circumstances, because he ran off—was suspiciously trying to get an 18-plus card. Thankfully the person behind the counter asked a couple of questions, such as what his mother’s maiden name was and that sort of thing, and the guy obviously had not done enough research and actually ran out of the centre. So it does happen. Hopefully people will get the message from a young age that it is the wrong thing to do.
The bill also amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to ensure that the DPP can delegate functions and powers under the act to facilitate joint trial arrangements. Where the same or related facts lead to a defendant being indicted or charged with both Commonwealth and state or territory offences, a joint trial with one prosecuting authority is the most efficient process. However, the DPP has limited scope to delegate authorisation of indictments. This amendment will enable the director to authorise a person to sign indictments on his or her behalf. It also provides immunity from civil proceedings for persons carrying out functions and powers under the DPP Act.
I am the father of a brand-new baby and also a 3½-year-old. I would not say the 3½-year-old knows more about the computer than me yet, but I can see that in four, five or six years time he will. He already knows how to use a mouse and he certainly knows how to track down his favourite Ben 10 videos on the computer, so who knows where this information revolution will take us in five or 10 years time? It is important that we are ever vigilant about the nasty people who are out there. I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for bringing this bill to the parliament and particularly welcome the new identity crimes offences, which will ensure greater protection for individuals as well as businesses. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 but first of all welcome my old primary school principal, Keith Ray, who I have just seen walk into the public gallery. It is great to have you here. Thank you very much for everything you did for me.
After stealing a person’s identification, especially if you have their credit cards and other identification such as library cards and Centrelink cards—things most likely without a photo on them—you can actually assume that person’s identity. In my time with the Victorian police force, there were some very unscrupulous people from VicRoads who arranged false identification to go with criminals’ photos so that they could have their photographs on cards with the names of Jason Wood, Harry Smith and so on. It was one of those times when criminals really had free rein to open bank accounts.
In Victoria in 2006 a conwoman assumed the identity of up to 15 different people. She assumed her victims’ identities and was able to access up to $140,000 from their collective bank accounts. This conwoman went around the country living a very flashy lifestyle in hotels and having a great time, and for the next two years her victims had to prove their identities and deal with hotels, saying, ‘I didn’t actually go to Western Australia and spend time in your hotel.’ Once the debits come through, it is really hard for a person to prove they were not in a particular place, especially when it comes to bank accounts.
Identity crimes are not new—there are a number of stories about them in the Bible. On one hand it is fantastic that today we have the ability to set up and access bank accounts and look up files on the internet, but at the same time, as we have heard from previous speakers, those things have given rise to professional crime groups all around the world, whether from Nigeria or elsewhere, who prey on stealing identity. The good thing about this legislation it is that it focuses on trying to respond to some of the concerns about identity theft.
Anyone’s wallet is a tapestry of personal identification. As we have heard from previous speakers, there is a more harmless side to identity fraud—for example, where a member of the younger generation might try to get into a disco when they are 16 years of age by trying to assume the identity of someone much older. However, although we are obviously gravely concerned about the risk of alcohol related problems for these young people, there are people who go to the next level and systematically watch unsuspecting people in order to steal their identification cards or wallets. I remember a classic case in Melbourne’s CBD, where a group of young teenage girls were going around the various cafes and waiting for a mum to put her handbag over a chair as she tended to the baby. They would then grab her purse, and it was hell for the mum for the next two years as she tried to prove who she was.
Sometimes all the person wants to do is get the credit card, go into David Jones or Myer and try to make a quick purchase. They get the goods and normally they try to get a refund and get the money back on another day. As I mentioned, there are organised crime groups that go out of their way to get as much money as they can over a period of time. Once your identity is stolen and someone else has been able to set up accounts in your name or if you are renting a house, it is so hard to make sure the banks and all the authorities know precisely that you are who you say you are. According to the The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age by Daniel Solove, it takes up to two years and thousands of dollars to repair the damage caused by identity theft. It is not one of these things where you can fix it by just walking into a bank and saying: ‘Hey! Guess what? I didn’t spend that $2,000 on that credit card for a plasma TV.’ It takes a lot longer to deal with it.
We have had the awful tragedy of the bushfires in Victoria, and I presume we have a number of Victorians up there in the gallery. Sadly, there are a number of people in Victoria who survived the bushfires but who lost everything, including all their identification, and were left only with the clothes they were wearing. A very sad situation was highlighted in the Australian where a journalist tried to get one of these one-off grants. I congratulate the government for making the grants available, but it was of great concern that people had to initially prove who they were and could not because all their identification has been lost. I commend the Prime Minister for addressing that situation, which to my knowledge has not occurred since.
We must also look at the economic cost. I have heard mentioned before that identity fraud costs up to a billion dollars. The information I have from the Model Law Officers Committee of the Australian Federal Police states that identity crime costs $4 billion annually. I do not know how many times people have tried to scam people—even members of parliament, who every single day would get an email that looked like it had come from the Commonwealth Bank, another bank or even PayPal saying that there was a security concern and just to be sure wanted to check their account details to ensure they were safe. Sadly, a number of elderly people in the community think this request is genuine and pass on the information. So I say to all people: a bank will never contact you by email asking you for identification. If you ever get a phone call from a bank or finance institution or anyone else, do not hand over the information without ringing the bank’s general inquiries line and asking to be put through to the relevant area before handing over that information.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released research in June 2008 which concluded that 499,500 Australians were, sadly, the victims of identity fraud. It is quite an amazing statistic. There are over 20 million people in Australia, and at least 15 million of them would have some sort of identification, so it is a huge figure and a huge problem. Organised crime groups know that identity fraud is a great way to make money, especially when they can create up to 100 or so credit cards and move around from state to state in gangs of 15 or 16 using false identification. They go into shops and make a number of purchases and cause great grief. If they get hold of people’s tax file numbers and drivers licences, they can cause huge problems and much stress for the victims and, you have to remember, for the business operators too because it is not the banks which normally take the burden. It is the small business that makes the loss, whether it be the hotel or the small shopkeeper who, for example, has allowed a person to purchase an expensive bag. It used to be cheque fraud that was the main concern of law enforcers but now it is credit card fraud.
One of the main tools for terrorists is the way they portray themselves to be someone else. We heard previously a government member speak about September 11 and people creating false documentation. I have spoken about one of the luckiest escapes from terrorism a few times before in parliament, and the reason I keep talking about it is it was probably one of the closest shaves in the world when it comes to a terrorist attack. That was in Jordan in April 2004, when the first step of more than 20 terrorists was to create false identification. Then they actually went out, set up companies to buy chemicals and purchased chemicals—20 tonnes in total. Their purpose was to kill over 100,000 people. It was just amazing that the law enforcement authorities were able to prevent the attacks. Basically, they went and used credit cards and other means to purchase or hire a number of vehicles and were going to lade them with the chemicals. They had already purchased the chemicals, and the next step was to go out and commit the attack.
Another concern which I have just had raised with me, given my background as a police officer—and this is one the government really needs to look at, and I will be writing to the minister on this—is the situation where a number of people of Somalian descent are going over to Malaysia. The reason they are going to Malaysia is that there are no visa requirements if they go from Somalia to Malaysia. What happens there is that they miraculously lose their Australian passports and then a similar looking person gets possession of their passport, and it still is not reported as stolen. The person who now has the stolen passport arrives back into Australia and gets through customs. My inquiries show that the normal process—which happens after two or three days—is that the person applies for refugee status to get all the benefits. The person of Somalian origin who had the Australian passport issued then reports the passport stolen in Malaysia.
The concern at the moment is that there are at least seven cases where the person who had the stolen passport got through customs and did not actually come to light when arriving back to Australia. They are not trying to notify the Australian government that they are applying for refugee status. The government needs to look very closely at this because of the obvious strong links to al-Qaeda and some people in Somalia. We also have to be very careful because we do not know if the people may just be concerned about going to the Australian authorities and just want to hang low and go as long as they can before they are apprehended. I would just hate to think that there was something more sinister. I know we have the government advisers here today, and I am sure they will be making the government aware of this and will be putting this in writing.
Under this legislation, there are currently only two states in Australia—Queensland and South Australia—where the offence of identity theft is looked at. This bill will change that and take it further. We have heard a number of members talk about what the bill looks at. These include: dealing in identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment; possession of identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes a dealing offence, which is punishable by up to three years imprisonment; and possession of equipment to create identification documentation with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of conduct that constitutes a dealing offence, which is punishable by up to three years imprisonment.
The reason I read out the three sections is that, according to their submission, the Australian Federal Police wanted not to have to prove the offender’s intention. One of the things the AFP always find hard to do is to prove the intention of the person who committed the crime. If a person beaks into a house, is caught there and has the crowbar in one hand and the family goods in the other hand, then the intention is fairly obvious. But, when it comes to identification theft, it is very hard to prove the person’s intention. For example, the police could come across a person who may just have someone else’s identification on them. The police then conduct an interview but, in most states, such as Victoria, the person does not have to answer any questions, which can make it a ‘no comment’ interview. The police would have to prove that person’s intention. This is an issue that I know the AFP were concerned about, and, as a former police officer, I believe the government really needs to closely monitor this to ensure that this issue is addressed. I just had a meeting with the President of the Police Federation of Australia, John Hunt-Sharman, and he gave a very good example when I spoke to him about this. He is greatly concerned that this will not, for example, pick up the offence where a person goes on a range of domestic flights across the country and does the self-check-in. They could put in pretty much any name, such as Mickey Mouse. It would be very hard to prove what the person’s intention was even after they get the boarding pass. I may be told differently by government advisers, but the AFP and other people in law enforcement that I have been speaking to say that it probably does not come under the legislation.
As I mentioned, the AFP are doing a fantastic job. But what greatly concerns me is that we had an election commitment and a promise by Prime Minister Rudd at the start of the election to have 500 new sworn AFP officers, at a cost of $191 million over five years, for high-impact criminal investigations. I strongly welcomed that announcement. The problem is that, on one hand, the Prime Minister said that the government planned to hand over all these AFP officers and, on the other hand, redundancy packages have been offered to 200 officers. So they give with one hand and take with the other. The AFP and all the police associations across Australia had a meeting today with the opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and that was one of their key issues. I know they will be meeting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tomorrow. They are greatly concerned that this promise is not being met.
We have had a $42 billion stimulus package and it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. I cannot understand why, when, as we have heard today, we have anywhere between $1 billion and $4 billion being taken from the community through identity fraud; the cost of serious and organised crime and drug trafficking is up to at least $10 billion a year; and we are hearing that the air marshals program has been slashed dramatically. Given all this, it is quite ironic that the Prime Minister gave a 40-minute speech on national security. I think journalist Cynthia Banham was the only one who looked in any detail at what was promised and what was not promised. The Prime Minister spoke about a national security college. Where this plays a role in identity fraud is that, as we have heard before, whether it be the attacks in Jordan or on September 11, terrorists use false identities to commit their crimes. I am sure that if this national security college is implemented—and I say to the government: stop considering this and actually establish it—then that would be one of the key subjects: how terrorists are using false identification.
In closing, I do welcome this legislation but I am also concerned about the cutbacks to the Australian Crime Commission. I thank all of the law enforcement officers for the great work they are doing. Sadly, when we are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, law enforcement is being taken for granted and having its funding removed.
I rise in support of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill because I think it does go a significant way towards addressing some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate—indeed most of them. The issue of identity crime and identity fraud is a significant one; it has been growing, as many of the speakers have indicated. It is not necessarily a new type of offence that people are committing but the methods and the forms that are being used are taking on an increasingly new character. We see this in particular with the use of new technologies, in particular electronic technologies, in order to make the approaches towards identity theft even more sophisticated than that which we may have witnessed in the past.
I wish to speak specifically on the identity crime aspects of the bill. The bill creates three new offences by inserting those offences into the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It has been said before and I restate the fact that, with the exception of Queensland and South Australia, identity theft has not been prescribed as a specific offence. But, as a result of the recommendations by the final report into identity crime by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in implementing those recommendations we will see that the Commonwealth—through this bill, when it becomes an act—will be implementing a number of those recommendations. There are some modifications to the recommendations provided but in the main we will be seeing the implementation of those recommendations.
Speakers before me in this debate have discussed the magnitude of identity theft and identity crime. Clearly it is difficult to put a figure on the cost to the community of that. Of course we can try and define in monetary terms the cost of identity theft and identity crime but, as some speakers who have contributed to this debate before me have also indicated, sometimes the loss or the cost that is felt by those who have been the victims of identity crime can be of a non-monetary nature. Indeed the hassle, the time, the energy, the effort and the stress that go into trying to remedy situations that one might have to confront as a result of being a victim of identity theft pose an additional set of hurdles for each and every one of us as we struggle to get through the complexity of our daily lives. I think what we see here, particularly with the emphasis on the victims certificate, is some very practical means by which some relief can be provided to victims of identity theft.
I wish to begin by turning to the substantive provisions of this schedule of the bill. I will then move on from there to have a discussion and to raise a few issues that I have confronted in my local community—issues that have been brought to my attention by local residents and have come my way and through the door of my electorate office. It is worth noting that, in the definitions provisions of the bill, the expression ‘identification information’, which is very much central to the operational provisions, is defined to include a name or an address; a date or place of birth; whether a person is married or has a de facto partner; relatives’ identity or similar information; a drivers licence or drivers licence number; a passport or passport number; biometric data; a voice print; a credit or debit card, its number or data stored or encrypted on it; a financial account number, username or password; a digital signature; a series of numbers or letters or both intended for use as a means of personal identification; and an ABN, or Australian business number.
In terms of the specific offences that are created under this bill, the three offences primarily can be described as the dealing offence, the possession of identification information offence, and the possession of equipment with the purpose of or a view towards the creation of identification documentation. Each of these provisions requires particular intent elements, and I think it is worth just reflecting on the operational elements of the offences.
The offences include, as I said, dealing in identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth indictable offence, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. That is the dealing offence. I note that in the explanatory memorandum there is an example provided in relation to the dealing offence:
An example of this type of offence is: person A uses the identification information of a business, such as its trading name, ABN, address and financial account information to pass themselves off as the business or an authorised agent or employee of the business, with the intention of importing a tier 1 prohibited good—
that is the indictable offence element. It goes on:
To establish this offence, the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
That is the dealing offence, and it goes very much to dealing in identification information.
In relation to the possession of identification information offence, the EM provides the following:
An example of conduct that would be captured by this offence is:
The third offence relates specifically to the possession of equipment for the purpose of producing or creating identification documentation. The EM states:
To establish this offence, the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
Clearly, they are wide ranging but, significantly and most importantly, the provisions seek to be framed in technology neutral language so as not only to capture the newly emergent technologies but also to take into account those technologies that have not yet reached the marketplace or those technologies that we have not yet seen in operation or that perhaps have not yet even been invented.
As I indicated earlier, the particular provisions relating to the victims certificate are, I think, of great significance because of the great hassle and difficulty that many victims face in trying to redress the situation when identity theft or identity crime has been committed. I want to share the experiences of some constituents of my electorate who have raised their situations with me. But, before I do so, I note that there was a case in Victoria that was reported in the Herald Sun on Saturday, 15 November last year. The article was written by Ben Butler and was entitled ‘A very personal theft’. I will quickly run through the elements of that scenario. I was horrified to see that this had occurred—though not nearly as horrified as the victim, I am sure.
David Stray, a Victorian man, received a letter in the mail one day in March 2006. That letter confirmed that a loan for $360,000 had been secured against the house that he owned. That was news to him, as he had not applied for any such loan. The documentation was all there and signed and contained copies of all the supporting documentation that one would normally expect to form part of an application for a loan of that sort, including the title to his home. So, although he had not applied for this loan, he received in the mail confirmation of his application, enclosing the certificate of title to his home. I am sure that would be disturbing for anyone in that situation.
Initially, Mr Stray thought it was a practical joke but then soon realised that this was the work of fraud and contacted the police. More than two years down the track the offender in this case was finally brought to justice and was prosecuted under various fraud provisions. To that point, Mr Stray was not able to clear the debt that had been raised in his name. I think that is the most disturbing aspect of this story. It is an aspect that points to what I hope to be the effectiveness of the bill that is currently before the House—that is, to provide victims with some redress when they are confronting the aftermath of identity crime and its impact on their lives. In Mr Stray’s case, the threats to recover the loan in question eventually ceased—but they only ceased as a result of the finance company heading into difficult financial circumstances. It was only when the finance company collapsed—with a $20 million outstanding debt—that they ceased to pursue Mr Stray for a debt that clearly should not have been owing on his part as it was a debt that had arisen as a result of identity fraud.
Whilst there may be some argument that cases such as this can, to some extent, be covered within the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to the fraud offences that exist, because of the rapid changes in technology, the pace at which technology has been changing, there is clearly a case—as the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has recommended—to adopt this legislation, which will ensure that there are specific offences that go to the heart of identity crime and identity theft.
A couple of examples in my local community have been brought to my attention—in particular, a Facebook scam in relation to identity theft. This is a new scam targeting users of Facebook. The scammer sends an email to the friends of the victim—the identities of the friends having been ascertained by virtue of the Facebook site—indicating that the person in question is isolated in a foreign country and requires urgent assistance in the form of a cash donation, and they request that cash be wired across to them. I know of at least one individual who fell victim to this scam, and they did so because the email setting out the details of the request specifically referred to friends of the individual in question whose identity had been assumed. In that case, the person did wire the money and found themselves without any legal recourse.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I inform the House of the death on Sunday, 25 January 2009 of John Murray, a member of this House for the division of Herbert from 1958 to 1961. As a mark of respect to the memory of John Murray, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Ms Gillard:
That the House:
I thank the House for this opportunity. Could I firstly express my condolences to the people and communities in the electorates of McMillan, Gippsland and Indi and also to the family of firefighter Mr David Balfour from the ACT, who died fighting the fires in Marysville in my electorate.
Last Thursday evening I attended a memorial service in the small town of Strathewen, where 42 people out of a population of 200 perished. In attending that memorial service, the survivors with their family and friends resolved three things: they wanted to thank all those who had contributed in any way to the survivors; they wanted to remember those who perished; and they wanted to build for the future with hope. So I am going to take their lead today.
I firstly want to place on the record my thankyou to all of the firefighters, both on the ground and in the air, on behalf of all of the people of my electorate of McEwen. Those people are just magnificent. On the ground they were fighting a fire that was so intense in its heat that it melted glass and metal. One firefighter pointed out to me the shell of a four-wheel drive vehicle and asked if I realised what the mound in front of it was. I thought it was just dirt and ash. He said to me, ‘That is the bullbar that melted off the vehicle.’ They fought winds, as we all know, of terrible ferocity and they just kept going back. The helicopter pilots were filling and emptying their helicopters with a turnaround of three minutes, which is just extraordinary.
There were many others on the ground who possibly have not been thanked as much as they should, and I want to acknowledge them today. They are the Parks Victoria rangers, the employees of the DSE, the SES, the ambulance officers, the police, the power workers and the timber workers. All of those people performed magnificently on the ground. Since the fires, of course, we have had the Defence Force there. One very experienced soldier said to me up at Kinglake last week that he is used to working in war zones, and sadly that is what a lot of my electorate looks like. Prime Minister, we really need Major General John Cantwell for at least 12 months. He is the man with the experience, the knowledge of logistics and the ability to mobilise forces. He was an inspired choice and we need him for the long haul.
In putting my thanks on the record, Prime Minister, I also want to thank you for your personal calls, for your offers of assistance and for your commitment to visiting personally so many communities in my electorate, along with other ministers. I also want to thank you for providing me with Sarah from your office, who I have yet to meet but who I feel is my new best friend. That is a contact and number that I will make good use of.
Mr Speaker, I also want to thank you for your very kind offer of the assistance of your staff in the south-western corner of my electorate. To the Leader of the Opposition: I thank you and Lucy for being prepared to spend so much time and to get around the electorate. To all members of this House, on both sides, thank you for all your phone calls, letters and offers of support and your concern. It has been wonderful and I have made sure that constituents throughout my electorate are aware of this. I know it is always dangerous to single out one person, but I am going to do that. To my friend and colleague the member for Casey, wherever he is—oh, I see he has changed position; I have missed some things!—Tony, you have always been a good friend, but for providing my staff with a safe refuge when we were evacuated from the office and for all your other offers of help: thank you.
I also want to place on the record, on behalf of all the people of my electorate, thanks for the generosity that has come from right around the nation—even from those people in Far North Queensland whose towns have been flooded. We know that they have provided assistance by sending semitrailer loads down into some of my small towns. It has been simply amazing.
I want to remember—and this is probably the most difficult part—the 209 people who have been acknowledged as having perished in the Black Saturday fires up to this point. Of the 209, 195 are from my electorate. I want to read the names of all of the towns in my electorate that have been affected: Marysville, Narbethong, Buxton, Taggerty, Camberville, Kinglake, Pheasant Creek, Flowerdale, Glenburn, Humevale, Strathewen, Whittlesea, Strath Creek, Upper Plenty, Clonbinane, Redesdale, Reedy Creek, Mittons Bridge, Wallan, Wondong, Heathcote Junction, Healesville, Chum Creek, Toolangi, Yarra Glen, Dixons Creek, Steels Creek, Christmas Hills and St Andrews.
These communities will never, ever be the same again. They have lost their people, many of whom were community leaders. They have lost homes. They have lost businesses. They have lost their stock. They have lost their communities. We have, however, really moved from that first phase—the emergency relief phase—to the recovery phase and the rebuilding phase, which is probably the biggest challenge that we have ahead of us. The recovery phase is difficult because each community is at a different stage. I want to illustrate, by discussing three of my communities, how difficult this is. The community of Strathewen, which I have mentioned, is a very small community. All of the people, of course, are hurting tremendously, and they will be hurting for a long time into the future. They have started having community meetings. The one thing that I want to stress in this House today is that the community members themselves must be the decision makers in the recovery and the rebuilding phases. Strathewen, being a very small community, has very different needs in some ways to those of Kinglake, which has suffered enormous devastation in losing so many of its people and its businesses. The Army is very active in there and the clean-up has already started—albeit in a small way to this point.
But if I turn to the community of Marysville, which has lost one in five of its population, the coroner has asked for at least another two weeks and possibly longer. This means that the residents cannot get back into their own communities, albeit this is under a very controlled regime—and we understand that that is how it has to be. But it means a delay, of course, in the recovery period and the rebuilding phase. Major General Cantwell, Andrew Forrest—who has been magnificent, I must say—and I met with the Marysville community just yesterday. It was interesting to note that, while some individuals will be able to—or could—move back, when it is declared okay, to the site where their home used to exist, as a community they decided not to do that. They will wait, and the community will move back as a whole. This says so much about the community spirit. This is something that I think we really have to take note of—that, despite the devastation and loss, these people want to live and work back in their communities. There have been magnificent efforts in providing temporary accommodation, but much of it is a long way from the communities. They actually do not want that. If they have to live in a caravan, or one of these temporary dwellings that Andrew Forrest will probably make available, they would rather it be stuck up in a corner of their home site or on a fairway at a golf course or on a vacant block of land—better that than they be accommodated far from their place.
I want to raise a few issues about the third phase of rebuilding. I have heard myself saying such things before, and I know that many here have said that we must never ever let this happen again—and we must not. But people have said these things before, following other disasters. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The first of those issues is the need for safe shelters. Colleagues, I ask you to contemplate—even though it is almost too horrible to contemplate—if that fire had happened not on the Saturday but on the Friday what the toll would have been with all of those schools burnt to the ground. Back in 1988, I have discovered, the Victorian education department had a plan to build 72 of what I would call community and school safe shelters. Only one has ever been built. We have to do better than that.
Much has been said about the need for an early warning system, and no-one would disagree with that. But, colleagues, many of my communities that have been burnt to the ground would never have received an early warning signal because the communications infrastructure simply does not deliver into those areas. It is another thing that we have to fix.
Much has been spoken about the need for a fuel reduction program. In Victoria we have had terrible fires going back to 1851: the 1939 bushfires, Ash Wednesday of 1983, those terrible fires in north-east Victoria in 2003. After every single one of those fires we had inquiry after inquiry, and in each one of those one of the main recommendations was to reduce the fuel load, not just on the floor of public land but also in the plantations now on private land.
Prime Minister, as a federal government, millions of dollars are provided to state and local governments for their roads. I am going to suggest here today that we tie that funding to fuel reduction programs because, unless we do something, nothing will be done. This is something, colleagues, I hope that we can have unanimous agreement on. I guess I would like to take all of you up into areas like Steels Creek and Redesdale. There is only one road along which people can get out of these areas. On that Saturday they simply could not get out.
One of the biggest issues facing us is the need for providing employment in these regions. The volunteer effort has been magnificent, but we all know that events and people move on. It is already starting to happen. I can understand that and, to a degree, the people in my electorate understand that. I think that we have got to be able to provide assistance for industries to re-establish. Prime Minister, industries like the trout industry will take up the low-interest loans. I single this one out in particular because it may not be known to this House but 80 per cent of our nation’s trout comes from the electorate of McEwen. But there are millions of dollars in infrastructure and much of this is still intact. Owners and their employees today are engaged in cleaning out and decontaminating these ponds, but they need to restock. An average sized trout farm of 20 ponds would need to spend half a million dollars on restocking. For the next 12 months they would have a feed bill of another half a million dollars. Obviously some of them cannot employ the 20 and 30 people that they had prior to the fires, but they tell me that they can get by with at least four or five, which is a wages bill of around $150,000. They have no income coming in for that 12-month period. I think that this is an area where we can move. In looking just at fencing and rural properties, while it is magnificent for voluntary groups like Rotary to want to be able to help, we need to pay people so that they can spend money in their areas, because one of the most urgent needs is to maintain a critical mass within these communities in order for them to have a future.
I know that I am going to meet with the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy a little later. I have an idea about how many of these businesses can survive, and that is perhaps as a virtual small business—for these communities that have been affected by the fires to have an internet business. Places like the alpaca shop in Marysville and many, many others could trade on the internet. That would at least generate some income. We can work out the details later, but I know that the minister’s department has the IT grunt to assist with that.
I am not going to take up any more time of the parliament except to say that, when we move on—and we are moving on to question time and there will be important debates happening in this place today and in the future—and when we disagree vehemently from the government benches to the opposition benches, which is a sign of a healthy democracy, I would hope that on this issue, in building for the future and rebuilding better and with hope, every single one of us will ensure that we speak with one voice, because I do not want any other Australian citizen to go through what my constituents have gone through.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
Order! The question is that the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
by leave—I table an updated coalition shadow ministry list.
The document read as follows—
COALITION SHADOW MINISTRY
TITLE | MINISTER | OTHER CHAMBER |
Leader of the Opposition | The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP | Senator the Hon Nick Minchin |
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs
| The Hon Julie Bishop MP | Senator the Hon David Johnston |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance | Senator Marise Payne | |
Shadow Minister for Trade, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
| The Hon Warren Truss MP | Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia | Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport | Mr Don Randall MP | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development | Mr John Forrest MP | |
Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Senator the Hon Nick Minchin | The Hon Bruce Billson MP |
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
| Senator the Hon Eric Abetz | The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP |
Shadow Treasurer | The Hon Joe Hockey MP | Senator the Hon Helen Coonan |
Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law | The Hon Chris Pearce MP | |
Shadow Assistant Treasurer | The Hon Tony Smith MP | |
Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training Manager of Opposition Business in the House) | The Hon Christopher Pyne MP | Senator the Hon Brett Mason |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Status of Women and Youth | Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP | Senator Marise Payne |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education | Senator the Hon Brett Mason | |
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design | The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP | Senator the Hon Eric Abetz |
Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities | The Hon Bruce Billson MP | |
Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation | Senator the Hon Helen Coonan | The Hon Joe Hockey MP |
Shadow Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs (Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) | Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP | |
Shadow Minister for Human Services
| Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion | The Hon Tony Abbott MP |
Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources | The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP | Senator the Hon Nick Minchin |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources | Mr Barry Haase MP | |
Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs | The Hon Tony Abbott MP | Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion |
Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government | Mr Scott Morrison MP | Senator M arise Payne |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs | Senator Marise Payne | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector | Senator Mitch Fifield | |
Shadow Special Minister of State and Shadow Cabinet Secretary | Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson | The Hon Christopher Pyne MP |
Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water | The Hon Greg Hunt MP | Senator the Hon David Johnston |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation | Mr Mark Coulton MP | |
Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing | The Hon Peter Dutton MP | Senator Mathias Cormann |
Shadow Minister for Ageing | Mrs Margaret May MP | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration | Senator Mathias Cormann | |
Shadow Minister for Defence | Senator the Hon David Johnston | The Hon Bob Baldwin MP |
Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Assisting Shadow Minister for Defence | The Hon Bob Baldwin MP | |
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs | Mrs Louise Markus MP | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence | The Hon Peter Lindsay MP | |
Shadow Attorney-General | Senator the Hon George Brandis SC | The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs | The Hon Sussan Ley MP | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security | Mr Jason Wood MP | |
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry | The Hon John Cobb MP | Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry | Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck | |
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations | Mr Michael Keenan MP | Senator the Hon George Brandis SC |
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport | Dr Andrew Southcott MP | Senator Mitch Fifield |
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship | The Hon Dr Sharman Stone | Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate | Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | |
Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts | Mr Steven Ciobo MP | Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson |
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his decision to establish an inquiry into the choice of an emissions trading system as the central climate change policy and his decision to abandon that inquiry within a week. Why did the Prime Minister establish and then so quickly abandon that inquiry, and what potential finding of that inquiry was the Prime Minister so afraid of?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, the government’s plan for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has been outlined in a white paper. The government’s plan and intention remain unchanged on that—that is, to legislate consistent with the white paper. On the question of the proposed House of Representatives inquiry to which the honourable member refers, the concern of the government was that in this chamber there were early indications that the opposition would politicise the inquiry. For those reasons, we assume that if there is to be a parliamentary inquiry into these matters it will probably occur in the Senate as a matter of course.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister provide an update on the recovery and reconstruction efforts in response to the Victorian bushfires on 7 February? How will this affect all of the fire ravaged regions, including my electorate of Bendigo?
I thank the member for Bendigo. I note, in particular, the impact of the fires on the communities in his electorate—the houses lost and the other suffering that has occurred there, as it has occurred in so many parts of Victoria. In answering the honourable member’s question, and with the indulgence of the House, I would like also to respond to some of the matters just raised by the member for McEwen. I thank her for the way in which she presented the concerns of her constituents here today. I think the way in which the member for McEwen has engaged in the debate on the condolence motion and the way in which she has put matters forward for the House’s and the government’s consideration reflects parliament working at its best. I listened very carefully to the matters raised by the member and I will come back to discuss more broadly how the government proposes from here on to deal with the challenges in each of the bushfire affected areas, because we are in this for the long haul.
All of us have been stunned and saddened by what has happened in Strathewen in particular. I listened very carefully to what the honourable member said about that. In our country’s history it is probably incomparable, perhaps including the First World War, in its effect on individual small rural communities, that one in four members of a town, of a community, could simply be killed. That community can never be the same. The honourable member spoke also of Marysville and the impact there. Again, I simply say to the constituents of McEwen, through the honourable member, that the searing impact that this has on rebuilding community life when such a huge part of each community is no longer there is beyond each of our imaginings—but it is no longer beyond hers.
I acknowledge also the contribution yesterday during the National Day of Mourning of the Leader of the Opposition, as all of us in this place try to come to grips with our responsibilities from here. We, all of us in this place, are not just struggling with the dimensions of what happened both personally and emotionally but also struggling with the burden of history that the member for McEwen presents us with. The burden of history is this: there have been many inquiries before about many fires. I hate to think how many of those recommendations have not been acted upon by governments of whichever persuasion, of whichever level and at whichever point in history.
So what do we now do to make a difference? I have listened carefully to what the honourable member for McEwen has said about certain practical matters. My undertaking to you is that on each of the matters you have raised, your new best friend, Sarah—who has been my best friend in my office for quite some time—will come back and work these matters through with you over the course of the year.
I will take those matters in sequence. The question of safe shelters: we have been looking at this in recent weeks as the debate has inevitably re-emerged. In the days ahead, together with other affected members, we would like to begin a conversation with you about how this can be examined properly in terms of what scientifically might work in the future, and, if it will work, how we then do it on the ground. On the question of the basic provision of telephone services, the honourable member’s contribution is very cogent—that is, you have to have a mobile telephone service to get a message out. We need to do better across the board on this. We know—and in particular honourable members on the other side of the House representing a number of rural and regional areas know full well—the huge gaps that exist in the system across the country.
Debate will now unfold on vegetation management. I say to the honourable member for McEwen that my experience is perhaps a little like hers—that is, it is useful, once we have agreed on the course of action, to provide specific incentives for it to be achieved in practice on the ground. But let us wait for the resolution of the ‘what’, in terms of the content of any future regime on vegetation management, and then there will be the question of the ‘how’. Let us deal with that, again, as a matter of practice.
The honourable member for McEwen also referred to the question of immediate employment in her community. Certainly, in my discussions with many of her constituents, this is of immediate and real concern. As the honourable member herself said to me in conversations, with communities devastated and there being, for various reasons, a delay in the return to communities, how then do businesses normally operating have enough clientele to keep their businesses going? An example I ran into in Kinglake the weekend before last, from memory, was the baker, who said to me that he normally employs 12 people—I do not think anyone here will hold me to account if I do not have the number exactly right—but, given what has happened to the community, what will he do when currently his sale of bread can support a staff of perhaps four to six? Those are people for whom he has a deep sense of commitment. You are right; I am about to throw this matter into the in-tray of the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, because it is not just this example; it is a very practical example of similar small businesses spread right across that community and other communities.
The honourable member for Bendigo also spoke about the reconstruction authority. The honourable member and I have had discussions about this and about the need to have confidence in that authority over time. I will certainly be attentive to the honourable member’s views as we work our way through this in implementing the work of the reconstruction authority.
I say to the honourable member for McEwen that, on the matters she has raised, and on the matters which her constituents may not yet have raised with her but will do so in the course of the year, the offer that I have extended to her and to other honourable members remains valid. When the honourable member runs into the inevitable obstacles which will occur along the road, that resource remains available to her, and I say that formally in this place.
More broadly across the state of Victoria, to other affected communities—and this goes to the core of the question asked by the honourable member for Bendigo—as the Leader of the Opposition and I said yesterday in Melbourne, the resolve of this place is to rebuild each of these communities until it is done. As I said yesterday, that is easy to say and hard to do, because we know what will happen in three, six, nine or 12 months time when there is some local bunfight over something or other, as we have to wrestle between the conflicting interests of one local authority and a state government over what should happen on one block of land or another. We are all experienced in this place; we know what it is like. I believe that my commitment and that of the Leader of the Opposition are the same. As each of these things is raised, and through the agency of the reconstruction authority and the community reference committee which will advise it, let us together continue to work through each of these challenges. We do not even know the full list yet, and it will not be known for some time. But I believe it is absolutely important for all of us here to make clear to the people in each of those communities our resolve that we as members of this parliament—Labor, Liberal, National and Independent—will stay with these communities until the completion of the task in each of them.
Finally, I said previously when this tragedy unfolded—and I will repeat it here for the House again today—that the Commonwealth’s contribution to this reconstruction effort will be uncapped. I say that again for the benefit of all members. Therefore, as we embark upon this challenge in each community, let there be no doubt that this government, through this parliament, will honour that commitment in terms of the supply of funding necessary to restore these communities to where they were.
To the honourable member for Bendigo, and to the people who have suffered in his area, could I simply say this. My understanding from discussions over the weekend is that many houses, some 50 or 60 houses, have been destroyed in his city of Bendigo—and he may correct me on this. Can I say that the destruction of a person’s house in Bendigo is as important to this government as what happens in Indi, McMillan, McEwen, Mallee or anywhere else. I think there is enough goodwill in this place—let us all be honest with each other in holding each other to account on this and see this one through. I thank the House.
I inform the House that this afternoon, accompanied by a good friend of the House, the British high commissioner, Helen Liddell, we have present in the gallery the Rt Hon. the Baroness Scotland QC, the Attorney General of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
On indulgence, Mr Speaker: the member for McEwen’s leadership, courage and compassion has made us all proud to be members of this place. Those of us who have seen Fran’s presence in her community could not fail to be moved. She has been a rock of compassion to a community which has been devastated. Her leadership has personified the ideals that all of us should aim to achieve as members of parliament representing our constituents. I thank you, Fran, for what you have done in McEwen and for your remarks here today.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister and I differ very much on any of these issues relating to the bushfires, if at all. He has invited me to raise matters directly with him or with the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I thank the minister for the opportunity of having a very constructive discussion only on Friday about the vital importance of providing counselling to address what are and will remain significant issues of mental health in those ravaged communities.
We had a very productive and thoughtful meeting with the Hon. Jeff Kennett, whose organisation beyondblue has special and specific expertise in dealing with these issues, and I am delighted that he and the minister are engaging directly. One of the points that Mr Kennett made, which I have passed on and I believe makes great good sense, is that it is important to front-end the investment in these counselling services so that when counsellors are working with people months and perhaps years into the future they will know that those counsellors were with them right at the start when they needed them and have not just shown up later in the day.
We have proposed constructively to the government a number of things on which we wait a response. Firstly, we recommended that the reconstruction authority should have bipartisan parliamentary representation, and we have proposed that the member for McEwen should be appointed to that authority. We all share a concern about the prompt processing of insurance claims. I know the government has had the Assistant Treasurer speak about this, and we have proposed that a special commissioner for disaster insurance should be appointed. We commend that to the government as a special measure. In addition, we have recommended that there be established a joint select committee to review these tragic events and, especially, to take into account the findings of the other recent inquiries. The Prime Minister and I are absolutely at one in recognising that so many valuable recommendations that have been made by inquiries in the past have not been acted upon. Both sides of politics have failed to act on these recommendations. We believe that it is important that, in addition to the Victorian royal commission set up under Mr Bernard Teague, there be a joint select committee of this parliament to investigate these matters and have regard to those many recommendations. We look forward to receiving a response from the government on those recommendations.
I close by saying how pleased I was to see the great attendance, and the warmth, the compassion and the sympathy that was extended, at the service of mourning in Melbourne on Sunday. It was a very moving tribute and it was beautifully done. The Victorian government did well to make that opportunity available for the nation’s grief to be recognised and shared.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his and the Treasurer’s previous remarks that Professor John Taylor of Stanford was ‘an extremist’ and ‘outside the mainstream of economic thought’ because he argued that tax cuts, which increase permanent income, were a better economic stimulus than one-off cash handouts. I also refer the Prime Minister to the January minutes of the US Federal Reserve’s open market committee where, commenting on the tax cuts in President Obama’s stimulus, it is stated:
… unless the cuts were clearly perceived to be permanent, the boost to consumer spending might prove short-lived, as was the case with the tax rebates distributed in the spring of 2008.
Does the Prime Minister contend that the members of the US Federal Reserve are extremists or that the open market committee is out of the mainstream? Or is it just, in truth, that Labor’s plan is not to cut taxes but to raise taxes?
As all honourable members in the House will be aware, we are now confronting a global economic recession, and that has consequences for the Australian economy, has consequences for Australian workers and has consequences for Australian jobs. The practical challenge, therefore, before all governments is what to do about it in both the short and the long term, and that brings us to the debate about the appropriate form of stimulus to be used in the short term. The government’s policy on this is absolutely clear-cut and articulated in the nation-building plan that was legislated by this parliament in recent times. The part of that nation-building plan which deals with one-off tax bonuses and other consumption measures, as the honourable member will be aware, is specifically designed to provide stimulus to the economy in the near term in order to provide extra support for growth and jobs until such time as the global economy recovers and, in particular, until global private financial markets recover and private credit flows recommence.
The other part of the government’s strategy is this: apart from adding to consumption in the economy by those measures in the short term, and to get the effect of that out into the economy as quickly as possible, we have accompanied that with investment in schools and in public housing as well as other investments in energy efficient housing. The purpose of this $42 billion nation-building plan, in both of its arms, is to be temporary and targeted in order to support growth in calendar year 2009 and into 2010. It stands, therefore, in complete contrast with entrenching longer term tax cuts, which of course make the task of returning the government to budget balance and budget surplus in the future more difficult. Those are the reasons the government has embarked upon the strategy it has implemented and now legislated through the parliament. It is a strategy which the government stands fully behind.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the Australian government’s response to the Victorian bushfires and any steps for rebuilding?
I thank the member for Ballarat for her question and, through her, I thank the people of Ballarat for their enormous contribution. Many of the areas around the electorate of the member for Ballarat have been threatened by fire, and if she could thank those people on behalf of the House we would appreciate that. It is the case that, even though we are now two weeks from the 7 February fires, Victoria remains on bushfire alert. While the rest of the nation was mourning yesterday, many firefighters were out doing their very important tasks, and, once again, today they are battling extreme weather conditions.
Even though the fire threat continues, what is positive is that the rebuilding has begun. As the member for McEwen has so eloquently said to us all here today, that is exactly what people want to do. Even though it is a massive task they have in front of them, let me just say to the member for McEwen, the member for McMillan, the member for Bendigo—all those who have been so devastated by these fires—that so many of the people I have met over the last couple of weeks have said to me clearly that they want to rebuild their own homes and they want to rebuild their communities.
If I can inform and update the House: the Australian government and the Victorian government today have made a very significant step forward to assist individuals and families, businesses and communities to do that. One very important step that we have announced today is that, together, the Australian government and the Victorian government will fund and deliver a site clean-up and demolition program that is crucial to rebuilding the lives of individuals and communities. It is also vital for public health and safety. We have all seen the horror of the wreckage: the corrugated iron, the dangerous trees and the mounds of ash and glass. We have been informed that there are many places where there are dangerous chimneys and trees, asbestos and other contamination. All of this needs to be dealt with quickly but it does have to be dealt with safely. It is also important for people to be able to deal with the emotional confrontation of what they have faced over the last two weeks, because it is only when this clean-up is done that people will be able start rebuilding the bricks and mortar of their lives.
The demolition program is expected to run for approximately six months, and I think that gives us some idea of the dimension of what we face. There are key steps that need to be followed in this demolition program and the clean-up that follows. First and foremost, we still have a major coronial period of time in front of us, so people will not be able to begin the clean-up until the coroner and the police give their permission, and I think everybody understands that. Sites will then be assessed for safety and hazards will be removed. But I think what is very important to say to everybody is that everyone’s constituents in the fire-affected areas need to know that time will be given to people to go onto their sites to retrieve any remaining items that may have escaped the inferno, and that will be a very important time for people. Then the sites will be cleared by licensed contractors. Can I just say to anybody who is affected that this is an entirely voluntary offer by both the federal and the state governments. If people want to organise this themselves, they can and it will be paid for by the federal and state governments together, but this is a way of enabling it to happen quickly and in a safe manner.
Let me say, particularly in response to a concern raised by the member for McEwen and by many people I have spoken to, that even though this will be organised by the Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority with a project manager that they will appoint, local contractors will be employed, because we do understand just how important it is to make sure that local people have the opportunity for work. They will need to be licensed contractors because many of the materials they will be removing are dangerous. We will be advised very shortly of the person who will be appointed by Major General Cantwell to the reconstruction and recovery authority. As I said before, all costs from this clean-up and demolition will be met by the federal and state governments. That will not depend on whether or not anybody has insurance. We think this is one very important way in which we can help people begin this critical process of reconstruction and recovery.
My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that, because the Queensland government has just lost its AAA credit rating, the cost of its borrowings may increase by 50 basis points, or up to $370 million a year on its refinanced $74 billion of borrowings? Treasurer, what is the flow-on impact to the other states of the credit downgrade in Queensland? Who is going to pay for the increased cost of borrowings by the states?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. This is a serious issue and it deserves a very serious and considered answer because we are in the middle of a global recession which is impacting severely on this country. We have seen European growth contract by 1.5 per cent, we have seen Japan contract by 3.3 per cent in the December quarter and we have seen Taiwan, in recent days, contract by something like six per cent. We have seen the impact of this on the national budget to the tune of something like $115 billion since the last budget, we have also seen the fact that the stock market has lost something like $600 billion in value and, of course, we have seen the impact on the super accounts of Australians. What we are now seeing in Queensland, a resource rich state, is the impact of the global recession and, most particularly, the impact that flows through to this country, including our resource rich states, of the halving of growth in China.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The Treasurer was asked a specific question about the flow-on impact to other states and, more importantly, who is going to pay the increased costs of borrowings by the states.
Who won the golf match—you or Cory?
The front bench is where you belong.
I assume that the member for Sturt is no longer worried about the point of order if he is interjecting across the chair. The Treasurer is aware of the question and will respond to the question.
Certainly, Mr Speaker. We have seen, for example, that coal prices have halved in the last six months. All of that has had a dramatic impact on the Queensland budget. We have seen that the Queensland government, along with other state governments, has borrowed in recent years to build critical economic infrastructure. Of course, one of the reasons they have borrowed to build critical economic infrastructure is that those opposite would not make any of those investments precisely at the time they were needed, particularly in the resource rich states. So it is the case that Australian states have borrowed in recent years to finance critical economic infrastructure.
Indeed, the member for Higgins ticked off on much of this when he was in the Treasury position. He, as Chairman of the Loan Council, ticked off on much of this borrowing by state governments in recent years. Something like $13 billion worth of borrowing by state government in recent years was ticked off by the member for Higgins. Of course, the other thing that state governments had to do, particularly in areas like health, was borrow, because the federal government at that time did not come to the party and, instead, seriously cut health funding. So, yes, state governments have been borrowing responsibly to fund critical economic infrastructure, and that was signed off by the previous government through the member for Higgins as Chairman of the Loan Council at that time.
This country, nationally and at a state level, has been hit by a global recession. That, of course, has had a dramatic impact on our budget revenues and on state government budget revenues, and that has led to a decision by a rating agency to downgrade the state of Queensland. It has certainly had that impact, and the cause of that is the global recession. What we see in the House today is a sharp difference between the Rudd government on this side and the Turnbull led opposition on that side, who say: ‘Nothing should be done about that. You should just sit and wait and see.’ On that side of the House, their attitude to this situation is very simple: governments should not act—in our case, have a temporary deficit so we can create jobs and cushion the Australian economy. In the case of the Queensland government, the opposition are saying it should not be borrowing—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Treasurer to answer the question about the flow-on impact to other states.
There is no point of order.
There is a very sharp contrast. On this side of the House we believe, in the face of a global recession, that governments must act, and our first choice must be to act to support employment. The Liberal and National parties in this House and in Queensland do not support jobs because they are the parties of higher unemployment. In this House, the Liberal and National parties opposed the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, of which $8 billion will go into Queensland to support jobs. Let history record: the Liberal and National parties in Canberra and in Queensland oppose our nation-building plan and the jobs that go with it.
What this government will do with state governments, including the government of Western Australia, is sit down with them through the COAG processes and the Loan Council processes and talk to them about their future needs in this new environment. We will do that in a cooperative way. We will do it with the government of Western Australia and we will do it with the government of Queensland. We will do it in the interests of Australia and in the interests of creating jobs.
Usually I say, ‘I inform the House we have present in the gallery,’ but I understand that today we have in the gallery behind me, the press gallery, Miss Kartika Sari, the international reporter of Rakyat Merdeka and, more importantly, the Indonesian winner of the 2008 Elizabeth O’Neill Journalism Award. Of course, that award is in memory of Liz O’Neill, the public affairs officer at the Australian Embassy, Jakarta, who tragically died in the March 2007 plane crash in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. On behalf of the House, I extend to Kartika a very warm welcome. Selamat sukses on your work in progressing the political dialogue between the Republic of Indonesia and Australia.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Attorney-General. What is the government doing to address the scourge of arson?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I know of and acknowledge the suffering of many people in his electorate, and I commend him and all representatives in this House who have really shown leadership on behalf of their electorates, including most recently today the member for McEwen.
Naturally, my comments are not directed to matters before the courts—I indicate that at the outset—but clearly this inexplicable, most un-Australian and reprehensible of crimes remains a threat to the Australian community in terms of both lives lost and property destroyed. In fact, a recent report by the Australian Institute of Criminology released a matter of weeks before the Victorian disaster, entitled Using crime prevention to reduce deliberate bushfires in Australia, outlined how extensive that problem was. It established that some 13 per cent of bushfires are deliberately lit. It is suspected that up to 50 per cent—half of the fires in Australia—are deliberately lit. The report also indicated, concerningly, that an additional seven per cent are probably attributable to people discarding cigarettes from their car windows—also preventable and a matter that we are looking at. It is estimated that the cost of bushfires to the Australian community each and every year, even before the Victorian tragedy, is about $1.6 billion. I know members of both sides have been concerned about this. Penalties for arson vary from state to state but they can include life in prison. We would think that that is appropriate given the death and destruction that, quite evidently, these crimes can cause.
Clearly, arson is a complex crime that requires a multifaceted and cooperative approach to addressing it. A number of good ideas were highlighted in the Australian Institute of Criminology report. These included greater cooperation between firefighting and law enforcement agencies aimed at crime prevention, reducing access to fuel at hotspots, developing effective neighbourhood watch programs in these areas and pursuing education programs to ensure that young people appreciate the tremendous devastation that their actions, if they commit this sort of conduct, can cause their own communities. All of these are worthy recommendations. Around Australia, as you would expect, a number of very successful programs have been implemented which we can draw upon.
I can announce today that next month, in March, I will chair a meeting of state and territory firefighting and police agencies, including representations from the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre and other experts from each jurisdiction to bring together expertise in this matter. We will certainly seek to identify immediate measures that can be implemented to prevent arson, and in the coming months we will work at developing and sharing best practice in respect of prevention, education and law enforcement capability in response. I look forward to working with my state and territory colleagues to tackle the scourge of arson that takes such a devastating toll on our community.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to ABS housing finance data which confirms that over 75,000 Australians locked in fixed interest home loans of up to 9.6 per cent during the government’s so-called war on inflation. Given that these households are today paying around $800 a month extra on their home loans, does the Treasurer now regret talking up inflation just one month after the last election? Hasn’t the Treasurer made the global financial crisis far worse for at least 75,000 Australian families?
The shadow Treasurer has the hide of a rhinoceros. I will tell you why: because the figures that he is quoting are simply incorrect.
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! The member for Sturt!
I want to take the shadow Treasurer through those figures.
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! The member for Sturt is warned!
At the beginning of 2002, official interest rates were 4.25 per cent and the proportion of all new fixed rate loans for dwellings was 7.8 per cent. Between May 2002 and November 2007 official interest rates rose 10 times to be 6.75 per cent. This drove the standard average variable mortgage rate from 6.05 per cent in 2002 to 8.5 per cent in November 2007. In the face of those ever-rising rates, what did people do? They fixed their mortgage rates in increasing numbers. This is a very important figure: by November 2007, 23.9 per cent of all new mortgages were fixed. That was a threefold increase. Think about that for a moment: a threefold increase as their interest rates went up and up and up.
Mr Hockey interjecting
You were in government. Remember? You were there. The Liberal and National parties were there in November 2007 when the proportion of all new mortgages that were fixed was 23.9 per cent. Those opposite would have everybody believe that the Rudd government somehow forced up or encouraged an increase and that occurred under us because more people were taking out fixed mortgage rates. The figures show that that claim is simply incorrect. It did not happen.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is relevance. This is a nervous Treasurer out of his depth. He is not answering—
The member for Dickson will resume his place.
Mr Adams interjecting
The member for Lyons will be prompted to get up and go somewhere! The member for Dickson knows that he is permitted to come to the dispatch box to raise a point of order. That does not then enable him to make a running commentary, so I suggest to him, as he does this quite often, that he should remember that a point of order is a point of order. The Treasurer is being relevant to the question.
By November 2007, 23.9 per cent of all new mortgages were fixed. There was a threefold increase under the coalition. The proportion of new loans that were fixed stayed at around 23.9 per cent of new loans until March, but was never above, before falling sharply from April onwards. So what this actually exposes is the lengths to which those opposite will go to distort any economic fact for political advantage.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was the whole point of the question—from November to April!
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Not again, Member for North Sydney!
So, in fact, 10 interest rate rises in a row were the driver of people moving to fixed rates. That is what the figures show: 10 interest rate rises in a row. And that expectation of rate rises was brought about by the coalition and their failure to fight inflation. That is what it was brought about by: the policies of the coalition—the former Treasurer up the back, who spent like a drunken sailor precisely at the wrong time of the economic cycle. That is actually what happened.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, but it describes you. That is the point. So have some decency and tell the truth about the figures, because the fact is that these mortgages were fixed under the Liberal and National parties, which presided over 10 interest rate rises in a row, and that is why so many people, sadly, are caught in the predicament they are in today.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What support is the government providing to assist local councils affected by the Victorian bushfires and the Queensland floods?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Indeed, I was in Far North Queensland last week, looking at the flood damage that had been caused there. The member for McEwen and other members from Victoria would be pleased, I think, and heartened to know that on the morning of my visit to Far North Queensland I attended a fundraiser for the Victorian bushfires fund held by the Cairns Regional Council. I think it says something about the way that the entire nation has united that, even in communities that have been impacted by the floods in Far North Queensland and indeed throughout western Queensland, they are all kicking in. They all acknowledge the gravity of the situation in which those Victorian communities have found themselves.
I was also in Victoria last week, in Alexandra, to meet the Mayor of Murrindindi, Councillor Lyn Gunter, and the Mayor of Mitchell, Councillor Bill Melbourne. I spoke to other mayors and shire presidents from those areas that have been hardest hit by bushfires. Certainly one of those is Murrindindi, with more than a thousand homes destroyed. The numbers are not yet quite clear because, as the member for McEwen indicated, the emergency services are not yet in a position to open up those areas. In Mitchell, some 230 houses have been lost to the fires. In the meetings that I held I was very much struck by the no-nonsense, can-do attitude of these local community leaders. They were interested in sitting down and discussing what the practical measures are by which we could provide assistance.
The benefit of sitting down one on one with these community leaders was evident. For example, something that I had not thought about was that they were concerned that some of the donations made out of goodwill that had been given to the communities there—for example, new shoes—would endanger the small businesses that sell shoes in those local communities. It is similar with whitegoods, so we need to be very careful about imposing solutions from outside. I think what that really indicates is the importance of sitting down with those local communities and getting the bottom-up solutions and advice from them, and I am sure everyone in this House is committed to doing that.
When I rang the local mayors and shire presidents in the immediate aftermath of Black Saturday, the single thing that they wanted was cash support. They asked in what ways we could bring forward some financial grants to those local communities. I am pleased that today the government has brought forward the fourth quarter financial assistance grants to the communities in Victoria and in Queensland that have been impacted by these natural disasters. That is some $40 million being brought forward in Victoria and some $28 million being brought forward in Queensland. We will have ongoing dialogue with those communities to make sure that we can meet their needs. We have given those communities flexibility, for example, in the way that they receive funding under the Regional Local Community Infrastructure Program. We will be flexible on the basis that we understand that they are not in a position immediately to assess what their immediate needs are.
I was very much heartened by the courage and resilience of both the local leaders and some of the other emergency service workers and volunteers that I met during my visit to that shire. If any member of the House has suggestions re that engagement with local government, who will have such a critical role in the rebuilding process, then my door is open to them and I encourage them to make that contact.
I also visited Ingham, in North Queensland, with the member for Kennedy. There I met with the Hinchinbrook Shire Council. The Mayor, Councillor Pino Giandomenico, took me around town with the member for Kennedy to look at the flood damage and to talk about the priorities that they have for rebuilding their community and community infrastructure. The Rudd government is committed to working with local government—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We appreciate some of the information that has been provided by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, but I would point you to comments you made in Hansard on 14 May 2008 that it would be helpful if answers were shorter. This has now become a terribly lengthy answer, and I would ask you to point out to him that there is a difference between making a statement to the House and answering a question.
Order! First of all, I have to state the obvious: there is no point of order because there is no standing order about the length of answers. There is, I think, an illustration in the point being made by the member for Sturt of the difficulty here, and I of course stand by the comments that I made earlier in my tenure as the Speaker. This is like occasions when I was on the opposition benches and listened to ministers making lengthy answers which I thought had to be made that length because they were providing information to the chamber. It is also in the context that—and if people want to trawl through comments I have made before, they will see that I have also championed ministerial statements—the device of ministerial statements is being used more. I think on this occasion it does not really illustrate the point I have been trying to make about the length of answers to questions.
To continue my remarks—which are certainly not partisan remarks, I would have thought—the government remains committed, as does, I believe, this House, to working with these local communities. Local government has a critical role to play. This is an extraordinary country—you can visit flood affected areas one day and those affected by bushfires the next. We all acknowledge in this House the extraordinary difficulties which are being faced by these local communities. My point is very simple: the solutions are best provided by the shires of Murrindindi or Hinchinbrook—by those local communities putting solutions to us rather than Canberra telling those local communities what is best for them. I am committed to that, and I encourage all members who have a similar view—and I know that members such as the member for McEwen and others from affected areas certainly have that view—to be a conduit to me as local government minister during these difficult times.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the government’s pre-election commitment to cut spending on consultants in the Commonwealth Public Service by $395 million. Given that the government has spent over $500 million in just 13 months, does this mean that the Treasurer has finally sounded the death knell on fiscal conservatism? Treasurer, at $1¼ million dollars a day, when will the government declare a war on its own consultants?
I do not concede that those figures the deputy shadow Treasurer was putting forward are in any way accurate at all, and it is simply not possible for him to make the assertions that he has made until we see the full data from all of the departments and until we see their annual reports. Like his previous distortion of the figures when it comes to fixed interest rates and his distortion of a lot of economic research that he has been talking about in recent times, he ought to take the time to get his facts right just occasionally.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the parliament of the developments in the international economy and the Australian government’s response?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the world struggles with the global economic recession, what we have seen in the week or so since this parliament last sat is further disturbing global economic data. First of all, the Japanese economy contracted by 3.3 per cent in the December quarter. This is the largest quarterly contraction in the Japanese economy since the 1974 oil shock. Bear in mind that this is the second largest economy in the world. It is Australia’s largest export market. It is of direct consequence to this economy and of direct consequence to the health of the wider Asia-Pacific and global economy. Further, we have seen data from Germany—the world’s third largest economy. The German economy contracted by 2.1 per cent in the last quarter of 2008—the largest quarter-on-quarter contraction since German unification in 1990. These movements in such large economies in the December quarter are of profound significance in shaping the economic environment which this nation confronts in 2009.
This House debated at some length our approach to stimulus in both the House of Representatives and the Senate on a nation-building plan for the future. The logic was clear: to provide stimulus in the short term in order to support growth and jobs and, in the longer term, to build the infrastructure our country needs for the 21st century—to build the schools we need for the 21st century; to make sure that every primary school in the nation has the sorts of facilities that make it possible for children to get the best education on offer; to make it possible for people to know that, when their kid goes to a local primary school, they are going to have a 21st century library and they are going to have the best classrooms possible; and, through both those measures, to be able to provide stimulus for local jobs.
On Saturday morning I ran into a principal from a local parish Catholic school in Lindfield, which is in the seat of Bradfield. Is it Holy Name Primary School?
Holy Family.
Holy Family Primary School.
Mr Pyne interjecting
The member for Sturt tells us that his nephews and nieces went there. I pass on the principal’s remarks because they go to the question of local stimulus. He said that, since the announcement, local carpet layers came into the school straightaway to find out what work they could get from the stimulus package. What I know from honourable members on this side of the House—and I imagine the same will apply to honourable members on that side of the House—is that, as various P&Cs and P&Fs come in the door, they will ask: why is it that those opposite voted this package down? We are seeking to provide work for the carpet layers up in the electorate of Bradfield and across the country and also work for the plumbers, the tradies, the carpenters, those who do maintenance work, the construction teams and the construction companies in order to provide support while we go about the task of implementing the biggest school modernisation program that this country has seen. That is the message contained in our nation-building plan of $42 billion, which was opposed by the Liberal and National parties in a vote in the House and in the Senate.
That deals with one part of the problem, while we of course have to deal with other measures as they become necessary in the future. But this occurs in a much wider context, and I go back to the global challenge that we face, and that is the state of the global banking system. Across the world today we have the problem of toxic assets still lying on the balance sheets of many of the principal banks around the world. The problem for Australia is this: if you have bad assets on the balance sheets of globally significant banks, it affects directly not only credit flows to those national companies but also credit flows right across the world—and credit flows to banks and other financial institutions and borrowers in countries like Australia. The foreign participation from globally significant banks in the foreign syndication of loans to Australia is significant in number. Therefore, if we are serious about dealing with the challenges which lie ahead, the world must act on the question of toxic assets polluting the balance sheets of globally systemic banks.
For the benefit of honourable members, let me put this into statistical context. So far there has been a debate around the world about fiscal stimulus measures across the OECD, which currently add up to something like $2 trillion. For the benefit of honourable members opposite, the total value and potential losses of US-originated credit assets now ranges between US$2.2 trillion and US$3.6 trillion. The impact which that in turn has on private credit flows to the real economy is huge and therefore has the potential to have a huge impact on further cuts in economic growth.
I am concerned, as the Australian government is concerned, that, unless we see effective global action on the question of toxic assets on balance sheets, it will flow through further to the real economy. As others opposite find this enormously distracting, can I say this: until the toxic assets question is dealt with in these banks, we—the global economy and this economy within it—in our fiscal stimulus measures will be dealing with a part of the problem which those globally significant and systemically important banks and the systems which supervise them have not dealt with. As the debate unfolds about action necessary to deal with toxic assets on balance sheets in the United States, Europe, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere, this is of direct consequence to small and medium businesses in this country seeking to access lines of credit which will be denied to them if we do not have the resumption of normal credit flows through the participation of foreign banks and foreign banks’ syndication of loans.
For the benefit of the House, it is important that we are seized by the significance of this. That is why, in the period ahead, action on toxic assets on balance sheets is of critical importance in restoring private credit flows. If we do not see the restoration of private credit flows in the global economy, the challenges that we have faced to date will pale into insignificance compared with those which will confront us in the future. If those opposite regard these remarks as not relevant to the current debate, I would draw their attention to the emerging and serious debate in Washington, in London, in Brussels and in every financial capital in the world that, unless this is dealt with, we are facing the gravest of crises indeed.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how much of the Australian government’s new debt will need to be borrowed from overseas?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. The Treasury is issuing Treasury bonds. It was issuing Treasury bonds, of course, when the member for Higgins was the Treasurer.
I paid off $96 billion.
Government members interjecting—
The preferred shadow Treasurer!
The head honcho up the back. We indicated in the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook that we would be having a temporary deficit and that we would be increasing borrowings through the issuance of government securities. The proportion of that will depend upon conditions in the market at the time, and that will change over time. The Treasury have been out there in recent weeks issuing securities, raising money. The proportions that they have raised from overseas or domestically will change per issuance, and that will continue. So it is not possible to give you the exact figure right now, today.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent analysis of the government’s economic policies, including the Nation Building and Jobs Plan?
I thank the member for Lindsay for his question. It is a very important question; it goes to all of the steps that this government has taken to restore and reinforce confidence in our financial system and to maintain stability in our banking system, including guaranteeing bank deposits and wholesale funding. And, of course, it goes directly to the point that the Prime Minister was making before about our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which has been put in place in response to events in the international economy in recent times.
All of these measures have been absolutely essential for maintaining stability in the wider economy and in the financial system, and this program has had the support of respected economists the world over; certainly, last Friday we had the benefit of hearing the views of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Those opposite have been questioning the rationale for this program. There has been question after question in this House about whether there was sufficient stimulus—too much, too early, too late and so on. I think the governor had a number of very important things to say, and the most important thing that he had to say on Friday was:
Growth will be stronger than it would have been without those actions. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
We have had the deputy shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition and others all making points about our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The first thing that they have been saying is that our Economic Security Strategy that was announced last August did not work. What did the Governor of the Reserve Bank have to say about this last Friday? He said:
I think the indications are that the pre-Christmas package did have quite a measurable impact on consumer demand.
How many times have those opposite come into this House and said it did not have a measurable impact on consumer demand? Despite the retail sales from December, despite the evidence from Woolworths, Westfield and so on, they continue to say that in this House, and of course it is untrue. You have heard a lot from those opposite about the bank guarantee and how ineffective it was, how bungled it was, how it does not work and how it is not necessary. This is what the governor had to say last Friday:
… the decision, by and large, did what was needed, which was that it avoided any perception of a systemic problem in the Australian banking system …
… … …
That is a very much better outcome than we might have otherwise had.
And, of course, we have heard from them—we heard it again today, in fact—that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is excessive. They claim we are spending too much, that there is too much investment in schools. Indeed, the deputy shadow Treasurer thinks the investments in schools are ridiculous. What did the governor say on Friday? He said:
… it does not strike me as obvious that somehow it is grossly excessive.
This is another exposure of the naked political point-scoring that has been coming from those opposite. Every time they bowled up another one of their shonky assertions it was exposed for what it was by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Their claims about doing too much were smashed; their claim the ESS did not work was smashed; their claim that the bank guarantee is not needed was completely smashed. The ultimate came when the deputy shadow Treasurer asked the governor a question about whether we were spending too much too soon. This is what the governor said:
You can make that argument, but I think you can also make the argument that, the longer you wait, the more ammunition you will end up having to use. These things can get a sort of self-fulfilling momentum behind them and we may or may not be able to head that off. But I think you should try …
Of course the approach of those opposite is simply to sit and wait and see, because they do not understand that if you do not act early then you do not avoid some of the catastrophic effects that come down the track, particularly the tragedy of much higher unemployment. There could not have been a more humiliating debut for the deputy shadow Treasurer—
Order! The Treasurer knows his obligation to refer to people by their parliamentary titles.
than there was on Friday before the Governor of the Reserve Bank. It just shows that the shadow Treasurer needs to do some hard work, needs to check his facts, needs to delve into the economic research. You cannot have an approach like the opposition has, which is simply to wait and see. Those opposite have not got a clue about what needs to be done. They do not have any ability to judge the magnitude of the problems that this country is facing, given the nature of the global recession. But the proof was there. It was exposed last Friday by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Those opposite should start doing their homework and get into a position where they can say something that is responsible and helps the country, not hinders it.
Referring to economic research, my question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by his statement that a substantial proportion of pink batts to be installed in up to 2.2 million homes will be made in Australia? If so, how does the Treasurer explain this report from Citigroup—economic research—which states that the Rudd plan on pink batts:
… far exceeds domestic capacity to supply—
and that—
To implement the Rudd plan, vast imports may have to be ordered.
Moreover, the research states:
If the Rudd plan gets implemented, CSR could permanently lose this end market in 2.5 years.
Treasurer, why is it a good idea for the government to put Australian taxpayers into debt in order to put Australian workers out of a job? I seek leave to table this report.
Leave not granted.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Treasurer has the call.
I certainly do stand by that statement, and I understand that the opposition are opposed to our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. They would rather see higher unemployment than see some temporary constructive action that leaves a lasting legacy for the country. The cabinet did discuss this issue when we were considering this tremendous initiative to increase energy efficiency. We did have a look at the capacity of the domestic industry. We had a look at the number of domestic producers, and it is the case that there will be domestic producers who will be substantially expanding their production. They have said that to the government and I am sure they have said that to the minister behind me. They certainly will. There is no doubt there will be some imports. There is no doubt about it at all, but the great bulk will be manufactured domestically. The deputy shadow Treasurer—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The question has been asked and it is being responded to.
The deputy shadow Treasurer was relying on a report from Citigroup. I have not read the report from Citigroup, but there is another report that the deputy shadow Treasurer has been using—from ABN AMRO—on our stimulus package, and I can tell him, ‘Don’t use it any more because it is just completely wrong.’ So it may well be that the figuring in this report is not right, but we will go away and have a look at it and look at the basis on which they made their calculations. But those opposite will take any opportunity to pointscore about what is a very serious initiative to create jobs in this country. The installation of pink batts is labour intensive and we can do it at a time when it will bring a tremendous economic benefit to this country. The installation of these batts is the equivalent, over time, of taking one million cars off the roads. So it is a very important energy efficiency initiative, but it is also a very important job creation initiative. All of these questions are really about them trying to wriggle out from underneath the fact that they are completely opposed to our Nation Building and Jobs Plan—a plan which is absolutely the right thing to do by this country. We have the endorsement of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, ACCI and other small business organisations, but not of the federal opposition. It just shows you how negative they are and what policy alternatives they do not have.
My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the latest measures taken to protect the jobs of apprentices and trainees?
I thank the member for Deakin for his question and for his great interest in education. I also note that, despite the recent promotion of the member for Sturt, it is, of course, this side of the House that asks about education, because it is this side of the House that is interested in education. And, of course, on this side of the House, we are committed to ensuring that Australia is investing in its people. What we know from past economic downturns is that as the economy turns down so does the investment in skills and training. As a result, the skills cycle mirrors the economic cycle so that when the economy is turning down there is less investment in skills and training. When the economy moves back into growth then everybody screams about skills shortages because they cannot get the skilled labour that they need. In these difficult days following the global financial crisis, we want to make sure that we are investing in the skills and capacities of the Australian people. Even in these days, Australia cannot afford to not invest in our people and their skills. It was my pleasure to announce some new measures late last week to ensure that we are continuing to invest in the skills, particularly, of apprentices.
In this difficult period it is, of course, possible that with the best will in the world an employer, faced with a downturn in demand, may need to put off some apprentices. For those apprentices it might mean that, although they have committed one or two years of their study, unless they can secure a new position to complete that apprenticeship that study will have gone to waste. These special measures are to create incentives so that an apprentice who finds themselves in that position has a better way of securing an opportunity to complete that education and training. Most particularly, on top of all existing incentive payments, we are putting in place an additional $2,800 incentive payment for employers or group training organisations to give an out-of-trade apprentice an option, a possibility, a position to complete their apprenticeship. It would be completion right the way through, with $1,000 of that $2,800 to be paid when the apprentice completes their apprenticeship. In addition, for those apprentices who find themselves out of trade but who are not able to secure a position with a new employer or with a group training organisation that can give them on-the-job experience across a range of employers, we are also investing in training providers in registered training organisations to create new pathways for those apprentices to complete their study even though they do not have the benefit of a connection with an employer or a group training organisation. We believe that these are important measures from a government that is committed to jobs and committed to education.
Of course, we do not know what the opposition stands for in this area. We do know, of course, that they voted against jobs when they voted against the stimulus package, and we do know that their regard for education is reckless to say the least, with the newly appointed shadow Treasurer being a man who has said that investing in schools is ‘ridiculous’. That was his—
Government members—Shame!
Amazing! That was his response to our—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is very clear that the Deputy Prime Minister is now no longer answering a question that was about apprenticeships; she is not answering a question about investing in schools. I would ask you to bring her back—
I will listen carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister’s conclusion of her answer.
I would have thought that, given the reaction in the Liberal Party to the appointment of the member for Sturt as the Manager of Opposition Business, he would not be talking about apprenticeships himself at the current stage. I must admit that I did want to see the member for Warringah making a comeback. In a choice between macho and mincing, I would have gone for macho myself, and obviously the Leader of the Opposition, faced with the choice of a doberman or poodle, has gone for the poodle. Presumably he prefers Abba to Cold Chisel, because that is the kind of thing we see on display.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will turn her focus to the question.
I do digress, Mr Speaker, and I apologise to you for that, but we are getting some amusing interjections from the opposition backbench about musical choices now. I think they are willing me on in this comparison between the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will ignore the interjections.
My point, of course, is about investment in Australian education, and we not only have the member for Sturt clearly promoted to a position beyond his capabilities but we have the shadow Treasurer opposed to investment in schools and now, of course, opposed to funding for schools, because he said that if they had been in government they:
… would not have made the generous $15.1 billion Council of Australian Governments deal with the states announced last December to deliver health, hospitals, education, housing and other services …
This is his exact quote. I will await the shadow Treasurer telling the House what bit of the COAG deal he is opposed to. Is it the $600 million of new funds for primary schools? Is it the $1.1 billion of new funds for disadvantaged schools? Is it the $550 million of new funds for teacher quality? Is it the $540 million for literacy and numeracy? As well as being opposed to capital investment in schools, what else is he seeking to rip off Australian school kids and the people who teach them?
My question is to the Prime Minister, and I recognise that he answered part of this to the member for McEwen earlier. My question relates to the Prime Minister’s comments at yesterday’s memorial service that successive governments have failed in terms of bushfire management, and also comments made by Wurundjeri elder, Aunty Joy Murphy, from Healesville who said that Aboriginal people historically burned the land every seven years for ‘cleansing and regrowth’, but Black Saturday was a ‘torture of the land’. Prime Minister, could you elaborate on your comment and, given that every inquiry since 1939 has focused on fuel reduction in fire-prone areas, do you believe it is time we learnt from Aboriginal Australians, whose firestick management practices created the bush environment that white Australians are attempting to modify to a landscape that has never existed?
I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. He is right: there is now a legitimate debate about what we do about vegetation management over time and how we deploy effectively what used to be described when I was a kid growing up as ‘periodic burn-offs’. I am sure that is a term used around the country. What I would also say to the honourable member is that I am reluctant, from the position that I occupy, to dictate what the answer should be. What I will say to the honourable member is that, once the deliberation is concluded, and it must be within a finite time—and I return to the comments I made in relation to the earlier intervention from the member for McEwen—as a parliament, and the government through the parliament, let us then establish the mechanism to ensure that the action is then taken. The member for McEwen came up with her proposal, which was the tying of particular grants. I think I said in response to that earlier on in parliament today that we should look at ways in which, once agreed action at a policy level is determined, that is then given effect on the ground through clear financial arrangements with other levels of government. Let us get the content of that right.
The second part of the honourable member’s question goes to the knowledge from Indigenous Australians. I listened carefully, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, to the comments made by the Aboriginal elders as they provided their sombre welcoming to those attending the service yesterday. Given that our Aboriginal brothers and sisters have occupied this continent for 40,000 years, there is great wisdom to be learned. We also need to ensure that that wisdom is combined with that of early pioneering families and their experience of the new forms of cultivation which have been introduced to Australia as well and what happens as a consequence of the impact on natural vegetation of new forms of cultivation. All these things need to be drawn together. What we cannot allow to happen is for this to drift on into the future without resolve. As a parliament and as a government we need to bring these things together and to agree on a course of action.
As a little kid growing up—and I have said this to many of the communities I have been around in the last week or two—my memories of being with my father are of every so often going out with him with the hip burner to burn off. That is what they did in those days. Where that wisdom, applied to that particular part of South-East Queensland, those practices, the repositories of knowledge within the departments of primary industries and pure local knowledge came from, I cannot give the answer. I have seen it and it was part of the local—
Very short supply.
I am trying to answer the honourable member’s question as best I can.
Get on with it.
You are not making a very good job of it.
To return to the spirit in which the question was asked by the member for New England, my recollection as a kid is that these were the things that were done in that area. I am always reluctant to generalise from my experience of growing up in one part of Australia to what happened and to what is appropriate elsewhere. Let us draw all of this knowledge from settler communities, farming communities and Indigenous communities together through the deliberative processes which have been established by the government of Victoria. Once that has concluded, let us as a government, through the parliament, act in concert with the states and territories and through instruments, including financial instruments, which can make it work in the future.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister inform the House the progress the Rudd government is making in reforming Australia’s health system?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. As he is the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into obesity, I know that the work of that committee will feed into our reform strategy.
The Rudd government is committed to significant health reforms as a crucial step in rebuilding our health and hospital system. Frankly, after 12 years of neglect, there is a lot of rebuilding to be done; we have to reverse a lot of the inaction of the previous government. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the foundations are being laid for that rebuilding. Late last year we had the $64 billion investment, through COAG, into health, including $750 million into emergency departments and more than $1 billion into training our health professionals. That is the biggest ever investment in prevention, and they have all been important components to rebuilding the system. That investment was a 50 per cent increase on what was planned by the previous government, had they negotiated the agreement.
Not only do we want to invest now in the sorts of things that will help rebuild our system, but we have also increased the reporting measures in COAG to ensure that the states are constantly improving. We know that the states need to improve the provisioning of their services. We have tied that extra funding to changes in the way that the states and territories behave. We have increased GP training places by 250 places, and they are available across the country. That is something that I know is very welcome at least on this side of the House and in the many communities who will receive more trainees in their area.
Last week another important step in our investments in health and in our health reform was taken. The National Health and Hospital Reform Commission released their interim report outlining over 100 potential future directions to be taken in health. Many of these directions are common sense. Some of them support existing government directions in health, like our investments in GP Superclinics, and some of these ideas are very ambitious. The opportunity is now there for the community to have a say and to provide feedback at this critical stage of the commission’s work. We asked the commission to think big, and I encourage the public, health professionals and service providers to provide their ideas and views at this important stage of the debate.
I note that the member for Dickson has admitted that the sluggish approach of the previous government was a problem—and I congratulate him for being prepared to do that. He said:
If we look at the history of health in this country we have to be honest and admit we have made mistakes … That is of course to state the obvious—
He went on to say:
For instance, in years past, despite some of the best intentions—
I said ‘on both side of politics’—finish the quote.
I am finishing the quote. This comes directly from your speech to the General Practice Network.
we made mistakes in Indigenous health, in areas like workforce planning and in hospital management.
Again, the member for Dickson was out last week saying:
Patients as well would have seen a dysfunctional system over the last 10 years, particularly when you talk about public hospitals.
Paradoxically, after having been prepared to acknowledge these mistakes, the member for Dickson also said last week:
I thought the priority, if you are talking about the here and now of health priorities would be to fix our hospitals and to fix them quickly.
So, after 12 years of doing nothing but pulling money out of our public hospitals, he now wants everything fixed overnight. But here is the really puzzling thing about the debate from the other side of the House: we now have the member for Dickson urgently committed to investing in our hospitals. But unfortunately—and I admit that this is the first time that I have ever felt sorry for the member for Dickson—the member for Dickson now has to deal with a new shadow Treasurer who, unlike the Treasurer on this side of the House, does not believe in investing in hospitals. The Deputy Prime Minister has already referred to this quote from an interview with Lenore Taylor, where the shadow Treasurer is reported to have said that:
… all other things would not have been equal under a Coalition government. For example, it would not have made the generous $15.1 billion Council of Australian Governments deal with the states announced last December to deliver health, hospitals, education, housing and other services, although he won't say how much it would have spent.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to your remarks before about the length of answers. The minister has now been speaking for over four minutes. There has been no answer to a dorothy dixer today that has been less than four minutes. The Deputy Prime Minister in previous incarnations suggested that the Procedures Committee require those questions to be less than four minutes. How can you expect this side of the House to maintain its decorum if ministers continue to do this kind—
Order! The member will resume his seat.
Mr Adams interjecting
Member for Lyons!
Mr Adams interjecting
The member for Lyons will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Order! The serious point to be made is that the question that was asked was in order. If the member had raised a point of relevance, he would have been closer to the mark. The minister will bring her answer to a conclusion.
The relevance of this issue is that we are committed to health reform, we are committed to investments in health. The other side has a shadow Treasurer who does not believe in investing in hospitals, unlike our Treasurer, who has already delivered $64 billion into our hospitals, and there will be more of that to come.
Before giving the member for Forrest the call, I remind members—because it seems to have escaped the attention of some—that I indicated last year that I would be reverting to using the one-hour measure which was put in place. When it was put in place, it was to be used without warning. Having had a discussion with members, I indicate that from time to time I may have confused them by the way I have used that standing order. But I have assured those who have had the decency to properly discuss this with me that it is my intention that on occasions I will use that provision without warning.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to recent cuts in official interest rates. Treasurer, a company in my electorate has a business overdraft facility with Westpac Bank. With the current cash rate at 3¼ per cent, why is this company still paying 10.1 per cent interest?
I do thank the member for her question. It is the case that, in terms of mortgage rates, there has been a very substantial pass-through by all of the major banks of the 400 basis points cut that has been delivered by the Reserve Bank in the last few months. It is also the case that, for some business borrowers, it has not flowed through at the same rate. I share the same concerns as the member for Forrest. It is the case that a lot of business loans are linked to market rates but some are not. So I would be very interested in seeing the details of this example which has been mentioned by the member for Forrest, and I will take it up with Westpac Bank.
I am very keen to see that credit in the Australian banking system flows to where it is needed. It is true to say that, as a consequence of the bank guarantee, and particularly the guarantee for term funding, Australian banks have been quite successful in raising their funding requirements both onshore and offshore in recent months. In fact, they have raised a record amount of money doing that. The government would certainly like to see credit flowing more strongly to some sections of business. It is the case that, at the aggregate level, credit flows do look strong but I, like the member for Forrest, do hear too many complaints from sections of small business where this is not the case. It may be a consequence of a number of factors. It could be a consequence of general economic conditions. It may be a consequence that some of the regional banks are not lending in areas where they previously lent. It is certainly the case that people who are trying to change their bank are experiencing difficulties in this environment. The government is talking to the banking sector about that, and I would be more than happy to look at this example and take it up with the bank.
I recently took up another example that had been raised with me, because I was concerned about what was going on, where there was a failure to get credit. The government is quite concerned about this. On that occasion, with that example, there was a successful outcome. Certainly, our response cannot always be on an individual basis. We are looking to a systematic solution that we can put in place to deal with these issues where people are unjustifiably being denied credit when they should get it. Of course, trying to establish that has some difficulties, but the government is serious about it, and I look forward to hearing the details from the member.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on government support for age pensioners and on any responses?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question, particularly on behalf of the more than 11,000 age pensioners in his electorate. As he knows, pensioners in his electorate, like pensioners across Australia, are certainly facing very hard economic times. While there certainly remains more to be done, the government has made a start. We made a significant down payment to pensioners by way of the December Economic Security Strategy payments. They went to four out of every five Australians aged over 65.
Pensioners will also receive some benefit from the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, so that every pensioner who paid even $1 of tax in the last financial year will get the $900 tax bonus. Of course, many of the 20,000 social housing units will benefit pensioners. That builds on a number of things which we have already put in place—last year—for pensioners. If I can just inform the House, excluding normal indexation the government provided an additional $2,337 to single pensioners and $3,537 to pensioner couples. We have done that since coming to office, recognising the very significant pressure that pensioners are under. These have been significant gains for pensioners, and we know they would not have been delivered by the opposition.
It has been made absolutely crystal clear by the member for Warringah that the sorts of theatrics we saw from the opposition last year in relation to pensioners were nothing more than a political stunt. The member for Warringah, who is actually the shadow minister in this area, although nobody in this parliament would know it, actually arose from his usual slumber last week, went on to radio 2GB and said that he did not support an increase in the pension—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister wants to attack me, there should be a substantive motion, and let’s have a debate about it.
Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I will listen carefully to the minister’s response.
For the benefit of the House, I will just quote what the member for Warringah actually said on radio 2GB. He said, ‘A $35 a week increase would be an enormous hit on the revenue.’
Mr Abbott interjecting
He says it’s true!
And he says it is true again. Plainly, here today, again, he is saying that he does not support an increase in the pension. He does not acknowledge that there is a need for pensioners to get an increase. Of course, we know that the member for Warringah does not think that this portfolio and pensions are the main political game. We know just how out of touch he has become with the needs of pensioners. The new shadow spokesperson for finance apparently backed him in straightaway by saying that he was just stating the bleeding obvious.
The Leader of the Opposition might think that he pulled the member for Warringah into line the other day, but I will just let the Leader of the Opposition know that the member for Warringah has been on the airwaves again, this morning, in Melbourne, saying once again that he was just stating the bleeding obvious. The bleeding obvious is that the opposition does not support an increase for pensioners. The government understand how tough it is for pensioners, and we will deliver.
Has the minister concluded her answer?
Let me just point—
No. If there is no point of order, the member will sit down. The member has not got the call.
My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I draw your attention to the front page of the Canberra Times, to an article titled ‘SAS troops face expulsion for speaking out over pay’. Can the Prime Minister explain why serving members of the SAS special forces continue to receive debt notices of up to $50,000 for their overseas service and continue to have their wages reduced, despite the guarantee by your Minister for Defence to this House four months ago that this problem would be fixed? Is this any way to treat our troops?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The question has been asked. I assume the questioners would like an answer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would welcome the question if I thought it was a genuine attempt to seek information and/or—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Minister for Defence will respond to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The standing orders do not allow a member to impute improper motives to another member of the House of Representatives. The member has asked a very serious question about our troops, and the minister has impugned his motives. I ask that he withdraw the same.
Order! I think—
Standing order 90.
Order! The member for Sturt! I am pleased that the member for Sturt has been industrious over the weekend. The minister has used three or four words. To the member for Sturt I indicate that I will listen carefully to where the minister is going.
Of course, the shadow minister for defence is getting regular briefings from the Department of Defence on this issue, and he will be receiving another briefing tomorrow.
Order! The minister will resume his place. The member for Paterson, with a point of order.
Mr Speaker, the minister has just said we have received regular briefings on this issue. Can I say to you, Mr Speaker: we have not received one.
Order! There is no point of order. The member knows, as I indicated to the member for Dickson, that the invite to come to the dispatch box for a point of order is not to engage in debate. I have indicated to the House that I have great worries about question time being used for debate. As yet, the House has not devised a mechanism where the House will investigate this problem, but certainly this illustrates the problem. But people’s frustration should not be vented by coming to the dispatch box in the guise of a point of order and then entering into debate. If what the minister has said needs response, there are other forms of the House which the member for Paterson knows full well he could use at the end of question time.
Like, I am sure, every member of this House, I was distressed last year when I heard that our special forces soldiers were possibly—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, there have been briefings. I can guarantee to the House that there have been briefings.
The minister will respond to the question. The interjectors will cease interjecting.
I will leave it for the member for Paterson to explain himself, but there have been briefings, Mr Speaker. He should consult his shadow minister for defence. Again, we are all collectively distressed at the thought that our special forces soldiers could be incorrectly having moneys deducted from their pay. When I heard of this matter, I told the House—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! It is being answered.
that it will be fixed, and it will be fixed.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. I call the minister.
Unfortunately, the matter is very complex. I am sure there is not one member of this House who would suggest that I or any member of this House would delay in any way the process of fixing this problem. While this problem has its genesis—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. I am sorry to do this to the minister, but we will wait until the House comes to order.
While this problem has its genesis in a decision of the independent Defence review tribunal, the real cause is the system we inherited from the former government. Of course, the decision of the tribunal required implementation. The reality is that the ICT and other systems have not been able to deliver. That is the fact of it.
Ms Marino interjecting
Order! The member for Forrest is warned!
Fixing that is taking some time and no-one is more frustrated than I am.
Mr Hunt interjecting
Order! The minister will resume his seat.
The computer says no!
Order! The member for Flinders will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Flinders then left the chamber.
Yes, that is right: the computer says no—the computer system we inherited from you. The fact is that underinvestment in ICT in Defence is causing problems right throughout the Defence organisation.
Opposition members interjecting—
They said this is not about politics but it seems, by their intervention, that that is exactly what this is about. Again, every member of this House, I am sure, wants to fix this problem as quickly as is possible.
You gave a guarantee.
I did give a guarantee and I will fix this problem.
Order! The member for Forrest will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Forrest then left the chamber.
The Chief of Army has personally taken responsibility for and dedicated himself to—because it is not, in the first instance, a special forces organisation problem—fixing this problem. Yes, I have been critical publicly about delays and the inability to fix this problem more quickly, but if only it were so easy.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is not straightforward; do not be silly.
Order! The minister will ignore the interjections.
There is a suggestion that I somehow signed a backdated provision, which is just ridiculous. The tribunal makes its decisions on a regular basis retrospectively. It is required under the act not to make any retrospective decision that could disadvantage a member of the Australian Defence Force. In this case, there should not have been any disadvantage, because what the tribunal had suggested or directed is that allowances be merged with salary, which would have been and should have been of advantage to the soldiers. But, when the computer systems tried to merge the allowances with the salaries, there was an inability to recognise the competencies which are required to secure those allowances. In some cases it was because the competencies were gained or earned informally and sometimes it was because the competencies were just not accepted by the computer system.
Some time ago I suggested that a non-reduction period should be established acting both retrospectively and prospectively to ensure that there are no debts and that soldiers have time to gain the competencies required, to establish them formally. The most recent advice the Chief of Army has is that he now has the power to give more formal recognition to competencies which were formerly considered to be informal. So these are very complex issues. They are issues that we have inherited because of underinvestment in these systems over many years. I said I would fix this problem. The Chief of Army is acting in good faith to fix it as quickly as possible. In the meantime we have put provisions in place to ensure no Defence member is financially disadvantaged.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the case of Australian writer Harry Nicolaides? Minister, what assistance is the Australian government able to provide when Australians find themselves in legal difficulty overseas?
I thank the member for her interest and concern in respect of this case, as I do many members of both sides of the House. I welcome very much the fact that last week the King of Thailand granted Mr Nicolaides a pardon. I am sure all members of the House will be very pleased that over the weekend he was returned to Australia and to his family. This of course has been a deeply distressing time for him and for members of his family; in particular, for his elderly parents, who have found this situation quite traumatic.
From the moment that Mr Nicolaides was taken into custody on 31 August last year he received consular assistance from our officials in Thailand, from the ambassador down, and his family members received consular assistance from our officials in Australia. The government strongly supported his application for pardon once the Thai judicial and legal processes had been completed. I raised the matter on a number of occasions with my Thai counterpart, requesting that it be given early and favourable consideration. We are very grateful that the Thai authorities have processed this matter very quickly. Indeed, it is a measure of the good relationship between Australia and Thailand. I am advised by officials that, in the paperwork associated with the pardon, reference is made to the granting of the pardon having as one of its reasons the good and friendly relationship between Australia and Thailand.
Mr Nicolaides was sentenced on 19 January to three years imprisonment, his application for pardon was made two days later on the 21st, the pardon was granted on Wednesday of last week, paperwork was completed on Friday of last week and he returned to Australia, as members would know, over the weekend. On behalf of the House, I thank very much our ambassador and our officials in Thailand for their very good work in this matter. Their consular assistance to Mr Nicolaides went from the moment of his arrest until he got on the plane on Saturday.
I also acknowledge members on both sides of the House for their interest, for their concern and, very importantly, for their understanding of the way in which the government was seeking to promote, pursue and advance Mr Nicolaides’s interests. His case underlines the very important point which I have made to the House before: when an Australian citizen becomes involved in the legal, criminal and judicial processes of another nation there is a limit to what the Australian government can do—not that we cannot do anything, but there is a limit.
In the course of Mr Nicolaides’s judicial processes before the Thai criminal system I had urgings from members of the Australian legal profession to seek to interfere in those processes, including in the granting of bail. If these suggestions were made by foreign governments in respect of Australian court processes there would be at least the raising of an eyebrow, and if these suggestions were made of the Australian government in respect of Australian bail processes that would either be highly inappropriate or possibly a serious criminal offence.
I was also invited on more than one occasion by legal practitioners, academics or historians to be highly critical of the Thai legal and judicial system and to be highly critical of the offence in respect of which Mr Nicolaides was charged. I chose not to go down that path. I chose not to go down that path because Australia respects the right of the sovereign nation-state of Thailand to organise its internal domestic laws in the manner it sees fit. If I had been critical of the Thai judicial system or of the offence in question, I think that would not have helped the application for clemency once it was made.
I conclude on this point: when Australians travel overseas they need to ensure that they both are aware of and comply with the laws of the country to which they travel. If for some reason they believe that those laws are either obscurantist or inappropriate and they do not propose to comply with them then they should not travel to that country in the first place. Just as we expect others when they come here to comply with our laws and to abide by our customs and processes, so equally Australians need to adopt the same approach when they travel overseas. In that respect, I again urge all Australians travelling overseas to consult the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade travel advisory system and to register their travel prior to travelling overseas.
On indulgence: the opposition is very pleased to see that Mr Nicolaides has been returned to his family in Australia. I compliment the government on its efforts in securing his release. The opposition, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged, has worked closely with the government, both sides recognising that the object was not to engage in a political debate about the merits of Thailand’s legal system but rather to ensure that an Australian citizen was released from custody and came home to Australia to his family.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I inform the House that it has been announced today that the late Heath Ledger has been awarded an Oscar for best supporting actor. Through you, Mr Speaker, I note that this is only the second time that there has been a posthumous award for an Oscar. I know that this will be very, very warmly received by his family and by his many fans. This incredible award for this actor cements his place as one of the finest actors not only of his generation but of our entire film history.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: the opposition supports the comments made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. There is no doubt that many Australian actors are now strutting on the world stage, and that is in no small part due to the excellent training they receive here in Australia. The opposition congratulates his family and is supportive of the government’s remarks.
Mr Speaker, I have previously asked you to write to the Prime Minister in relation to question in writing No. 335, which I put on the Notice Paper on 17 September last year. That question remains outstanding and I wonder if there is anything that you might be able to do to assist me to get an answer to that question.
In accordance with the standing orders, I will write once again.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
I seek to correct the public record in relation to some of the comments that the Minister for Health and Ageing made during question time today. The comments that I made last week following the release of the interim report by the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission went to the incompetence of state governments which have run down public hospitals over the last 10 years.
Order! The member must state where he has been misrepresented.
I was misrepresented by the minister because my comments did not reflect on the commission at all. Despite all the rhetoric from this government, the priority of the commission’s 400-page report was not to fix public hospitals. That is what this government was elected to do and it has not done it.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 22 of 2008-09 entitled Centrelink’s complaints handling system.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are presented 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:Finance—Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook for 2008-09—Update, February 2009.
Debate (on motion by Ms Julie Bishop) adjourned.
by leave—Mr Speaker, last week I visited Pakistan, the first visit to that vitally important country by an Australian foreign minister for over a decade. My purpose was to enhance bilateral relations and to urge decisive action by Pakistan against terrorism and against extremists crossing the border into Afghanistan. I had detailed discussions with President Zardari, Prime Minister Gillani, Foreign Minister Qureshi and Chief of Army Staff General Kayani.
I also visited Peshawar and the Khyber Agency to receive briefings from local military commanders on the security situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, including the North-West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Pakistan is one of the most strategically important countries in the world. Critically located at the intersection of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East, Pakistan has a direct effect on Australian security interests, as well as the security and stability of its immediate region and beyond.
As is well known, the acute problems in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area have adverse implications for Afghanistan, where nearly 1,100 Australian troops are part of the UN-mandated international effort to stabilise that country. Pakistan itself is also facing a number of other complex internal challenges. These range from the threat of extremism and terrorism, accommodating millions of Afghan refugees, and dealing with serious economic difficulties, both cyclical and structural. With a population of 170 million, Pakistan has the second largest Muslim population in the world, and on current projections will overtake the larger Muslim population of Indonesia by mid-century. Pakistan is also a nuclear armed state outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Pakistan has recently returned to democracy after years of military rule. Recognising its importance and the challenges it faces, the Australian government is committed to a closer and enhanced engagement with the democratic government of Pakistan. Australia has had continual diplomatic representation in Pakistan since its inception. We also have affinities based on a common British colonial heritage and people to people contacts on which to build. There are, for example, about 5,000 Pakistani students studying in Australia. Both countries have, of course, a shared passion for cricket.
Australia also welcomes Pakistan’s readmission to the Commonwealth, a forum in which we look forward to cooperating on issues of mutual interest. Australia again thanks Pakistan for its support for Australia being granted observer status with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). These developments are positive, but overall Australia has not paid nearly enough attention to Pakistan. In part this is because trade between our two countries is relatively modest, reaching $644 million last year. But whatever historically might explain it, we cannot afford to neglect a country so strategically vital to international security.
Foreign Minister Qureshi and I agreed last week that Australia and Pakistan must look to build economic links. Australia cannot afford to ignore a market of 170 million people. We are now examining ways of boosting bilateral trade, including investment. Australia is an inaugural member of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan Group. I attended the first ministerial meeting of this group last September at the United Nations.
The Friends Group includes the United States, United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and Turkey. All of whom, like Australia, are committed to assisting a democratic Pakistan tackle its internal challenges. These challenges are economic and social ones as well as the issues of security and extremism which afflict Pakistan today.
In Pakistan last week I announced that Australia would substantially increase development assistance to Pakistan, focusing on health, education and governance. Australia will contribute an additional $5.2 million to support a new phase in the Fred Hollows Pakistan-Australia Eye Care Project.
Australia recognises the importance of democratic institutions, government accountability and transparency in Pakistan. I informed Foreign Minister Qureshi that Australia would contribute $2.9 million to build community participation through the Strengthening Participatory Organisations program.
Australia is also providing ongoing assistance on irrigation management in the mango and citrus and dairy sectors, through the Agriculture Sector Linkages Program. These programs will be extended until 2011. Our trade and investment relationship in the area of agribusiness will be boosted by a $100,000 project to deepen the agribusiness and science links between our two countries.
In expanding our development assistance partnership, Australia will look to boost aid to North-West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Australia will build on these initiatives over the coming months and years. Australia, as a friend of democratic Pakistan, stands with the government of Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and extremism. Australia will assist Pakistan as it deals with this challenge.
In that context, Foreign Minister Qureshi and I welcomed increased Defence cooperation between Australian and Pakistan, including forthcoming talks between Chiefs of our Defence Forces. This year, Australia will also increase fourfold to 40 training places in Australia offered to Pakistani security and defence personnel.
Australia’s Ambassador for Counter-terrorism, Bill Paterson, also visited Pakistan in the week beginning 9 February for discussions with key counterparts. Australia will assist Pakistan to counter terrorist financing through the provision of technical assistance and training to Pakistan’s Financial Intelligence Unit.
Mr Qureshi and I also signalled that Australia and Pakistan would finalise shortly MOUs on police cooperation and counter-narcotics. We also discussed the importance of Pakistan taking determined steps against extremist networks. We also discussed the steps Pakistan is taking to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attacks to justice. As I made clear publicly in Pakistan, Australia too has a vital interest in these investigations because two of our citizens were murdered in the Mumbai attacks.
We welcome Pakistan’s recent steps to provide further information to India and the arrests and actions it has taken to date. These are important and welcome steps but determined action must continue. It is crucial to regional stability in South Asia for Pakistan and India to have constructive relations. We hope that the composite dialogue can be resumed. Pakistan must take determined and transparent steps to bring the perpetrators to justice, to dismantle the terrorist networks, especially Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and related groups, and to prevent further attacks on India. As I have mentioned, Pakistan is vital to the security and stability of Afghanistan. I have now seen for myself the challenges and complexities of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
From my visit, I developed a very good appreciation of the difficulty of the topography, the difficulty of the terrain of the border regions, and the ease with which insurgents can cross the border. Perhaps more importantly, I got a very good appreciation of the tribal history and the culture of the movements across that border. In that context, Australia welcomes improved relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Zardari has been instrumental in this recent improvement. President Zardari has also made clear that the threat of militancy in the border regions is not just a threat to Afghanistan but a danger to Pakistan itself, which threatens the existence of the Pakistani state.
Equally important will be continued coordination between Pakistani, Afghan and international security efforts in the border regions. International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations in Afghanistan will affect the Pakistan side of the border and vice versa. Much progress has been made, but with additional US forces deploying to Afghanistan it will be vital to ensure that ensuing gains in Afghanistan are complemented by decisive action in Pakistan. For the last 12 months the Australian government has been saying that there is an acute problem in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that has adverse implications for Afghanistan. In the course of last year, we also started to say that we believed we had a serious problem in Pakistan itself which needed to be addressed. That is now acknowledged and appreciated by the international community, just as it is by Pakistan and its government.
That is one of the reasons, for example, why Ambassador Holbrooke was appointed by President Obama to be an envoy, not just for Afghanistan, but for Pakistan and Afghanistan. While taking into account their distinctive histories and circumstances, the challenges facing these two countries need to be treated together and at the same time. Australia welcomes Ambassador Holbrooke’s appointment. We also welcome his recent visit to Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will be aware, the United States is undertaking a review into its Afghanistan strategy, coordinated by Bruce Riedel. Australia welcomes the participation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, through their respective foreign ministers, in that review.
As I have long made clear, three elements are required for success in Afghanistan. The first is military enforcement to defeat the extremists and create an environment in which peace, security and development can occur. The second is a civilian reconstruction effort to build the capacity of the Afghan government to manage its own affairs, from providing peace and security, to government services and infrastructure. In addition, at some stage, a political dialogue will be necessary. Such a dialogue in the first instance will be a matter for the Afghan government and its people. The Afghan government’s own conditions for political reconciliation include that those involved must stop supporting insurgents, lay down their arms and respect the Afghan constitution. It is clear that the current circumstances in Afghanistan do not yet allow such a dialogue, but a solution to the insurgency in Afghanistan will not come through military means alone.
In Pakistan, a similar combination of elements will be necessary to stabilise the border regions with Afghanistan. Members will be aware of media reports about a peace deal in the Swat Valley, Pakistan. Details of this agreement remain unclear, a point made publicly by me, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and others. I understand, in part, the deal is aimed at re-establishing the legal system at the local level which has essentially broken down. We respect Pakistan’s decision to pursue local level agreements as part of a strategy to stabilise the border regions. But we will need time before we can judge the impact of this deal on the ground. As I said in Pakistan itself last week, such agreements have not worked in the past. Rather they appear to have let the militants come back stronger than before. If this happened again we would obviously be very concerned. But we would hope this time for a more positive outcome. A key test of this will be the effect that the agreement has on the security situation, in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. In agreeing to such arrangements, the Pakistani government needs also to ensure that its international human rights obligations are respected, including for women and children.
Australia recognises that Pakistan remains the first country of refuge for millions of Afghan refugees. Australia has and will continue to provide assistance to Pakistan to help manage this situation, which is widely recognised as having contributed to instability in Pakistan. In 2007-08 Australia provided $1.5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for a registration information project in Pakistan. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, has today announced $1 million to assist a UNHCR project to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Afghan refuges from Pakistan as well as $1.7 million in funding to CARE and the International Organisation for Migration to support the reintegration of Afghan refuges in their own country.
Lastly, I turn to counter-proliferation. In the past, Australia and many other countries have been concerned at the activities of Dr AQ Khan and others. Dr Khan’s recent release from house arrest has been widely reported. We continue to urge Pakistan to ensure that Dr Khan’s network is shut down. I made this point last week in Pakistan and underlined that the Australian government is committed to strengthening the international counter-proliferation regime: an issue of first-order importance for international security. I welcome the membership of former Pakistan armed forces chief General Karamat in the International Commission on Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament chaired by former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans and former Japanese foreign minister Kawaguchi. As on other difficult issues, close engagement with Pakistan on counter-proliferation is, in Australia’s view, the best way of making progress.
I return to this fundamental point. Pakistan is a country vital to a range of Australian interests. It faces a number of serious internal difficulties. Australia, like many countries around the world, is determined to assist the democratic government in Pakistan tackle these challenges in our own interests and in the interests of regional and global stability. I thank the House.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak for 14 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 14 minutes.
Question agreed to.
The opposition welcomed the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit Pakistan last week, and I thank the minister for his report to the House on that visit. The opposition commends the government on its efforts to further strengthen the bilateral relationship between our two countries, particularly at this time of heightened security concerns over terrorism, extremism and the ongoing military operations in neighbouring Afghanistan, and with the full economic and social impact of the global financial downturn yet to be realised in the developed and developing world.
The visit was timely. The last official visit to Pakistan by an Australian foreign minister was in February 1998 by then Minister Downer, who observed at the time that 1998 marked 50 years of diplomatic relations between Australia and Pakistan. As a symbol of the growing significance of the bilateral relationship at that time, Minister Downer opened a new Australian high commission chancery building in Islamabad and an honorary consulate in Karachi, indicating the strong and growing need for greater official Australian representation in Pakistan. But it is worth noting that, soon after that visit, 11 years ago, relations did become strained, notably over the nuclear tests conducted by Pakistan in May 1998, when Australia suspended bilateral relations and took a series of steps in response—to make plain our condemnation of Pakistan’s actions and its failure, at that time, to embrace both the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty without condition and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, Pakistan took a key role in confronting terrorism and provided substantial support to the United Nations-mandated and NATO-led military operations in Afghanistan. In recognition of Pakistan’s efforts, in 2001 the Howard government re-established bilateral relations which had remained suspended since the 1998 nuclear tests. In 2005, we welcomed Pakistan’s foreign minister to Australia, the first visit by a foreign minister from Pakistan since 1959.
Australia has long held the view that democracy and rule of law are an essential part of achieving stability in Pakistan. However, Pakistan has faced a troubled path to democracy. Following the military coup in October 1999 and the subsequent events, culminating in the state of emergency which was declared in 2007—which essentially suspended basic freedoms of speech, association and movement and which removed the Supreme Court—the Commonwealth ministerial action group suspended Pakistan from the councils of the Commonwealth ‘pending the restoration of democracy and the rule of law’, a suspension that was lifted following the National Assembly and provincial parliamentary elections in February 2008.
We recognise that the ability of political parties to exist, the establishment of democratic institutions and a free media, and a strong and independent judiciary are all key elements for a thriving democracy. Establishing the rule of law throughout the country and instilling respect for these democratic institutions in Pakistan will be essential for Pakistan’s ongoing stability and its increasingly important role in regional and international affairs.
The opposition joins with the Australian government in supporting and encouraging Pakistan’s efforts on its path back to democracy. It is, however, deeply disturbing to read reports that, in their attempts to restore peace and security in the border regions, provincial governments may make concessions to Taliban militants which would see a return of sharia law. While we understand the need for the government of Pakistan to restore law and order over previously lawless parts of the country, we are deeply concerned to ensure that basic human rights not be traded away. Sharia law is at odds with fundamental principles of democracy and basic human rights for women—equality under law and the right to an education, for example.
No Australian government should ever be silent on fundamental issues of human rights. The Australian government should take the opportunity, particularly as a bilateral relationship deepens and matures, to express our deep concern in a straightforward and direct way. This issue also raises serious strategic concerns should it mean providing encouragement or safe haven to the very extremists who threaten not only the stability of Pakistan but also the immediate region—including Afghanistan. And concerns regarding extremist and terrorist elements on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border have deep implications for international security.
Australia has been working closely with Pakistan for a number of years on its domestic issues. We provided assistance following the devastation wreaked by the October 2005 earthquake, including deploying medical teams and giving about $74 million in relief and reconstruction assistance. Australia’s total development assistance program to Pakistan for 2007-08 is estimated to be in the order of $27 million. According to AusAID, Australia is increasing its support to Pakistan, focusing on basic health care and education. I particularly welcome the government’s support for education programs in Pakistan—this is a matter of deep interest to me.
During my time as Minister for Education, Science and Training, I convened an international education forum in Brisbane in 2006 which aimed to increase Australia’s engagement with countries in our region by strengthening educational ties, which we saw as a powerful form of diplomacy. The then Foreign Minister Downer and I also announced in 2006 that Australia would double the number of educational scholarships it offered in the Asia-Pacific region. The new program, titled Australian Scholarships, provided almost $1.4 billion in funding over five years for more than 19,000 scholarships—of course including students from Pakistan.
According to AusAID, Australia has, since 2006, provided support for 200,000 children to attend schools in earthquake affected regions around Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Through the Australian Development Scholarships, 128 students have come to Australia for education, and I understand that around 5,000 students from Pakistan are estimated to be studying in Australia currently. Much more has been done and much more will continue to be done to assist Pakistan in these areas.
It is of vital importance to Australia that Pakistan’s government be successful in managing the challenges within its borders which impact on the security challenges in Afghanistan, for this is where our own forces—1,100 of them—are engaged in a difficult and dangerous struggle against extremism. The world has a profound strategic interest in ensuring Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for the likes of al-Qaeda or other extremists. This is where Australia has a direct national interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a haven for terrorists and a base from which trained killers are sent out into the world to wreak devastation on those who do not share their beliefs. We must of course do all we can to prevent a repeat of the atrocities against innocents that we witnessed on 11 September 2001 and in Bali and in Mumbai.
The success of the NATO led efforts to confront and contain the menace of extremism in Afghanistan is linked inextricably to the success or otherwise of the efforts to deal with extremist strongholds and hideouts across the border in Pakistan. No-one should ever seek to downplay the threat that pockets of extremism in Pakistan represent to Pakistani society itself. We have seen the repeated terrorist attacks on Pakistan’s great cities, including the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. We watched in horror the attack on former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto—her life sacrificed during the return of her beloved country to democracy. It is heartening to see democracy fighting back in Pakistan.
It is heartening to hear President Zardari—the first democratically elected president in a decade—vow repeatedly to take up the challenge of confronting and quelling insurgents. We must continue to support the Pakistani authorities in their resolve. One of the most effective ways to do this is for Australia to speak up strongly and unreservedly for the values of democracy, pluralism and for the voices of moderation.
by leave—I rise to provide the parliament and the Australian people with an update on the government’s view of the situation in Afghanistan and an assessment of the progress of the international effort to stabilise the war-torn country.
Members will be aware that on 19 February I attended a meeting of defence ministers from the partner countries. Held in Krakow, Poland, it was only the second time an Australian defence minister has participated in such a meeting. The first occurred when I participated in the same forum in Vilnius, Lithuania, in April last year.
Afghanistan remains an enormous challenge and a dangerous place. For the Australian government, the objective of our mission there is quite clear: to ensure that Afghanistan does not, once again, descend into a safe haven and a training ground for terrorist organisations with links to tragic events like the Bali bombing, in which 88 Australians lost their lives and many more were wounded.
The key to achieving that goal is to ensure we do not have a government in Kabul prepared to provide terrorist organisations with those opportunities or, worse, one prepared to sponsor terrorist organisations. Thanks to the work of the international community to bolster the processes of democracy, we currently do not have a government in Afghanistan that is prepared to sponsor or turn a blind eye to terrorism activity in its country. But, unfortunately, nor do we have a government capable, on its own, to enforce the rule of law or capable, without support, of preventing terrorist activity within its own borders.
Of course, there is agreement among the International Security Assistance Force partners that achieving our key objective in Afghanistan will take much more than a military effort alone. Rather, success will require properly resourced and coordinated military, civil and political efforts. The military effort must be at the forefront of eliminating and strategically disrupting the key leaders of those extreme Islamist groups which are determined to destroy the government in Kabul, take back control of the country and return it to a launching pad for their global terror ambitions. Second, it is critical to the elimination of the narcotics trade which funds terror both within and outside Afghanistan. Third, the military campaign is key to the training and development of the Afghan national army—an army which, in the not-too-distant future, will number some 130,000 troops. It is crucial for the future of the country that the Afghan national security forces are able to take care of their own security and enforce their own rule of law.
But the ability and capacity of the local security forces is only one part of that equation. No security force can hope to keep the peace while so many among its population feel marginalised, discriminated against or simply permanently consigned to abject poverty. That is where the civil and political campaigns come into play. In a country so ethnically and tribally diverse as Afghanistan, accommodating the needs of the majority is a challenging task but an absolutely critical one. The evolution of political structures, political relationships and power-sharing arrangements are bound to be slow in a country with Afghanistan’s history. On this front, we need to be patient, flexible and never lose sight of our key objectives. The idea of creating a world best practice Western style democracy overnight in Afghanistan is folly. But creating a functional democracy over time in which people feel empowered and safe is not. It is achievable if we have the collective will.
Our job in Afghanistan is about convincing a strong majority of the population that the economic, social and political model we are offering in partnership with the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is better than that on offer from the Taliban or any other group. That is where the civil effort comes into play: building economic capacity and developing the systems and institutions of good governance. A counter-insurgency campaign is about clearing, holding and building: clearing out and strategically denying the spoilers, holding those gains and building local infrastructure and governance. This infrastructure includes roads, bridges, dams, schools, trade schools and hospitals. On the governance front, it includes a quality public service, a policing system, a justice system and a prisons system all largely free of corruption and coercion.
Of course, we will not achieve these aims without a concerted effort on the regional front. On a daily basis insurgents and their armaments are making their way across the border from their training grounds and safe havens in Pakistan’s frontier provinces. We cannot meet with success while that remains the case. We know that closing the long and porous border is unrealistic so the problem must be fixed at its source. That will take the combined efforts of both the international community and the government of Pakistan. On this front, the newly elected United States President, Barack Obama, has appointed Mr Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy to the region. This commitment, and Mr Holbrooke’s well-recognised skill and insight, will be critical to the effort to meet the challenges in Pakistan, as will the efforts of individual countries, including Australia. As members would be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, was in Pakistan only last week talking with the government and military leadership, urging action and reinforcing our offer to assist where we can—and, of course, the minister has just given the House an update on that visit.
There exists a popular belief in Australia that, because the British and Soviets were militarily unsuccessful in Afghanistan, our own efforts are destined to meet with the same fate. In my view, this conclusion ignores a number of key points. Firstly, we are not fighting against the incumbent government in Afghanistan, we are fighting with it. Secondly, this is not a state-on-state conflict, it is a community of states effort against non-state groups. Thirdly, and very importantly, the people of Afghanistan are tired of war. The majority want peace and security and they want to raise their families in relative prosperity just like we do. ‘They are sick of the fighting. They want peace’—those are not my words, they are the words of Afghanistan’s Defence Minister, General Abdul Rahim Wardak, whom I spoke with at length last week.
Progress in Afghanistan has been all too slow and patchy. The insurgency is tough and resilient and the international community’s efforts have hitherto lacked focus, direction, resources, coordination, collective will and commitment. The question is: will this change? It is changing, but too slowly for Australia’s liking. On the military front, the confusion over the lines of command has been resolved and the United States is about to make an additional troop contribution numbering some 17,000. Importantly, the United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, confirmed to me in Krakow last week that the majority of these troops will go to the south, where, of course, they are most needed, and where we are operating.
One of the very pleasing aspects of the latest additional commitment by the United States is the commitment of an Aviation Combat Brigade, which will put an additional 93 helicopters into southern Afghanistan—that is, more Chinooks and Blackhawk transporters and Apache gunships. They will provide much needed helicopter capacity, reducing aeromedical evacuation times—which I have been concerned about for some time—and providing our troops and the troops of other nations with additional options for movement across the southern provinces. We also welcome recent announcements by France, Germany and Italy that they will increase their troop deployments to Afghanistan. It is also clear that lessons have been learnt in relation to civilian casualties. There is a growing realisation amongst the contributing nations that the hearts and minds of the local population will not be won while innocent civilians continue to be victims of poorly targeted air and other military strikes.
A welcome development in Afghanistan is the establishment of the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. This fund will raise money from partner and non-partner nations to finance both the expansion of the Afghan National Army to 130,000 troops and the training and sustainment of those troops. Again, capacity-building in the Afghan National Army is critical to success in Afghanistan, and Australian troops are playing an important role in this training effort.
Foreign aid is on the increase in Afghanistan. Australia has committed $600 million in aid to Afghanistan since 2001. This has been focused on building the capacity of Afghan government institutions, removing landmines and providing food and healthcare assistance. In addition, the Australian Defence Force has completed a large number of development projects in Oruzgan province that have improved the transport, health, education and law enforcement infrastructure in the province. Other countries are doing likewise in other provinces. All Australia’s development activities are coordinated with those of the international community. In particular, the Australian government works closely with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and its head, Mr Kai Eide, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. All this is encouraging as we approach the presidential elections later this year and the legislature elections next year. Of course, the peaceful and successful conduct of those elections will be important watersheds in the development of Afghanistan’s democracy.
Much has been said of late about the prospect of Australia being asked to do more on the military front in Afghanistan. Again, I can inform the House that the Australian government remains committed to the Afghanistan project and will always consider any reasonable request from our closest and most important ally that is likely to assist in improving and accelerating the pace of success in Afghanistan. As I have also said, the government will carefully, thoroughly and responsibly consider any request that may be forthcoming. The critical test will be whether the task is likely to make a difference in a strategic sense. A second test will be that the task assigned is part of a convincing, broader new plan for greater and faster success in Afghanistan. Further, the Australian government will consider any request in the context of military commitments from other partner countries. Of course, the government would also need to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is acceptable.
Success in Afghanistan is important to global security and the security of Australians and, of course, all of us want to do all we can to prevent Afghanistan from falling back into the hands of those who have no respect for human life and for the rights of women and children in particular. We do not want the people of Afghanistan to again be forced to live in fear and without hope of being lifted out of poverty. The Australian government remains committed to playing an ongoing role in securing that success. I pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are carrying the weight of that commitment on the front line. For their commitment and sacrifices the Australian government and the Australian people are eternally grateful.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Paterson to speak for 13 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Baldwin speaking for a period not exceeding 13 minutes.
Question agreed to.
As the minister pointed out, much has been made recently of the question of committing more Australian troops to the war in Afghanistan. The speculation has not been helped by the government’s failure to articulate a clear and coherent policy on the issue of Afghanistan. Having previously denied that Australia would commit additional troops, today the minister has told the House that the government are committed to the Afghanistan project and will consider a request from the US to increase our deployment to Afghanistan—despite having said, according to the statement in the Weekend Australian on 21 February:
‘At no stage did he indicate he—
speaking about Robert Gates—
would be looking to Australia to do more’
He is further quoted in that article:
‘I’m sure that the US will be looking to NATO partners … to do more rather than turn to non-NATO partners like Australia.’
The government have had well over a year in government and more than six years in opposition to develop an understanding of and a policy on the conflict in Afghanistan, yet it would seem that they have failed to achieve either. The minister has been overseas numerous times in his 15 months in office, with little or no evidence of positive outcomes for Australia’s disposition in Afghanistan. He has met with NATO chiefs on a number of occasions, the most recent occasion being just last week, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. It seems that he lectured the International Stabilisation Assistance Force partners on their need to increase their commitment.
Our 1,100 personnel in Oruzgan province are doing a tremendous job in very difficult circumstances. However, our overall contribution equates to 1.5 per cent of the 70,000 coalition troops. What does it say when the minister calls on the NATO partners to do more yet has never once made a commitment to increase Australia’s contribution to Afghanistan? The words ‘empty rhetoric’ readily spring to mind. Despite not being asked to do anything, the minister has laid out the government’s four-point criteria for considering an increased troop deployment to Afghanistan. He talked about making a strategic difference and about a new, broader plan for greater success and faster progress as though these were easy and readily available. Further to this, the government will consider a request in the context of commitments by other partner countries. And then, almost as an afterthought, the minister added, ‘Of course, the government would also need to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is an acceptable one.’
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously I take offence at the suggestion that I have the safety of the troops as an afterthought. I am extremely offended by that and I insist that the member for Paterson withdraw.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for expedience, I will withdraw. As an afterthought, the government said, ‘Of course, the government also needs to be convinced that the risk to the safety of our troops in any additional role is an acceptable one.’ While the coalition does not necessarily object in principle to these criteria of consideration, we do take issue with the government’s order of priority. In fact, the government has it backwards. The level of security for ongoing deployment of our troops must always be the first priority of government. This consideration is not an afterthought to be tacked on at the end of a wish list. By providing this superficial narrative on our current circumstance in Afghanistan—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I asked that the member for Paterson withdraw that accusation. Having done so, he is now repeating the accusation.
I did not hear any repeat of the accusation.
I did not put numbers on any of those conditions, nor were they intended to be in order. He knows that.
I was listening carefully and I did not hear any repeat of the accusation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we can only go by the ministerial statement provided to us, and that has them in order from one to four.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hansard will show there are no numbers. Whether you heard the statement or not, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member has repeated a statement he already agreed to withdraw. I am offended by it, and he needs to withdraw again. He should stop using that line.
Minister, I was listening carefully. I did not hear a repeat. I will be happy to check the record afterwards. We should rely on the shadow minister. If he feels that he repeated that statement, then he should withdraw.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw if it helps the sensitivities of the minister.
You will withdraw without reservation.
I withdraw without reservation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having provided a superficial narrative on the current circumstance in Afghanistan, the minister has demonstrated a lack of capacity to formulate a plan that would satisfy the safety of our troops. In the government’s four conditions, the safety of our troops is listed, but obviously it is not as high a priority as the coalition would set. I would suggest that the safety and welfare of our troops should be first-tier concerns of any government.
No, no, no, no.
The minister is debating, Mr Deputy Speaker, not raising a point of order.
The shadow minister will resume his seat.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I am the Minister for Defence, and the junior shadow minister has just accused me of having a low regard for the safety of Australian troops in theatre. I once again insist that he withdraw.
I did not hear those words as you suggest—
It does not matter whether you heard it or not, with respect. I heard it. I am offended by it. The member is now a repeat offender and he needs to withdraw without condition again.
I point out to the minister that, in this case, the member did not refer to you personally at all.
That is correct. I said ‘the government’, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the clear intention—
He is just chewing up time.
I do not want to chew up your time, mate. You are doing a very good job of it, thanks very much. The clear intention, no matter how the member wants to put it, was to question the priority I put on the safety of our troops in our theatre, and he will withdraw again.
The minister knows well that I cannot ask for a withdrawal if it is not a personal attack.
As I said, the government’s four conditions—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting
Minister, you do not have the call. The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The minister now has the call.
Mr Deputy Speaker, what was the intention of the statement if it was not intended to reflect on me? Of course it was, and the member should withdraw.
Minister, I am not here to debate what his intention was; I can only ask for a withdrawal when it is a personal accusation or point.
In an article in the Weekend Australian on 21 February 2009—
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 75(a) does allow you to direct the member to discontinue his or her speech on the basis of repetition. On this basis, the member opposite has chosen—
The minister will resume his seat.
on three separate occasions—
The minister will resume his seat! I will warn the minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker, standing order 75(a) allows you to take action on the basis of the fact that the member has defied your ruling. You asked him to withdraw the first time he used the words that were offensive. He continues to use them—I am not quite sure why. He should just withdraw and then get on with his speech.
There is no point of order.
In the article in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 21 February—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting
He said there was no point of order. Get the wax out of your ears.
The member for Paterson will withdraw that.
I withdraw.
I call the Minister for Defence.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, you seem to misunderstand me. I took offence at what was a very clear reflection—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
The member for Paterson will remain quiet while the minister is making his point.
I took offence at what was clearly a personal reflection on me on a most serious matter, and you should ask the member to withdraw. He should withdraw unequivocally and we can get on with his speech.
I do not see the same point as the minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on two previous occasions the member for Paterson made a specific allegation with respect to the Minister for Defence and subsequently withdrew without qualification. He then—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Let me finish my first point—
Member for Paterson, sit down.
He then made the same allegation on a third occasion but merely did not mention the minister’s name. He has an established pattern of behaviour of making an allegation and then being prepared to withdraw. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should recognise that what the member has done is in line with what he did earlier. In those circumstances, he should withdraw.
Minister, the same point of order has been—
Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to the point of order: the member for Paterson did not mention the minister in his speech; he specifically attacked the government. To rule him out of order and require his withdrawal would then prevent anyone in opposition from attacking the government on any point.
I will finally rule on this. I have not at any time heard a personal allegation against the minister. On the first point of order, I asked the member to withdraw because there was a belief that something had been said—and I did not pick up those words. To be safe, I asked him to withdraw, which he did. The second time, even though I did not hear a personal allegation, to allow the speech to go on, it was easier to ask the member for Paterson to withdraw again. I have listened very carefully since then, and I have at no time heard any personal allegation against the minister. That is final.
It is obvious that the government does not want to hear a point of view on the ministerial statement or its treatment of the men who serve us in Afghanistan. Today, the minister was absolutely rattled. He drew some very long bows—which we will get to a bit later on. He has failed our men in Afghanistan, and today he wants to stand on the high moral ground. I say again: this Labor government has made the safety of our men serving overseas a fourth-order priority. This is the minister who rides around the world thumping his chest, thinking he is dictating to others, but carries no weight at all. When it comes to our men, he is prepared to take shortcuts. I will get to those at a later time, because they have consumed all of the time in this statement.
Bill and explanatory memorandum—by leave—presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill proposes amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act) to allow information contained in the integrated public number database (IPND) to be disclosed to authorised persons to facilitate state and territory government initiated telephony based emergency warning systems.
States and territories have primary responsibility for emergency response measures.
They currently use a range of mechanisms to warn the public of impending emergencies—most commonly door-knocking, sirens, TV and radio broadcast alerts.
The capacity to provide telephony based alerts would be a valuable addition to the states’ and territories’ arsenal of warning mechanisms.
Telephony based emergency warning systems would allow the states and territories to deliver mass outbound emergency warnings—for example, via recorded voice announcements or SMS—quickly and accurately to the public in targeted geographical areas. Telephony based emergency warnings would complement existing warning mechanisms with a view to improving a community’s ability to prepare for, and respond to, an emergency.
The IPND is a centralised database of all telephone numbers in Australia, including unlisted numbers, and associated customer information, such as name and address information. The IPND was established for the efficient operation and functioning of telecommunications networks. The IPND is currently managed by Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra). Telstra is currently required to provide and maintain the IPND as a condition of its carrier licence.
Given the personal nature of the information contained in the IPND—such as telephone numbers, names and addresses—access to the information in the IPND is strictly limited under the act.
The act does not currently permit wide-scale disclosure of information in the IPND to state and territory emergency authorities for telephony based emergency warnings.
The historical advice to the Commonwealth has been that any plan to allow the states and territories access to the integrated public number database as part of any warning system would be best secured by a legislative amendment. Legislation is required to impose appropriate ongoing controls against potential misuse of sensitive personal information taken from the IPND.
There are clear advantages in using data sourced from the IPND for telephony based emergency warnings over the alternative consumer ‘opt-in’ arrangement. Opt-in arrangements rely on individual consumers to sign up, maintaining data accuracy and currency. The IPND is a requirement for telephone usage and as a result it is the most comprehensive and accurate Australian public number database available and information is updated on a continual basis.
At the July 2008 COAG meeting, the Commonwealth secured the agreement of the states and territories that this matter was a priority and required policy agreement between the states and territories by December 2008. This outcome was achieved.
In accordance with the agreement, this legislation has been drafted by the Commonwealth to authorise access to the IPND to the states and territories for the purpose of developing and implementing warning systems.
This bill when passed will allow information contained in the IPND, including unlisted telephone numbers, to be disclosed to persons authorised by the Attorney-General. This is likely to primarily be state and territory government officials, however there is the flexibility for the Attorney to authorise other persons.
The bill provides the Attorney-General with powers to make legislative instruments.
The Attorney-General, in consultation with the minister administering the act, will specify who can use IPND information in the event of an emergency or disaster. It is anticipated that this will be at a senior level within agencies responsible for emergency management.
The circumstances in which IPND information could be used for a telephony based warning will also be determined by the Attorney-General. It is intended that the meaning of ‘emergency’ will be that which applies under relevant state and territory laws respectively.
Individual states and territories will also retain autonomy to decide when and how best to warn their citizens of emergencies and disasters. The states and territories will be responsible for developing the telephony based emergency warning message delivery systems and the content of any messages.
The bill includes a number of safeguards.
To address potential privacy concerns, when IPND information is used to issue an emergency warning, subscriber names will not be disclosed.
Secondary disclosure provisions contained in the act will also apply. In recognition of the sensitive personal information contained in the IPND and that both listed and unlisted numbers will be released, there are penalties of up to two years imprisonment for misuse of the IPND data.
The bill also requires any agency that activates a telephony based emergency warning using IPND information to report each incident to the Attorney-General and the Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA. Agencies responsible for issuing alerts will also be required to report annually to the ACMA and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Location Dependent Carriage Services
The bill also contains amendments that will clarify provisions in the act which relate to the disclosure and use of IPND data for delivering location dependent carriage services (LDCSs). LDCSs are services which automatically route calls to the appropriate store or branch location of a business, depending on the location of the caller.
Examples of businesses commonly using this type of service include pizza delivery and taxi services. Currently the act does not contain express authority for disclosure and use of information in the IPND for the purpose of providing LDCSs on a wide scale.
The amendments explicitly allow LDCS providers to access listed public number information in the IPND for the purpose of supplying large-scale LDCSs. The amendments are aimed at addressing the current legislative uncertainty concerning the ability of carriage service providers to use IPND data for LDCSs. The bill also addresses key privacy concerns around the release of IPND data. Disclosure of IPND information relating to unlisted numbers is not permitted under the new amendments. An additional secondary disclosure and use offence have been included in the amendments to further protect against improper disclosure and use of information from the IPND for the purpose of providing LDCSs.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) adjourned.
Debate resumed.
I rise to continue my contribution to this debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008, a debate which was interrupted by question time. Prior to question time I was commenting on a Facebook scam that I had become aware of. One of my staff members drew to my attention the fact that someone in the gallery had contacted my office shortly after my earlier contribution just to confirm that they too had been the subject of a similar type of scam. So it is something that is reasonably widespread and something that users of Facebook should be aware of.
I simply reiterate my support for the measures in this bill, which go to addressing this growing problem of identity theft throughout the community. Continuing on with some of the local examples of identity theft I have witnessed, those examples that have been brought to me and my electorate office, I also had another instance that involved a credit card matter. In this particular case the resident who came to see me estimated that they would have had approximately $1,400 available in their bank account as their balance. The victim checked their account through the internet using their internet banking and realised that their account had exceeded its limit. However, the details of the transactions had not yet been made available. They contacted the bank directly to seek further information. It was then pointed out to them by the bank that there were two transactions, one of $700 and the other of $750. The particular resident knew nothing about these transactions. As a result of her quick action, the bank was able to act in regard to these transactions. It resulted in there not being any loss of money for her. However, if she had not contacted the bank so promptly then it would have been much harder to prove that the transactions were fraudulent. This is yet another case where electronic technology, the internet in particular, has been used and someone’s identity has been assumed by someone else taking advantage of that technology to that person’s detriment.
Before I conclude, I want to make a few observations. At the local shopping centre where I shop, recently there has been a new practice develop when you use a credit card. Previously I always had to sign for the credit card but now they seem very intent on encouraging you to use a PIN. I must say there were plenty of occasions when I used my credit card and signed and, frankly, did not think that the shop attendant looked at my card to confirm whether or not the signature resembled the one that I had just penned. That does not serve to reflect poorly on shop attendants. Having worked as a casual shop attendant for some seven years, I have got much sympathy about the demands on those in those roles. But it does in my mind reinforce the need for having stringent controls and offences available to ensure that, in regard to those individuals who do seek to assume the identity of others to engage in identity theft or identity fraud, there should be adequate remedies available. It is not just about ensuring that those who transgress are able to be brought to justice but about ensuring that the victims, who generally have not been at fault, have avenues available to them to quickly rectify the record and make sure that they are not disadvantaged any further.
My final observation is that, talking to a local retailer in my community, he was advising me that there has been a growth in demand for shredders at his particular shop. He believes, and his opinion seems to be borne out by other anecdotal evidence that I have been able to procure, that this is because of the growing prominence of identity theft and that more and more families and households are becoming aware of the need to take greater care with disposing of documents that might disclose information of a private and confidential nature, information that ultimately would allow others, if it got into their hands, to use that information to assume the identity or to steal the identity of those people. I think that is a good thing. While this bill is clearly an important part of the overall mix, we should not underestimate the significance of ensuring that there is adequate education in this regard, to make sure that people do take necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of their material and to ensure that they are not, through their own carelessness, handing over material that makes the job of those wanting to steal their identity that much easier.
I think it is a great bill, one worthy of this parliament’s support, and I am very pleased to be speaking in support of it.
The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 seeks to implement changes to the identity crime offences recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee report on identity crime. The report was released by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in March 2008. The issue of identity crime has received an enormous amount of media and public attention over recent years. Clearly, it is of significant concern to many government agencies, law enforcement organisations, private bodies, the financial sector and of course individuals themselves. It is also an issue of some international significance, as identity crime is an essential tenet of most transactional crime that occurs. It is a significant social and legal problem. It is perpetrated upon citizens to harm their individual reputation, to take, adopt or steal their identity for nefarious reasons and predominantly to steal money.
The form which identity crime is taking continues to morph and change, from phishing—that is, looking for credit card information and details and login details—to credit card theft at retail and other outlets, to the theft of identity documents, including passports and drivers licences, and to the use of malicious software like trojan horses to get passwords and authentication details. Banks and, indeed, this parliament continue to issue warnings and say that reputable credit organisations will never ask you for your credit card details or internet banking logon details. They will never ask you for the CCV number at the back of your credit card. Those individuals or organisations that purport to be anything but what they are and that do request that information do so with one intent and one intent only—that is, to harm.
This issue is not a recent addition to the parliament’s timetable. By way of history, in April 2005, almost four years ago, the Howard government announced the National Identity Security Strategy to combat the misuse of stolen or assumed identities in the provision of government services. To support the development of the strategy, the coalition allocated $5.9 million over two years in the 2005-06 budget, including funding for a pilot document verification service. The Council of Australian Governments, COAG, considered identity security at its special meeting on counterterrorism on 27 September 2005, and COAG agreed to the development and implementation of a national identity security strategy underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement. Furthermore, COAG agreed at the time, in 2005, to the development and implementation of a national document verification service to combat the misuse of false and stolen identities and to the investigation of the means by which reliable, consistent and nationally interoperable biometric security measures could be adopted by all relevant jurisdictions. Consequently, a governance framework was set up to guide and progress a strategy, including development of the intergovernmental agreement.
The National Identity Security Coordination Group consists of a range of representatives from central agencies of the Commonwealth; state and territory governments; the Council of Australasian Registrars for Births, Deaths and Marriages; Austroads; and the Privacy Commissioner. The Commonwealth Reference Group on Identity Security comprises 31 Australian government agencies and was formed to ensure that the cross-government initiatives at the Commonwealth level relating to identity security aligned with the strategy. Together, five working groups were established to take forward the principal elements of the strategy, focusing on standard frameworks for proof of identity, security standards on such documents, a document verification service, the integrity of identity data and, of course, authentication standards.
Prime Minister Howard, the premiers and the chief ministers signed the intergovernmental agreement at the COAG meeting on 13 April 2007. At that meeting, COAG also noted the progress made to date in giving effect to the various elements of the strategy and acknowledged the value of the work in providing guidance to the government. Furthermore, in the coalition’s 2006-07 budget, the identity of Australians would be further protected with the rollout of the national document verification service. It was rolled out with funding of $28.3 million, building on the prototype service trialled during 2006. Thus, the Commonwealth contributed something like $35 million to this important element of work commencing in 2005.
This bill now forms the latter part of the work that commenced so many years ago. It will insert three new identity crime offences into the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It should be noted that, except in South Australia and Queensland, it is not currently an offence in Australia to assume or steal another person’s identity except in restricted circumstances. The fact that only two states have moved to enact laws seems unbelievable when, since 2005, the federal government has been moving in this place to strengthen the issue of identity fraud. Existing offences in the Criminal Code such as theft, forgery, fraud and credit card skimming do not adequately cover the varied and evolving types of identity crime—for example, malicious software, including trojan horses; phishing; and other forms of sophisticated credit card fraud. The proposed offences are framed in broad and technology-neutral language to ensure that, as any new forms of identity crime emerge, offences will continue to be valid. I should put it on record that I am disappointed that states outside South Australia and Queensland have not moved to shore up legislation in this area. The three offences are: dealing in identification information, possession of that information and possession of equipment to create identification documentation.
This bill also includes minor amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to streamline the processes for alcohol and other drug testing under the act and to expand the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. Furthermore, schedule 4 of the bill contains a range of amendments that will establish a more consistent approach to restrictions upon disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information and strengthen safeguards to protect against disclosure of such information. The bill also amends the definition of ‘enforcement body’ under the Privacy Act to include the Office of Police Integrity in Victoria, an office with the same status as similar law enforcement bodies such as the Police Integrity Commission in New South Wales and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland. A range of several minor amendments, to correct drafting errors in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and to repeal a provision in the Judiciary Act 1903 which is no longer necessary, also form part of the bill.
The bill is clearly supported. It contains key measures to resolve deficiencies in current legislation relating to identity crime offences. The bill also includes measures designed to improve the administration of justice and the effective operation of the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. This will bring the law into line with technology. It will ensure that there is nowhere to go for those who would seek to perpetrate a fraud—a crime against Australian citizens or corporations. The changes will ensure that due prosecution will follow those who, for their own material gains, seek to defraud citizens of their identity and therefore their dollars and cents—their money—and their form. It will hold accountable those who seek to take the identity of another and use it for their own personal gain.
The privacy of citizens is paramount in our nation. We on this side of the House believe in small government. We believe that governments should not interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens. We believe that citizens should be able to get on and live their lives with freedom, trusting that their privacy will indeed be kept private and that nothing will be done in this place or anywhere else to impinge upon the very freedom that we hold dear. The basis of that freedom is the fact that people have an identity that is peculiar to them. The theft of that identity for use by nefarious means is an assault on the very freedom that we stand here to defend this evening. The bill is indeed supported.
I rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill because it goes to the core of some very contemporary issues. It brings to mind the issue of identity in the Victorian bushfires and how that has affected people’s lives. For a lot of people in Victoria the fires have meant a whole range of tragedies, from loss of life to loss of property, and for some it has meant the complete loss of identity. That drives home just how important this legislation is. When somebody loses their identity or has it taken away from them, a range of barriers, complications and difficulties are created in areas of life that the rest of us take for granted. Going to the bank to access your funds, opening accounts, renewing a licence or just carrying out normal day-to-day business can be a real challenge.
The bill makes a range of changes and amendments that are supported by everyone in this House because they are exceptionally important. As we heard from the last speaker, it has come from work that has been carried on for quite a number of years. The bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Crimes Act 1914, the Privacy Act 1988, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, the Judiciary Act 1903 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The amendments in the bill range from inserting new offences in the Criminal Code, specifically directed at dealing in identification information, possessing identification information and possessing equipment to make identification documentation, to reframing the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act to bring them in line with the Criminal Code. They allow for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons and to provide legal immunity to the director or a member of staff carrying out functions and duties under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. The bill improves the operation of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and establishes a more consistent approach on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information. It goes to streamlining the processes for alcohol and other drug testing under the Australian Federal Police Act and expands the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. It also repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act and includes the Victorian Office of Police Integrity in the definition of an ‘enforcement body’ in the Privacy Act 1988. Finally, it includes a minor amendment that corrects a drafting error in section 477.1(5) of the Criminal Code Act.
For a person to have a crime committed against them is bad enough, but for that crime to then involve a continuing crime whereby they can no longer establish who they are is a great travesty of justice. Everything that can be done in this place ought to be done, and that is what the bill is about.
Technology certainly has a huge hand in the way identity fraud and identity crime is carried out in today’s world. Identity crime in itself is not new; it is something that has been around since biblical times. There is many a story in a range of books that talk about identity crime. Today, what is most frightening for someone who has their identity stolen is that the onus is then placed back on the victim to re-establish their identity. It is a huge, onerous and expensive task that takes an awful amount of effort and time and can be very complicated in how it is achieved. I hope and expect that the changes in the bill before us today will go a long way to ameliorating some of the difficulties and lowering the costs and time. It will specify how a person can gain assistance in re-establishing their identity in the community, particularly in relation to other people committing criminal acts, taking out loans or carrying out business activities under their name. There is a very wide-ranging scope of crimes to be dealt with by the detail in this legislation, and this legislation will go a long way towards pulling all of those things together.
The recommendations that have driven the legislation before us come from the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee, the MCLOC, which identified a range of deficiencies in the current law. The bill will include in the Criminal Code three offences recommended by the MCLOC, which will allow for victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate that may assist in re-establishing their credit histories and identity. That is a critical point in re-establishing who a person is and helping them to get on with the day-to-day circumstances of their life.
Schedule 1, in particular, inserts identity offences victims certificate provisions under the new part 9.5 of the Criminal Code Act. This was part of the final report on identity crime. It deals with the three areas of identification information, the possession of identification information and the possession of equipment to create such information. So it specifies exactly what the crime is about, and it contains measures to assist those victims of identity crime in re-establishing who they are. Schedule 2 reframes the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act to bring them in line with the Criminal Code—another important part in the administration of justice. The administration of justice offences are directed at conduct that would otherwise undermine the integrity of the Australian courts or prisons, including such offences as the fabrication of evidence, the intimidation of witnesses and the aiding of a prisoner to escape from lawful criminal detention. The amendments in this area of justice offences correct what was a drafting oversight. Their effect is to increase the penalties for those offences, with the penalties increasing to 10 years for such things as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and a range of other related matters.
In schedule 3 the amendment is in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, and it will allow for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons. This clarifies who can and cannot be delegated functions and powers, and then moves to examine the way joint trials arrangements are taken with state and territory counterparts. It also provides immunity from civil proceedings for persons who carry out those functions. So it draws in together a range of clarifying amendments to put beyond doubt what has been the cause of some uncertainty—that the director can actually delegate both functions and powers under the DPP Act. It also allows the director to authorise a particular person to sign indictments on his or her behalf and to delegate those powers and functions as is needed, and to further ascertain and make certain that immunity will only apply if the acts or omissions were done in good faith and in the performance of the exercise of a person’s functions as they were delegated under those powers or duties.
Schedule 4 is an improvement on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and is a very important part of making certain that sensitive AUSTRAC information is dealt with in the proper manner. This provides for a robust regime for detecting and deterring money laundering and terrorism financing—two very important parts of any government’s role in making certain the security of its citizens and in acting in a global fashion. But the key obligations that will be imposed under the legislative amendment are the identification and verification of customers. There will be an obligation on business, when dealing with suspects in this area or suspected activity in this area, to identify and verify who their customers are. They must report suspicious matters and certain transactions, and they must maintain and create the proper records for a period of seven years. They must also establish and maintain an anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing program to ensure that these matters are dealt with. So this bill contains several amendments to bring into line a more consistent approach and to meet the needs of AUSTRAC by strengthening the safeguards to protect against the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information.
The bill also streamlines the processes for alcohol and other drug testing in the Australian Federal Police Act, and there are a range of amendments in terms of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards in this area—alcohol screening tests, in addition to alcohol breath tests—and having a single direction requiring an AFP employee or special member to undergo one or more of the alcohol and drug tests as set out according to the act. Further, the bill repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act 1903 concerning the criteria for eligibility to practise law in the territories. This section will actually enable a person who has been admitted to the roll of the High Court, kept under the rules of the court, state or territory, to practise in a territory—a worthwhile and necessary amendment.
Finally, proposed section 7 amends the definition of an enforcement body in the Privacy Act 1998. That is included in order to bring into line the jurisdiction of the Office of Police Integrity in Victoria. The bill contains several minor consequential amendments, including to the acts of the Federal Court of Australia—the International Criminal Court Act, the International Transfer of Prisoners Act, the International War Crimes Tribunals Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act as well as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983.
This is not a controversial bill. This is a bill that is supported by all members of parliament and which will go some way to continuing to improve the regulatory and enforcement regimes that we have in this country to ensure that crimes are properly dealt with and that we have the right mechanisms in place to ensure that we can deal with people in those areas in an appropriate manner. I commend the bill to the House.
The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 is one of the more important pieces of legislation that we have had to deal with, in that it will protect many Australians, whether they are living here in Australia or whether they are overseas. It is a fact that there is an enormous amount of identity fraud occurring. This occurs when a person’s personal information is used by somebody else, without the person’s knowledge, to obtain credit, goods or other services fraudulently. It can even extend to securing a passport in a person’s name. Recent research commissioned by Fellowes, a company dedicated to antifraud, showed that, whilst the majority of Australians are worried about the risk of identity fraud, an alarming 75 per cent of us are throwing out enough personal information—such as credit card statements—in our rubbish and recycling to put us at risk of identity fraud.
Criminals use a mixture of tactics to acquire information that is needed to steal your identity and some of these tactics are very crude, such as taking personal information from a stolen purse or wallet, going through rubbish and phishing or stealing somebody’s identity online. I will address my grave concerns about that later on. Worryingly, victims often do not realise that their identity has been stolen until it is too late, and it can take a considerable amount of time, effort and energy to right the damage that has been caused by somebody taking your identity. Sometimes it takes years to resolve. Around 87 per cent of Australians are aware of identity theft. They are concerned about it but they are not doing a lot to protect themselves, or they are putting themselves at risk in numerous ways that they have not recognised can contribute to having their identity stolen.
Identity fraud costs the nation over $1 billion per year. When it comes to concerns about identity fraud, women fear financial loss and a poor credit rating, they feel personally violated and embarrassed, they feel this problem far more than men and they can certainly be attacked in a greater proportion. It is the 81 per cent of Australians with a household income between $40,000 and $69,000 who are most likely to put themselves at risk of identity theft by throwing out personal information such as utility bills—electricity and telephone bills—and, worse still, other things like credit card statements. When people are finished with such bills and statements, they very often just throw them into the waste paper basket, providing a huge source of information. Personal information, such as date of birth, address, mother’s maiden name and passwords are now equally as valuable as money. They can now be traded like currency. This is enough information for a fraudster to open bank accounts and apply for credit cards, loans and much more.
How can your identity really be stolen? As I said previously, it is a fact that, whilst Australians are terribly concerned about this, they are not so aware of how they are contributing to identity fraud or what they can do to prevent it. Internet sites are a classic case. Anybody who uses the internet will regularly be asked to share personal information to gain access to websites and to buy goods. Fraudsters can easily combine the personal information you provide to unsecured internet sites—they might get your mother’s maiden name—with other bits of valuable information that they glean about you to obtain credit using your name. All of a sudden you will start getting the bills in the post.
Fraudsters can use simple things such as mail forwarding—completing a change-of-address form to redirect your mail—to receive a wealth of information about you delivered directly to their doorstep. There is a term called ‘phishing’, describing identity theft via email, where fraudsters will send an email claiming to be from a bank, a credit card company or some such organisation that you may have a relationship with. They only have to send it out—we all get them on our screens every single day—to determine whether you are a NAB or Commonwealth Bank customer. They only have to send out mass emails to pick up quite a few people who are most surely going to be a Commonwealth Bank, NAB or Westpac customer or something like that. And they look enormously authentic. I have had an apparent ATO site look so authentic, seeking information while telling me that I had a certain amount that I had not received as a refund and they wanted my bank account details in order to deposit it. It was quite extraordinary how legitimate it looked. It is only a small amount of money; they are not talking about hundreds of millions. They say, for example, that there is $36.72 that is required to be put in your bank account. People see that as legitimate and as something that is realistic. It is not hundreds and thousands, so they log in and these websites are extraordinarily authentic looking. The next minute, they have inadvertently put in their details and created a way by which somebody can illegally use their tax file number or, worse, access their bank accounts. This is like a phishing expedition and a source of an enormous number of problems. Typically, if you click on a link in the email you generally can risk even your details being downloaded by some exceptionally clever people. Even if you open your link you can be subject to hacking.
As I said, there are simple actions like the theft of wallets or purses, but even unsolicited contacts like phone calls from people claiming to be from a bank to update your personal information are significant issues. It can include very raw stuff like bin raiding, going through rubbish and, basically, looking through one’s personal things that have been sent out. It is surprising in this day and age of recycling just how much information now goes out to people who have not been security checked but are working in recycling areas. They can glean an enormous amount of information just from the paperwork that you put into your recycling without shredding it. You have no idea who has access in those areas, which are not subject to security checks. They can most definitely access an enormous amount of information. Card skimming takes place when you make a transaction. Somebody will skim your card and it can be used to create enormous debt. It is not just the individual who is at risk. Companies are also at risk—there is corporate identity theft. By accessing publicly available company records, fraudsters can change the names of company principals and registered addresses. They can then trade off the back of the real company’s good name and obtain goods and services on credit from suppliers.
That is not the only area of risk. A company’s bank details may be in the public arena in order to encourage customers to pay for goods directly into the company’s bank account. How often does something come to your house giving you the BSB and all the other details of a person’s bank account for you to directly deposit money into? If you have evil on your mind, there is a lot you can do to access people’s bank accounts. Just by collecting information—looking, phishing and finding out about people generally—a lot of information can be gleaned that can leave them open. Businesses, in particular small businesses, are particularly at risk and need to be aware because they tend to have websites explaining their services, highlighting their own identity and promoting themselves. Businesses give out an enormous amount of information about themselves, and on their invoices they have their BSB number and their bank details. When it is all coupled together, it would not be hard to put together a process that could see a bank account entirely wiped out or identity fraud take place. We have even seen ruthless criminals go through the death notices in the papers to identify deceased people and note their date of birth and address. That then becomes valuable information for them to construct a new entity that can actually be out there as a live dead person, so to speak. That is pretty scary.
On 5 February Facebook had its fifth birthday. Facebook is the bane of my life, thanks to my children and grandchildren. The information going on to Facebook is just absolutely extraordinary. There are over 150 million people around the world using Facebook. The popularity of social networking is exploding, and it is just amazing how it is being used. Hackers can use compromised profiles in Facebook to host trojans, such as key loggers, that steal banking passwords and credit card numbers, because people give out so much information on these sites. The fact is many people use the same login and password—it becomes something that they use for everything. So if someone can find your login details, it is likely that it could also be your credit card or bank account password. In this world of passwords, we really need to be very cautious and make sure we change them regularly.
Many organisations now search the internet and Facebook as an unofficial step in their recruitment process. As I said, the extent of the information available on a person’s Facebook page differs from person to person and depends on the security and privacy measures an individual chooses. When you look at the general profile of a Facebook user, the worrying thing is that, while you can choose just your delegated friends to be able to see your information—so you can control that if you like—you cannot control your delegated friends. They might give your information out to somebody else. You think that it is just a small group of people, but you cannot control how many people they pass your information on to. It could be that they are quite innocently giving out your details. When I looked through the profiles on Facebook, I saw that some members put everything, from their mobile telephone number to their CV, on line. Some list only their name and age.
We have seen plenty of scams. For example, there was a guy with a Facebook page who started getting calls because he was supposed to have been kidnapped somewhere in the United Kingdom. The hackers then used Facebook to try to get money from all of his friends on Facebook. One friend supposedly even sent money across to a Western Union branch in London to secure his release. That is an amazing problem, and he took quite a long time to try to resolve it. That was one case of other people using private information to get money.
While looking into this issue we clicked on to the page of my office staffer, Lucy. She clicked on to a stranger’s Facebook page and she now knows who that person is married to, she knows she has two children, she knows that they have just started school, she knows the names of six of her relatives, she knows exactly where she lives—which is quite isolated—she knows the high school this woman attended and she knows her date of birth. This is significant information that we are providing, free of charge and with no understanding, to so many people. This morning I was looking at some internet stuff down at the AFP and it was staggering to see how people can use and abuse internet sites. The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill is great, but what we have to do is get out and educate the public. We need to tell them that what they are doing is of enormous concern. I support this bill and I urge a publicity and promotion campaign to ensure that people do not place themselves at such grave risk.
I congratulate the member for Riverina on her contribution to the debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I agree with practically everything she said, if not everything. I will discuss some of those issues a little later in my contribution to this debate. There has never been a time in history when it has been easier for a person’s identity to be stolen, misused or abused. With the expansion of cyberspace technology—the internet—this will become more and more the case. I believe that this particular bill before us today is of vital importance. It makes some amendments that will go a long way towards protecting the public here in Australia.
It inserts new offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995, directed at dealing in identification information, possessing identification information and possessing equipment to make identification documents in certain circumstances. Given the availability of that information, that definitely needs to be made an offence. It also allows for the reframing of the administration of justice offences in part III of the Crimes Act 1914, to bring them in line with the Criminal Code. It allows for the delegation of both powers and functions to certain persons and provides legal immunity to the director or a member of staff carrying out functions and duties under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. It improves the operation of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and establishes a more consistent approach to the restrictions placed on the disclosure of sensitive AUSTRAC information. It streamlines the processes for alcohol and other drugs testing under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The amendments also expand the range of conduct for which the commissioner may make awards. It repeals section 55D of the Judiciary Act 1903. It includes the Victorian Office of Police Integrity in the definition of ‘enforcement body’ in the Privacy Act 1988 and corrects a drafting error in section 477.1(5) of the Criminal Code Act.
I think it is important to get to the substance of this legislation and to talk about some of the issues that the member for Riverina raised. I think every member of this parliament would have been approached by a constituent who has had their information misused on the internet in some way. As I was listening to the member for Riverina’s contribution to this debate, I remembered that a constituent came to see me in my office two weeks ago. She was sending a birthday card via the internet and, at the side of the screen, there was a pop-up. It was an IQ test, and she liked the idea of doing an IQ test. She completed it and then, a month later, she received an enormous telephone account. She had been getting some SMS messages, which she did not even read. She thought, ‘Why am I receiving these messages?’ When she had completed that IQ test she had, in fact, signed up for a particular telephone program. She was totally unaware of it; she had no intention of doing it. It just shows how easy it is for your information to be misused.
As has been said previously, scam emails can obtain very personal details of an individual—their bank account, their email address, their telephone number. These are all things that can be very much misused if this legislation does not pass through the House. One issue that was raised, which I think is very worthy of consideration, is that of Facebook. I know many members in this House have an entry on Facebook, but we are quite careful about what information is placed there. I know other people are less careful. By obtaining the information that many people place on Facebook, it is very easy to create an identity that is very similar to theirs. Maybe there need to be a few more stringent measures put in place in relation to some of the websites that are currently available. The Rudd government has acted very decisively with this strong legislation that we have before us today that will move towards improving the situation.
This legislation contains important measures to bridge gaps in the current legislation on identity crime. It also has measures designed to improve the administration of justice and the effective operation of the AFP and the CDPP. It will implement identity crime offences and victims certificate provisions recommended in the final report of the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee on identity crime. I would recommend that report to members of the House. It highlights just how important this legislation is and also the types of issues that need to be addressed.
The offences criminalise a range of conduct associated with identity crime. The legislation will make it an offence to make, supply or use identification information to pretend to be another person for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, a Commonwealth indictable offence. As I have already highlighted, it is very easy to get that information about people these days. This legislation will make that a crime and will act as a very strong deterrent to people wishing to adopt the identity of another person. It also deals with possessing identification information with the intention of dealing in that information, or possessing equipment to make identification information with the intention of dealing in that information. With the technology and equipment that is available it is very easy to duplicate identification and to, in effect, steal a person’s identity. By adopting this strong legislation that we have before us today, we in Australia are moving in the right direction.
The bill also provides a mechanism for the victims of identity crime to obtain a certificate from a magistrate that states the manner in which his or her identification information was used. The certificate may assist victims of identity crime in negotiating with financial institutions to re-establish their credit ratings. If a person loses all the money from their accounts—like one of my constituents, who lost the money from a very large account—and this has an impact on their credit rating, then this form of certification will assist in remedying the situation.
Amendments to the administration of justice offences correct a drafting oversight by applying absolute liability to the jurisdictional elements of the offence, which will overcome uncertainty—and uncertainty is, I think, something that we cannot allow to exist in this particular area. It is important that we increase the penalty for the perverting the course of justice offence to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, as this better reflects the seriousness of the offence. So the legislation overcomes uncertainty whilst, at the same time, imposing penalties that really reflect the seriousness of the crime.
I wholeheartedly support this legislation. It is long overdue. It really goes some way towards affording some protection to Australians, be they victims of identity fraud or people who could possibly be victims. This is a deterrent that will hopefully work to put a brake on identity crimes but, at the same time, ensure that, in the cases where there is a crime relating to the stealing of a person’s identity, there are ramifications.
I would like to join with the member for Riverina in what she had to say about the need for education. I feel it is vitally important that people are aware of the fact that when they are using the internet the information that they put into their computer is not always protected. I would encourage people throughout Australia to be very cautious about the information they place on the internet, be it on a personal webpage or on Facebook. I would encourage them to be very careful about the information they provide about themselves. Similarly, I would encourage small businesses to be careful, because once someone has access to all your personal information then it is very difficult to provide protection. So this is very good legislation. It is legislation that is long overdue, and I have great pleasure in supporting it.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak, and I thank my colleague the member for Lyne for allowing me to precede him so that I can fulfil my obligations in the Main Committee. I also rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Despite this bill covering a significant range of topics, I would like to focus my attention on the key amendment to introduce new criminal offences relating to identity crimes, and the introduction of the victims certificate so as to assist those in the community who have had their identities stolen and been affected quite dramatically by this particular crime.
Identity crime is a serious problem and a growing problem. In fact, we are only just beginning, I think, to fully understand and comprehend the scope and the impact of identity crime in our community. As technology advances, so does the arsenal available to those criminals perpetrating identity theft. Identity crime is a terrifying prospect and an insidious blight. Victims are often completely unaware that they have been targeted until they discover that all their money has gone, they have unknown debts and/or their credit rating and reputation have been traduced.
In many cases, victims of identity crime will also suffer significant psychological distress, humiliation and isolation. Identity crime is transnational and is very often only the tip of a much more sinister underworld of organised crime or even terrorism. These identity thieves will assume the identity of their victim, eating away at their assets until all that is left is an empty facade of an individual’s identity.
In 2007, the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, noted that there can be ‘no greater invasion of a person’s privacy than the theft of their identity’. He made this comment while launching National Identity Fraud Awareness Week. I know that, following those comments, and on reports from people in my electorate, we have quite often issued press statements about the risk of identity fraud and have tried to give greater recognition in the community of the risks.
The Australian Federal Police estimate that identity crime could be costing us $4 billion annually. With international statistics demonstrating that this type of crime is growing faster than any other, it is likely that identity crime costs will continue to rise. Identity crime was listed as a priority matter in the Commonwealth, States and Territories Agreement on Terrorism and Multijurisdictional Crime back in April 2002. From that point on, the coalition government took a number of proactive and effective steps to ensure that the problem of identity crime was properly recognised and began the process of empowering Australia’s law enforcement agencies to deal with this insidious trend. In 2006 the coalition government introduced vital new measures to ensure that the identities of Australians were secure. The collaboration of multiple agencies forming the Identity Security Strike Teams, led by the Australian Federal Police, has proven to be an effective tool in the fight against identity crime and, as recently as 30 December 2008, the ISST were involved in the arrest of a New South Wales man believed to be involved in multimillion dollar identity fraud. If we are going to stay at least a step or two ahead of the criminals, the AFP need to continue to be adequately funded in order to be able to achieve that.
In 2007, as a result of a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, coalition senator David Johnston, senator for Western Australia, then Minister for Justice and Customs, released a discussion paper formulated by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee relating to the implementation of specific identity crime offences into criminal law. The MCLOC’s final report was issued in March 2008 and now forms the basis for the bill that is before us today. It was clear from the coalition commissioned report that there are significant gaps in the current criminal law which pose substantial challenges to the prosecution of those involved in identity crimes. The new offences to be created in this bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies can move swiftly to prosecute an individual perpetrating an identity crime before the identity information is utilised in a criminal act such as theft or fraud.
This bill will implement the recommendations of the MCLOC report that three new specific offences be introduced to rectify the current deficiency within the law. The first and main offence carries a sentence of five years imprisonment and targets those dealing in identification information. In this case dealing in identification information means making, supplying or using information ‘with the intention that a person pass themselves off as another for the purpose of committing or facilitating a Commonwealth indictable offence’. The second offence relates to the possession of identification information where there is intention to use such information to engage in conduct covered by the first offence—that is, dealing in the identification information. This is essentially a preparatory offence and is punishable by three years imprisonment. The final offence is aimed at criminalising those in possession of the equipment required to make identification documents who intend to use that equipment for the purposes of engaging in conduct under the main offence. This offence is also punishable by three years imprisonment.
The Australian Federal Police hands-on expertise in investigating identity crimes uniquely positions them to provide useful insight into the functioning of the syndicates generally responsible for this form of crime. In their 2007 response to the MCLOC’s discussion paper, the Australian Federal Police noted that identity crime was often perpetrated by sophisticated syndicates sometimes operating at the transnational level who rely on the ‘layering’ of personnel—that is, the people at the bottom do the running while not knowing the true identities of their supervisors. The supervisors are in contact with organisers who keep the identities of the manufacturers secret. The structure is complicated but, in essence, it would seem that those at the bottom or middle order within an organisation will be the target of the first or second offences contained within this bill: dealing in or possession of identification information. Meanwhile, those sitting at the very top of the structure, the manufacturers or suppliers, in many cases will be the target of the third offence: possession of equipment to create identification documents.
The Australian Federal Police describes those manufacturing identity documents as the key enablers and facilitators of identity crime and yet those found to be in possession of equipment such as that required for the skimming of credit card information may be liable for only three years imprisonment. Possession of such technology can only be bona fide in the extremely limited circle of legitimate credit card providers or producers. Such specific and advanced technology is likely to only be possessed by those at the top of the chain of criminality.
The offence for possession of equipment used to create identification information contains the requirement that a person intend that the ID information be used to engage in conduct that constitutes dealing in identification information. The inclusion of this intention element protects those who innocently possess equipment that may be wrongfully used. It would thus be appropriate in circumstances where safeguards are in place that the courts be empowered to impose significant penalties on those who are at the top of what the AFP describes as ‘serious and organised crime syndicates’.
This bill proposes that the maximum criminal sanction for someone in possession of equipment with the potential to enable widespread theft and fraud be three years imprisonment. I have to say this falls well short of the 10 years penalty envisaged by the Australian Federal Police in their submission to the MCLOC. The implementation of the MCLOC’s recommendations is, though, an important step in the battle to combat identity crime, but the government cannot assume that this will be all that is required of them if they are going to make a meaningful challenge to this ever-increasing problem.
It is essential that Australian individuals and businesses are adequately educated about how to minimise the risk of identity crime. That has been strongly supported across the benches here, which is good to see, because the public education aspect of this is enormously important. In this era of heightened awareness of the risk of identity crime, I was alarmed to learn that a 2008 Galaxy Research poll found that 70 per cent of Australians have not taken any measures to protect themselves from identity crime, and some of those measures are very simple. Such measures include shredding documents, regularly checking credit files and cutting up credit cards—simple measures, but essential if people are to do as much as they can to avoid their identities being stolen. Statistics from the National Identity Fraud Awareness Week website indicate:
disposes of—
… personal information such as utility bills and credit card statements—
putting themselves at extreme risk to this type of crime. Again, we need to make sure that the public understand when they are disposing of such documents that they should shred them or tear them up and not leave them intact. The OECD policy guidance on online identity theft, published in June 2008, stated:
Educating consumers, business, government officials, and the media, and raising awareness about online ID theft are indispensable to reducing risks of theft.
I add at this point that we have too often seen reports where the public have found boxes of documents dropped off trucks, exposing the public. So I think if government wants to reduce identity theft then government has to be absolutely certain, whether it is federal, state or local, that it is taking responsibility for properly disposing of records to make sure that we are not adding, through our administration of departments, to identity theft and fraud.
I would urge anyone concerned about identity crimes to access the identity theft information kit originally published on the web by the coalition government. The kit contains information on how to avoid becoming a victim as well as what to do in the instance that you are a victim of identity crime. I certainly urge the government to reinforce the implementation of the punitive aspects of this bill with a continued effort to educate the electorate on how to prevent this crime and to give particular attention to the way in which government agencies dispose of important documents which may reveal critical information about a person’s identity.
As I noted earlier, the Australian Federal Police are at the forefront of the fight against identity crime. The depth of knowledge gained by their hands-on experience in dealing with this issue should be considered invaluable as we seek to shape new criminal offences in this area. I have to say it is disappointing that the Australian Federal Police are now struggling due to budget cuts. We want them properly resourced to ensure that they can maintain their position several steps ahead of the criminal element which clearly has in mind to use new technology in the worst possible way—to steal people’s identity. In a statement to the Australian newspaper, the President of the Australian Federal Police Association, Jon Hunt-Sharman, said that the funding cuts to the AFP were causing operational ‘weakness’ in areas such as organised crime.
I would like to take this opportunity to join with my colleague the member for La Trobe, who has some knowledge on this matter, and support him in his call for the government to recognise the important work of the Australian Federal Police in fighting organised crime—work that is vital to maintaining Australia’s security and the security of individuals’ identities. Accordingly, I call on government to rethink its application of the two per cent efficiency dividend policy to the Australian Federal Police and immediately relieve the funding pressure that they are currently experiencing. It is completely incongruous to strengthen a law enforcement agency’s capability to fight identity crime through legislation while weakening its practical ability through budget cuts.
The second aspect of this bill that deals with identity crime is the introduction of the victims certificate for those directly affected by identity crime. This is a vital step in ensuring that victims of identity crime are supported in a practical way to assist in re-establishing their financial ratings. The certificate, issued by a magistrate, will state how the identification information was used, and it is intended that this certificate will assist an individual to negotiate with their financial institution for the restoration of their credit rating—and we all know how important that is in this particular day and age. The issuing of such a certificate is not contingent on the prosecution of the perpetrator or even on the perpetrator being named. Rather, the magistrate needs to find that the facts required to establish the offence of dealing in identification information exist.
Identity crime will certainly be hindered to an extent by the measures contained in this bill, but it is unlikely that it will be eliminated altogether, as those perpetrating these offences will undoubtedly continue to adapt and continue to deceive. If we are to effectively tackle the problem, it will be essential to pursue a program of continuing education and community awareness of the method and effect of identity fraud, and this will require the government’s continued work supporting such programs as National Identity Fraud Awareness Week and the identity theft information kit.
We will also need to ensure that the law enforcement agencies that we are relying on to protect the identity security of Australians are properly funded, resourced and respected. This will require the government to drastically reconsider their policies regarding the Australian Federal Police to assure the Australian people that they are serious about their security; they must match the rhetoric with the appropriate action.
Finally, we need to be able to adapt our anti-identity-crime policies to fight the ever-changing modes of deception used by these criminals. If overseas experience can teach us anything, it is that our efforts must be sustained even in the face of an expanding problem. In the future we may need to look at initiatives introduced elsewhere, such as the United States’s centralised victim assistance service, and introduce guidelines for financial institutions to prevent identity crime.
Identity crime is a contemporary, global problem that we must uncover and deal with. While legislating to make specific offences is certainly a step in the right direction, we must work together with business, financial institutions, consumers and government departments across the spectrum of government to ensure that its insidious spread is halted and that criminal elements relying on the proceeds from their crime are brought to justice and stopped in their tracks.
I rise to support the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008 for three reasons: firstly, as for most other speakers here this evening, the issue of starting to address the most insidious of crimes, identity crime; secondly, the recognition in this bill of the work of AUSTRAC and the increasing importance of the role that they play in law enforcement at both a national and an international level; and, thirdly, the issue of victims certificates and the exploration of this new area of law at the most local of levels and at the front line of victim support.
As most other speakers here tonight have mentioned, some of the most distressed constituents we all deal with are those who have been victims of identity crime. There is a silent element to the crime and it leaves people in complete shock at the situation they find themselves in. Through my electorate office I recently dealt with some examples of identity fraud. The member for Riverina previously mentioned a Facebook scam. We have also had an example, through my office, of the crime where very clever password software is used to crack into and take control of various social networking sites. In our instance it was a Facebook site. That then leads to all sorts of follow-on problems in getting control of your identity back.
We also had the example of someone who had not left one of our local towns for over two years yet racked up all sorts of driving offences in Sydney and could not understand why. They had all sorts of difficulties with the various agencies in trying to get the message across that they had not even been to Sydney let alone driven against the law.
The third example I would give to highlight the point of how quickly scams can come along is a report from this week from my electorate office that there is now a fiscal stimulus scam floating around where people are being rung up at home and bank details are sought on the promise that ‘it is the government here to help’ and ‘we’ll provide you with a cheque if you give us your bank details’.
The reason for giving those three examples is to make the point of just how quickly scams can evolve and therefore how quick the response of law enforcement needs to be. But hopefully those examples also make the point that, in the battle in information, communications and technology, the good guys have as much access to information technology as the bad guys. Password software, the scrambling software that is now increasingly becoming available, is keeping pace with law enforcement, and it is a huge challenge as more and more scams come online more quickly.
The point of those examples is also that this is an international issue. Information technology by its inherent nature has an international aspect to it yet identity crime is also a most local crime. The work that AUSTRAC does in following the movement of money shows that, even though it is a significant international issue, it is also the most local of issues. It comes down to the poker machine in the pub, the local racetrack and legitimate businesses in towns such as the ones I represent. Casinos are obviously highly identified with the work of AUSTRAC. Basically, it is ‘game on’ in all its forms, local and international, and thankfully we are starting to see some action and direction from government in response to it.
I do pick up on the point that was made by the previous speaker with regard to dividend savings and efficiency savings. If the government is serious about increasing the width and breadth of the powers of the various law enforcement agencies in dealing with identity crime, theft and fraud, increasing the width and breadth of the powers of AUSTRAC and starting to empower victims in response to identity crimes, then it is surely illogical to at the same time have efficiency dividends and efficiency savings which limit the work done by the law enforcement agencies for economic reasons.
I think the victims certificates are a fascinating area of the law. I reserve judgment, but I am sceptical about how successful they will be and certainly hope to be proved wrong. Victim support in identity crime is certainly needed and I am pleased to see that action is being taken in that area. Various policing strategies on identity crime have identified more need for support for victims of identity theft as well as the need for a consistent response to the needs of victims of identity theft. But it is a vexed question; it is a difficult one. If financial savings have been lost and if it is outside of a jurisdiction, how do you provide that support to victims? So I am pleased that there is an attempt at this in the legislation with victims certificates. However, it does raise some challenging questions for the law. I would really be interested in a response from the Attorney-General or the Minister for Home Affairs, who is at the table, with regard to whether the various law societies and peak law bodies have the view that magistrates will be using these certificates and will be comfortable in the legal issues with regard to their use.
As well, I will be interested to see whether the financial institutions will pay attention to these victims certificates. The wording is nice in that they may assist in the process of trying to regain certain elements of the identity crime. However, from the point of view of an individual who, in a practical sense, has been through the horrific experience of identity crime, the cost-benefit of going through a court process for a ‘may assist’ option from a financial institution—without a guarantee that a magistrate will tick it off and accept the argument—I think has several caveats which may prove the victims certificates worthless. As I said, I am sceptical, but I certainly hope I am wrong. If, through the minister or through staff, there can be a response as to what those various bodies, such as the financial institutions, are saying with regard to these victims certificates, I would be very interested. Also, over time, as they start to get used more and more, I think not only I but many other members in this place will be interested in the role that these victims certificates will play at a community level with regard to what is an increasing type of crime—that is, identity crime—and therefore does need increasing work from members of parliament with regard to help and advocacy for the victims of those crimes. If there could be feedback once these certificates are starting to be defined within the court process and with regard to what worth the financial institutions place on them, I think it would be appreciated by most people in this House.
Finally, I also pick up on comments from others, and send a message to the constituent body that I represent on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. It is startling how many people do not place a value on their own identity. Quite often, the issues that are being dealt with through this legislation can be avoided by some simple protections. The stand-out message that I hope we can all take back to our constituencies is a strong message about protecting yourself as an individual. The Galaxy survey that was mentioned earlier, which showed that over 70 per cent of people do not do anything to protect their identity—whether by shredding documents or by being aware of passwords and various internet issues—is an issue of concern and therefore an issue for an education and prevention message from all of us to our constituencies. There are the simple tick-offs: there is the obvious one of shredding documents, particularly bank statements and the like, as well as regularly checking funds, cutting up cards when they expire, and using different passwords—and, representing an elderly community, I know that can be difficult. However, the use of different passwords will assist. The other obvious one, and probably a good message for all of us as well, is to not put too much information in the public domain. It is extraordinary what you can find in the public domain about pretty well anyone these days, and my strong message is that it is not only friends who are looking on various internet sites; it is enemies as well.
This is valuable legislation. I do hope it works. I do want to mention AUSTRAC. I think they have an increasingly important role to play within law enforcement in Australia. The figures that they talk about as far as the movement of money into and out of Australia are extraordinary and, in a lot of ways, reflect badly on this chamber and the other place in that, as the law makers, this is happening under our noses. It should be an embarrassment that not millions but billions of dollars are moving illegally in and out of this country. And there are all the implications that go with that. It may be drug trafficking, terrorism or paedophilia—there can be all sorts of illegal elements attached to that movement of money. So the role that AUSTRAC play is incredibly important as a central point for detecting illegal activity, and I certainly hope that the government also recognises that, places great value and weight on its work and gives it full lead to do the good work that it should be allowed to do. With those words, I certainly support this bill.
in reply—I thank members for their contributions to this debate and, I believe, all members for their support for the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Before I forget I should indicate to the member for Lyne that I too have great admiration for AUSTRAC and continue to do all that I can to support it. Its activities these days are very significant indeed in the prevention and detection of all sorts of crime. I expect that its role will only become more significant as time goes by. Each member speaking on this bill reflected, properly, on the serious impact that identity crime can have on the lives of victims. That is why the government is committed to addressing what is a significant and increasing area of criminal activity and also to helping victims. The new identity crime offences in the bill and the provisions for victims of identity crime to obtain certificates obviously will be of great assistance in the fight against this particularly insidious sort of crime.
I agree with the comment by the member for Farrer that we need to be extremely vigilant and to keep up-to-date with newly-evolving methods that criminal organisations are using. Indeed that is why the government is progressing the national identity security strategy. We expect to fully implement the national document verification service by 2010 and to commence a fraud awareness campaign focusing on internet scams next month. I note that the members for Blair, Werriwa and Moreton all highlighted the important initiative of enabling victims of identity crime to obtain certificates from magistrates—indeed, as did the member for Lyne. These are certificates to assist victims to negotiate with financial institutions and other businesses to rectify fraudulent transactions.
It may be worth while for me just to say a little more about this area because it is new and it has obviously been of interest to members in the debate. A person will be able to apply for one of these victims certificates by approaching a magistrate. They will have to be able to provide sufficient information to convince a magistrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the facts required to establish the dealing in identification information offence exists. They do not need to prove that the dealing in identification information offence was actually committed. This is a key element in the scheme. The person will not need to demonstrate that the identity crime perpetrator was convicted or even who it was who committed an identity crime offence. It is not appropriate for the magistrate in that circumstance to determine whether a crime has been committed, especially in the absence of a full prosecution and a defendant having an opportunity to put contrary evidence.
Identity crime is very difficult to prosecute. Without the kinds of laws that we are introducing in this bill it is often impossible to prosecute. With the heads of crime and with the kinds of broad offences that we have introduced with this bill it will be much easier to prosecute a specific offender. But it can still take several years to obtain a conviction and the victim of identity crime requires some kind of mechanism to assist them with what are the immediate effects of having their identity stolen. At present it will take somebody around two years to restore their credit rating.
The procedure that we are establishing with these victims certificates is to deal with the circumstance where a person needs to be able to get their life together again either in the absence of a conviction of the person who has committed an offence against them or, in any event, before such a person can be realistically assumed to be convicted in a court. This is why, as I say, the certificates do not and will not depend upon the actual prosecution or conviction of an offender. What these certificates will do is assist both victims and organisations affected by identity crime. The certificate will be a piece of information that victims can present to financial institutions, for instance, to support a claim that they have been the victim of identity crime. They will assist third parties to assess the veracity of a person’s claim that they are such a victim because those third parties will know that a magistrate has already determined that it is more likely than not that the facts that will be described in the certificate exist.
I can tell the House that the Australian Bankers Association has already written to me to say that they are broadly supportive of these identity crime provisions. They raised some questions about how they will operate in practice, which is a reasonable thing, and the Attorney-General’s Department is continuing to consult and work with the ABA to ensure as far as is possible that victims certificates will be able to be applied and used in an efficient way.
I should also say that I have written to the attorneys-general in all other jurisdictions asking that they do all that they can to help and to encourage the appropriate attitude and response to this particular legislation amongst magistrates in courts around the nation. This is a new idea and we do not expect that it can solve every problem that victims of identity crime may suffer, but we feel a growing confidence that these certificates will in fact provide significant benefits to many people as they negotiate with financial institutions.
I should probably mention a couple of observations made by the member for La Trobe, who had something to say about the budget of the Australia Crime Commission—even though that was not strictly relevant to the bill. I respond by pointing out that this year the government is providing nearly $97 million for the Crime Commission to continue with its work. The ACC is subject to an efficiency dividend of 2.3 per cent, in the same way as all other government agencies are. Indeed, it should be acknowledged that its funding varies from time to time because it is the kind of organisation that gets a significant number of specifically funded projects that do come to an end. The commission is taking reasonable steps to adjust staffing and to meeting this budget, which is, as I say, subject to an efficiency dividend but not to any other measure that reduces its core financial arrangements. The AFP has a budget of about $200 million over five years specifically for the recruitment of 500 police officers. I should say again in response to observations made by the member for La Trobe that the government remains committed to recruiting those officers over that period. The member for La Trobe also raised an issue concerning the entry into Australia by Somalian nationals on false passports. It is perhaps of relevance for me to tell the House that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is aware of that issue and is aware, too, that measures must be taken to address it.
The member for Pearce suggested that the penalty for the offence of possessing equipment used to make identification documentation should be higher than that proposed in the bill. The maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for this offence which is contained in the bill is consistent with the penalty recommended by the Model Criminal Law Officers Committee after careful consideration and was indeed supported by all attorneys-general. It is the belief of the government that that penalty is appropriate for an offence that applies to what is known in the law as preparatory conduct. It is not so much the commission of an offence but the conduct of activity preparatory to that offence.
In conclusion, I remind the House that this bill contains three new identity crime offences and other amendments that would improve the operation of Commonwealth agencies, including the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and AUSTRAC. As members know and have pointed out during the debate, identity theft poses a most substantial threat to individuals and to the Australian economy. It is obviously growing rapidly, and it is absolutely necessary that government take measures to deal with it. The identity crime offences in this bill bridge gaps in existing legislation and limit the impact of crime on individuals and business. The bill makes amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill. These amendments are designed to improve and simplify the administration of the AFP, the DPP and AUSTRAC. Given all those measures, it follows that the bill will indeed advance Australia’s capacity to respond to identity crime and improve the ability of Commonwealth agencies to perform functions in that regard. I commend the bill to the House.
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 3 December 2008, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is to establish a uniform royalty regime of 18 per cent for uranium projects in the Northern Territory, thereby delivering some costing certainty to commercial operators who are planning uranium mines in the north of Australia and ensuring that the proposed 18 per cent royalty is consistent with other mineral developments in the Northern Territory. The bill will provide for the Northern Territory government to collect the royalty on behalf of the Commonwealth and will also provide for the Northern Territory judicial system to be used if prosecution or dispute resolution is required.
Before elements of the bill are looked at, it is useful to look at the royalty rates for the states. The difference in royalty rates for the states is staggering, although the way those rates are determined is complex. For most common ores, Victoria has a standard rate of 2.75 per cent of net market value, yet the Northern Territory has 18 per cent of net value as a royalty. Western Australia varies: for bauxite, 7.5 per cent of value; for cobalt, it will depend if it is a concentrate or sold in metallic form or is a by-product of nickel; for copper, five per cent if it is a concentrate and 2.5 per cent if it is in metallic form; for gold, 2.5 per cent of value; for iron ore and lump ore, 7.5 per cent of value; for fine ore, 5.625 per cent of value; for beneficiated ore, five per cent of value; and for kaolin ore, five per cent of value. And on and on the discrepancies go: cobalt is four per cent of ex-mine value in New South Wales compared to a fixed rate of 2.75 per cent in Queensland and 18 per cent in the Northern Territory.
It may be an aside, but the Northern Territory has an enormous royalty on its minerals, 18 per cent, compared with the rest of the states. Manganese, nickel, silver and zinc have a fixed rate of 2.7 per cent in Queensland—though there is also a variable rate—and 2.75 per cent in Victoria, but again the rate is 18 per cent in the Northern Territory. That is certainly a Labor government getting its pound of flesh.
The high royalty rates for minerals in the Northern Territory notwithstanding, the opposition indeed supports the bill. We understand, in current times of some economic uncertainty, that the mining and resources sector is looking for certainty in the way business is conducted. Certainty in this industry is in short supply as far as this government is concerned.
I note that in his second reading speech the Minister for Resources and Energy pointed out that uranium and uranium mining have the potential to make an important contribution to abating greenhouse gas emissions. That is a staggering statement to make considering the rest of the rhetoric the government has rolled out. I would accept the statement at face value, knowing full well that nuclear power provides a huge abatement to greenhouse gas emissions, but Labor’s policy on uranium does not hold true to that statement. In fact, I am a little unsure about what Labor’s policy is, considering the discrepancies between federal policy and that of the states. I will give some credence to the minister; he is right about the importance of uranium—about little else though, I can only surmise.
Uranium is an energy source that will be absolutely critical to the world—make no mistake. It is the only truly clean, low-emission baseload power source available. It is used extensively across the world. There are something like 430 reactors in over 40 countries. I am led to believe that over 35 reactors are now being built in 10 countries. Eighty-five per cent of power in France is nuclear, and I believe the other 15 per cent is power generated by hydro schemes, most of which is exported. I believe the death rate in the nuclear industry is 0.5 per cent of that in the coal industry. Evidence suggests that the cumulative carbon savings from nuclear power over the three decades to 2030 will exceed 25 billion tonnes globally.
One would have thought, with a government minister saying that nuclear power would make a significant contribution to abating greenhouse gas emissions, that we would have had a sensible discussion in this parliament about nuclear power. I see nothing sensible about the current mess that the government has got itself into with respect to the discussion on nuclear energy. Labor has a long and illustrious history of completely stuffing up its policy on uranium mining. We should be thankful, though, that finally in 2007 the Labor Party overturned its ban on new uranium mines after a tortuous process on the floor of its convention. So I acknowledge them coming into the 21st century.
Given that the federal ALP vice-president and South Australian Premier Mike Rann has indicated he is prepared to export more uranium to meet China’s growing demand and that the former Carpenter government’s politically motivated ban on uranium mining has been consigned to the annals of history, there is only one, moribund Labor state government standing in the way of true progress. It would not take a rocket scientist on the Labor benches to work out who it is. After one or two months of saying that they would go full term, that the next election would be in September, Premier Anna Bligh met with the Governor today and there will be a Queensland state election six months early, on 21 March. It is indeed this state, driven by ideological bias, that still will not come into realm and begin to look at mining uranium. It is estimated that Queensland’s vast reserves of uranium would increase export values just shy of $2 billion over the next 20 years. The CO2 emissions that would be saved by using this uranium rather than oil or coal power stations would be immense.
The Queensland Premier will look the Australian people in the eye and talk about how concerned she is for jobs, yet she deliberately stands in the way of the development of the uranium mining industry in Queensland. She had the hide, the effrontery, to stand in front of the Queensland people today and say, ‘We have an election on 21 March. It is going to be about jobs. I am going six months early because we need a stable government in these economically difficult times.’ Yet she stands in the way of thousands of jobs in the uranium mining industry in Queensland. If that is not some form of duplicity, I am not sure what is. May I suggest to the Queensland Premier—and I can only hope she will be Premier till 21 March—that she ditch this hardline stand that is preventing development in the industry and that she come into the real world. Mining jobs need to be safeguarded. Ridiculous policies that seek to stop mining in one state, while other states have it, are ludicrous.
What does the federal minister say on this issue of the intransigence and recalcitrance of the Queensland Premier? You could cut the silence with a knife. At a time when the mining industry is contracting and tens of thousands of jobs are being lost, one of the states richest in minerals, Queensland, is leaving jobs buried in the ground. Labor’s response to uranium and uranium mining is inconsistent. It is not helping development and it is not helping the growth of the great state of Queensland.
Whilst we acknowledge the importance of this piece of legislation—and the uranium royalty legislation is indeed supported—the Rudd government would have greater credibility if they worked with Queensland to get something done about allowing the resources of that state to be unshackled. They would also have credibility if they moved to allow us an understanding as to why uranium is not being sold to India. They have overturned a decision by the Howard government that would have allowed uranium sales to be made to India for peaceful, low-emission, baseload energy generation. By stopping the sale of uranium to India, it forces India to use a power source that emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So, rather than seeking to assist in the problem of global warming, this policy by the Rudd Labor government is making it worse. The irony would be incredibly amusing were it not for the fact that, as scientists tell us, global warming is a serious threat to the future of the planet.
I am led to understand that hypocrisy is not a word that is classed as parliamentary. But you would have to suggest that this seems duplicitous at the very best. By persisting in telling India, ‘We are sorry, but we do not trust you to sell our uranium on the same terms and conditions as it is sold by Australia to China under the conditions of the International Atomic Agency inspection project,’ trade is being jeopardised. Cleaner energy is being jeopardised. The abatement of carbon dioxide is being jeopardised. This stance will cost jobs. It will cost export earnings. It will cost investment opportunities at a time when the three biggest concerns for this country are jobs, jobs, jobs.
So whilst this bill is supported with respect to the uranium royalty program, the Labor Party across this country needs to get coherence in its policy platform. The Bligh Labor government of Queensland needs to come to the party and come into line with everyone else by allowing uranium mining and export for the benefit of the people of Queensland. This Labor government needs to permit uranium to be sold to India rather than telling the Indian government, ‘We are sorry, we do not trust you with our uranium. We do not trust you to generate clean baseload power.’ If this government is to be taken seriously with respect to clean power and uranium, it needs to have a sensible debate on the issue, and the policy needs to be coherent across the nation.
Uranium mining in Australia was a catalyst for the development of sophisticated environmental management—not just in uranium mining but in all mining activity. Early mining projects in Australia did not consider environmental impacts until after the resource had been mined out, if ever. Australia’s first significant uranium mine—at Rum Jungle—was an example of a mine that operated in this way. Many years after Rum Jungle closed, the Commonwealth funded remedial work to make the site safe and to remove environmental risks. I recall visiting Rum Jungle in the early 1980s when I was living in the Northern Territory.
In the early 1970s the Whitlam government were uranium sceptics. Rex Connor strongly supported mining the metal but viewed the six dollars per pound price as too low, and he stopped contracts being made. Labor’s 1973 platform was strongly in favour of uranium mining. Rex Connor dreamed many dreams. Most were impractical or simply bad public policy—buying back the farm, a national gas pipeline from one end of Australia to the other delivering gas at zero transportation costs. Who knew who was going to pay for the pipeline? Of course, no-one was, could or did. He wanted an Australian government owned uranium mining, milling and enrichment industry. The latter dream actually began to interfere with policy making, with not just the price of uranium becoming an issue, but government ownership of the resource becoming an issue too. I will say more about the Lodge Agreement which unjammed that policy mess later.
Uranium mining led the way to world’s best practice in environmental standards. In 1975, the Whitlam government commissioned the Fox inquiry to look at the best ways to structure uranium mining. The Fox inquiry was Australia’s first example of a thorough environmental impact assessment, although at the time it was not known as that. The inquiry found that the hazards of mining and milling uranium, if those activities were properly regulated and controlled, were not such as to justify a decision not to develop Australia’s uranium mines. The hazards involved in ordinary operations of nuclear power reactors, if those operations were properly regulated and controlled, were not such as to justify a decision not to mine and sell Australian uranium, Fox said. Any development of Australia’s uranium mines, he said, should be strictly regulated and controlled and that no sales of Australian uranium should take place to any country or party that was not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Exports should be subject to the fullest and most effective safeguards agreements and be supported by fully adequate backup agreements applying to the entire civil nuclear industry in the country supplied, and Australia should work towards the adoption of this policy by other suppliers, he said.
The inquiry was the direct and indirect impetus for a number of outcomes. Kakadu National Park was formed as a national park with considerable influence on its development from the inquiry’s findings, the Ranger and Narbalek uranium mines were established, great wealth was created and the position of the Office of the Supervising Scientist was created. The research done by the Supervising Scientist at the Ranger mine defines world’s best practice in environmental monitoring. For example, the Supervising Scientist is a leader in biological monitoring of water quality and an acknowledged leader in environmental management, giving public confidence in uranium mining.
There has been a lot of work done in looking at royalty regimes in the Northern Territory and their impact on Aboriginal communities. This work has been done as long ago as the early 1980s. One of the leaders, Jon Altman, from the Australian National University’s Northern Australia Research Unit published extensively in that area. Mining in the Northern Territory today shows little of the great struggle to establish a mining economy and culture that took place through much of the early part of the last century, but by the middle of the last century mining was not just a minor proportion of the Northern Territory economy; it was a minor proportion and in decline—from a low base and in decline. In 1951 the administration of the Northern Territory came under the auspices of the new Department of Territories. In September of that year the Minister for Territories, Paul Hasluck, convened the first Native Welfare Conference in Canberra. At this conference there was a clear change in government policy from protection and preservation of Aborigines to assimilation. In a statement made on 6 August 1952 the Minister for Territories, Paul Hasluck, summed up this policy:
Policy of assimilation and the measures taken for the education and care of natives mean that less dependence is placed on reserves as an instrument of policy than was placed on them in the days when it was considered that the interests of the natives could only be served by keeping them away from white settlement.
In 1951 the Commonwealth Department of Supply and Development expressed interest in encouraging the mining of bauxite deposits in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth government took a massive and proactive role in considering both the mineralisations of the Northern Territory and how they might be extracted to the national interest. Of course, in the 1950s the national interest of Australia had a much more militaristic view and a much greater focus on how we preserved our resources for our own national advancement than for trade. The Minister for Territories took the view that the intention of the Commonwealth was that the reserve lands were for the exclusive use and benefit of Aborigines, while no individual property rights were actually created. The effect of the reservation system was to give collective rights to Aborigines living on reserves to exclusive use of that land. Hasluck instructed officers of his department that if mining were to proceed then Aboriginal inhabitants of reserves should receive some monetary compensation for the loss of land that had been set aside for their collective use. That was an insightful position from Paul Hasluck at that time.
Despite the belief that mining development should be beneficial to Aboriginal assimilation, there were two important and complementary innovations introduced in 1952. The first was the proposal that statutory royalties exacted from mineral production on Aboriginal reserves should be earmarked for the collective benefit of Aborigines residing in the Northern Territory. The second proposal was for the establishment of a trust fund into which those royalties could be paid. It seems that the Commonwealth was willing to forgo its right to a royalty from minerals that Australian mining law had determined were the property of the Crown. The fact that royalties were regarded as compensation to Aborigines for the expropriation of minerals from their reserves for the loss of productive lands through resumption or revocation implies that royalties were intended as a form of rent.
Later in 1952 there was a cabinet decision that clearly stated:
Royalties shall be levied on minerals won from mining on aboriginal reserves or from lands resumed therefrom for mining purposes.
It went on to say:
A Trust Fund shall be established into which the royalties will be paid and applied, with the approval of the Minister, for the general benefit of aboriginals as the Minister determines, including the making of grants to Aboriginal institutions.
In that decision you see a deliberate step to create a process whereby mining was both encouraged and enabled but that royalties would be paid, and they would be paid for the benefit of Aboriginal people.
The Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 applies a royalty regime to uranium and associated minerals—thorium, specifically—mirroring the existing profits based mineral royalty regime under the Northern Territory’s Mineral Royalty Act 1982 and applying it as a Commonwealth law. This means that royalties on uranium will be consistent with the royalty regime that applies to other minerals in the Northern Territory. The royalty regime would apply equally to products on Aboriginal land, as defined by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and non-Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. It would also protect the existing rights on Aboriginal land such that royalty payments made by the mine operator would be passed to the Northern Territory and an equivalent amount would be paid by the Commonwealth into the Aboriginal Benefit Account, which assists Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. The new royalty regime does not apply to the Ranger mine because it is the only currently operating uranium mine in the Northern Territory and the royalty determination for that mine has been in place since it began operating in the 1980s. Jabiluka would be in the system should it ever be opened. I hope it is opened. I visited Jabiluka in the early 1990s and had a good look around at what was then a surgical mining operation with great potential and great capacity to generate wealth for the benefit not only of the mine operators but also of the people in the surrounding communities.
The Northern Territory Treasury under the new system would administer the royalty regime on the Commonwealth’s behalf to provide consistency with the existing royalty regime for other minerals. Additionally, this royalty regime would obviate any additional administrative complexity for the Northern Territory royalty collection processes, especially for mines that contain a number of different minerals. It should be noted that the actual royalty rate is set by the Northern Territory government and not by the Commonwealth. The regime to be introduced is a profits based royalty regime and is less distorting to investment decisions than an ad valorem royalty, which currently is the case. The NT will also need to enact consequential amendments to relevant Northern Territory legislation such as the Northern Territory Mining Act.
This bill is designed to create an efficient royalty regime and ensure consistency. This reflects the Commonwealth’s desire to streamline regulation, and this bill, which is consistent with existing Northern Territory legislation, is an example of cooperative federalism. The profits based royalty system provides a simple and consistent approach for both business and government. Though less distorting than ad valorem royalties, the profit based royalty is not as efficient or non-distorting as a resource rent tax. A resource rent tax has been applied to petroleum projects in Australia for over 25 years. A resource rent tax is levied on profits over a level defined as ‘adequate’—an ‘adequate’ return from an Australian resource project.
The Rudd government’s tax review, headed by Secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, is investigating all aspects of Australia’s taxation system, including how mining companies are taxed. According to an August 2008 Financial Review article that canvassed expert opinion on a resource rent tax:
A resource rent tax is generally viewed as more efficient than a royalty tax because it is responsive to changes in prices and costs and better rewards investment in marginal projects.
In that same article, David Lewis of PricewaterhouseCoopers defined the petroleum resource rents tax as a tax on superprofits and regarded such taxes as being both appropriate and nondistorting. I think that he is right in that assessment, but I doubt that we will ever have a nationally applicable resource rents tax regime—it is simply too hard in a federal structure. But we should aspire to have one.
This bill is also about uranium. The first significant discoveries of uranium in Australia were at Radium Hill in South Australia in 1906, Mt Painter in South Australia in 1910, Rum Jungle, which I mentioned earlier, in the Northern Territory in 1949 and the South Alligator Valley, including Coronation Hill, in the Northern Territory in 1953. In Queensland there was Mary Kathleen in 1954 and Westmoreland in 1956. The Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act 1953 gave the Commonwealth total control over territorial uranium and control over state uranium for defence purposes. An early principal task of the Australian Atomic Commission, which we now know as the Australia Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, was to locate, mine and supply uranium to Britain and the United States for nuclear weapons production. Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory was the first place in Australia where uranium was produced in quantity and for this purpose.
The Australian Labor Party has had a long history of supporting the development of a uranium mining industry in Australia. One of the earliest mentions of nuclear energy in official Labor history was the foreign policy platform of 1957, which contained the following words:
We urge that nuclear research to hasten the application of atomic power for industrial purposes be encouraged in the development of Australia. Further, we demand the protection and safeguarding of Australia by the retention here of basic raw materials and the necessary manufacturing and industrial processing rights so as to ensure this country’s self-sufficiency in times of emergency or conflict.
The Ranger mine holds a special place in the consideration of uranium mining in Australia and indeed of mining in general. During the 1970s, the Labor government paved the way for the opening of the Ranger uranium mine with the Fox inquiry. Uranium was discovered at Ranger in 1967, operations commenced in 1980 and reached full production a year later. Today, the mine is operated by Energy Resources of Australia, or ERA, a subsidiary of the Rio Tinto group. When Ranger opened in 1981, it produced a rate of approximately 3,300 tonnes per year of uranium-oxide. Shortly after it was opened I had the pleasure of the first of four or five tours of the mine site. It has since been expanded to a capacity of around 5,500 tonnes per year. Sales are to Japan, South Korea—with some controversy from time to time—France, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.
Energy Resources of Australia provides 11 per cent of the world’s production of uranium. According to ERA, the company makes royalty payments to the Commonwealth government of 4.25 per cent of its net sales revenue, plus yearly rental of $200,000 for use of the land. The Commonwealth government distributes this money to Northern Territory based Aboriginal groups, including the traditional owners. An additional 1.25 per cent of net sales revenue is paid to the Commonwealth and distributed to the NT government. In 2007, ERA’s royalty expenses totalled $18.3 million, of which $14.1 million was distributed to Northern Territory based Aboriginal groups.
ERA is situated in the Alligator River region and is the dominant contributor to the regional economy. The company employs more than 450 permanent, full-time and fixed-term contract staff, with an annual payroll in 2007, including contracts for services, of more than $80 million per year. At the end of 2008, the number of Indigenous employees was 95, up 46 per cent from the previous year’s figure of 65 employees and double that of 2006. Indigenous employees work in a variety of roles, from trainees to managers and everything in between. The company has a target of having 20 per cent of their workforce Indigenous. They are currently at 18 per cent but hope to get to 20 per cent by the end of this year. In December 2008, ERA was recognised by the Minister for Trade in the Australian Export Awards with a minerals and energy award.
It is important to consider the changes that have taken place in mining royalties and Indigenous benefits in the Northern Territory over the course of the last 50 years—from an initial assumption by Paul Hasluck that royalties would be paid purely to Indigenous people to a situation today where companies actively employ Indigenous people and pay royalties in addition to that. It is a perfect mix, and a mix which comes atop a policy matrix which has created the best environmental management, the best environmental framework and the best science in the world for ensuring that uranium mining can take place in a safe way, a well-regulated manner and to the benefit of local communities and our nation.
Over the course of the years, the Australian Labor Party has, from time to time, taken positions opposed to uranium mining. It has done that, frankly, because our community is deeply and broadly divided on the issue of uranium mining. The first big division took place in the Australian Labor Party in its 1977 conference in Perth when the then deputy leader, Tom Uren, lead the charge to ban uranium mining—and he was successful. The election that followed, which Labor lost, was an election where Labor attempted to make uranium a central issue. That was not unlike the situation, one might think, in September of last year when the then Premier of Western Australia clearly stated that if elected he would oppose uranium mining. He lost the election.
Some might say that the people of Western Australia voted for uranium mining. The harsh reality is this. On election day an insightful public opinion poll was published by Newspoll. There were 1,802 people interviewed. Forty-eight per cent were in favour of a ban on uranium mining and 38 per cent were against a ban. These figures are important, because they bring to mind observations made by the Western Australian mining minister last week. Norman Moore, the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, has warned companies against speaking out publicly on plans to start uranium mining in WA, claiming it would only heighten community fears about the state government’s decision to lift a uranium ban. In his first address to a mining conference since becoming minister, Mr Moore told the RIU Explorers Conference in Fremantle yesterday that they would need to convince the public that mining uranium was safe and environmentally friendly. I believe uranium mining is safe and environmentally friendly, but we do need to continue public education. (Time expired)
I am saddened that the member for Brand did not have more time as he went through the various contortions of the Labor Party over uranium. Dare I say that he, and the Minister for Trade beside him, are some of the more enlightened when it comes to this issue in the Labor Party and I will have more to say on that later.
I’m glad you recognise the calling!
I always recognise talent, Minister. As we have heard, the purpose of the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is to respond to concerns of the Uranium Industry Framework members. That is a process that I was very involved in previously and one which, as the member for Brand said, establishes and reinforces a framework in which uranium can be mined in Australia in a safe way not only for those immediately handling the ore body but also in terms of its storage, treatment, transport and eventual sale.
The bill also addresses commercial concerns of uranium projects proponents, particularly in the Northern Territory. It seeks to establish a uniform royalty regime of 18 per cent of net value for uranium projects in the Territory, thereby delivering costing certainty to commercial operators in the planning stage. The proposed 18 per cent royalty—and I emphasise that it is 18 per cent of net value— would make uranium development consistent with other mineral developments in the Northern Territory. The bill will also provide the Northern Territory, via the Northern Territory Treasury, the ability to collect the royalty on behalf of the Commonwealth and to provide the Northern Territory judicial system the opportunity to be used if prosecution or dispute resolution is required.
The opposition of course supports this bill. The opposition has always understood that at a time of mining’s importance, it is important to create opportunities, and uranium is no different. Currently, at a time of economic turmoil, for the mining and resources sector in particular, the framework is a way of adding some certainty to what is an extraordinarily difficult situation.
The uranium industry is in fact short of certainty, and that came about in no small part because the party that the member for Brand highlighted had always supported uranium mining but it had on occasions changed its mind slightly, completely, totally, absolutely. As we have seen, with a change of government to the Labor Party comes an added concern from those industries wishing to invest in uranium mining, which, I should point out to the House, which does not always occur in isolation from mining of other minerals. So, whilst the mine mentioned by the member for Brand, that is operated in the Northern Territory by ERA, is a uranium mine, mines such as the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia is in fact a mine that contains a number of other resources, particularly silver and copper. We need to ensure that those companies which are prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions of dollars, in some cases—have as much certainty as can be provided.
It was also heartening to note that, in his second reading speech, the Minister for Resources and Energy acknowledged the potential for uranium to make an important contribution to abating greenhouse gas emissions. That is something I would have liked to have heard more of from the member for Brand and perhaps the Minister for Trade, who has now left the chamber.
Mr Gray interjecting
I would have moved a motion for extra time if I had thought the member for Brand was going to provide an honest opinion of his thoughts on how uranium could be used more, particularly here in Australia, to abate greenhouse gas emissions. But it was enlightening. It is enlightening, it is heartening to see there are some on the other side who, though stifled, though gagged, show glimpses of an understanding of what uranium could do to lower Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the huge issues currently facing Australia, and one which the Prime Minister has continued to highlight in this chamber and wherever he goes, is the importance of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, when it comes to actually doing something about it, with a technology that is already proven, the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues—in fact, all of his colleagues—suddenly go silent or are vehemently opposed to any discussion on the use of uranium here in Australia.
Perhaps the minister for resources, who does show a candid moment from time to time and did so on Fuelwatch, could do the country a favour by sending the cabinet a frank memo in relation to the use of uranium in Australia, as he did on the failure of Fuelwatch, which, as we have seen in recent times, has gone by the way.
The member for Brand spoke eloquently, as he always does, about Labor’s policy on uranium. I could not actually see a fundamental thread of consistency in what he was describing. I would have to say that the Labor Party’s policy on uranium would be better described as ramshackle and an ad hoc mess that fails to recognise not only the greenhouse savings that come from uranium mining but the value of the mining itself. One can never be sure—and certainly at a state level in the future the opportunity remains—but one would hope that the Labor Party does not kneecap the industry again.
We have seen all sorts of variations on policy. We have seen a three-mines policy, which basically said, ‘You can mine as much uranium as you like in three mines, but don’t try and open a fourth.’ That one was changed. We have seen policies where you could have the existing mines but not open any more. Even in the Northern Territory, when I was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, we saw the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, decide that she would not approve any new mines—an extraordinary policy, I must admit. I think it was some relief to her then minister, Kon Vatskalis—who I see is now the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources—when I was forced to go to Darwin and explain to the Chief Minister that in the end she did not have to be in the equation and that, as the federal minister, I was happy to approve new mines. Of course, I would give them the money and I would consult with them. But this legislation, with the sands of time, now sees the Northern Territory as a staunch supporter of uranium mining.
That said, I am delighted that we are tonight discussing a framework which will enable uranium mining to be done, as has been said, in a safe and sustainable way. Uranium is an important energy source that will be absolutely crucial in supplying large amounts of low-emission, reliable baseload electricity, particularly for the world’s most populous nations. Evidence suggests that the cumulative carbon savings from nuclear power over three decades to 2030 will exceed 25 billion tonnes—25,000 million tonnes—of CO2, saved as a result of uranium mining. That has to be put into the context in Australia where you see that we have 40 per cent of the world’s known low-cost reserves.
Whilst we have a long way to go in terms of an open and honest discussion of nuclear power and the use of our uranium domestically, I think it is fair to say that, along with the Labor Party, the community at large have turned the corner in their view on uranium mining. I do not dispute the figures presented by the member for Brand. There is certainly the opportunity for those who wish to do so to influence those who are unsure in relation to public perception on uranium mining. Where you have a Premier, a so-called leader, speaking out so vehemently and so strongly against uranium mining, as was the case with the now departed Premier Carpenter, from Western Australia, I think the community does swing back a little, away from supporting uranium. That said, I think that we will see a growing support for uranium mining, a growing support for the sale of that uranium overseas under the strictest of safeguards in the world and, hopefully, an end to the politicking that goes on in relation to uranium mining, at least at a federal level.
There have been some standouts on the Labor Party side in relation to uranium mining and their support of it, although their hypocrisy then lets them down when they support uranium mining and the selling of it to our friends and our trading partners but refuse to consider using it themselves. I will not stray too far into that. But can I say that, in his time, Premier Mike Rann has indicated repeatedly his preparedness to develop uranium in that state and also his preparedness to meet the uranium needs of China’s growing demand. I guess, if I were close to Mike Rann—and I am not close enough to give him advice—I could suggest to him that, if he were in the mood for giving advice, he should go up to Queensland right now before Anna Bligh locks the Queensland Labor Party into a policy that would leave Queensland as the only state with sizeable uranium deposits that will not be exploited, were she to win government.
This is a position not sustained by any scientific fact. Premier Bligh’s position is an ideological bias. It has nothing to do with a real-world understanding of the resource sector or of the uranium industry or of the need to support the resources sector at a time of extreme difficulties. It is estimated that Queensland’s vast reserves of uranium would increase export values in that state alone by $1.9 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. On top of that, it would avoid CO2 emissions equivalent to the beautiful state of Queensland being carbon free for more than five years. Queensland Premier Anna Bligh claims to be concerned about jobs in the resource sector, yet she bans uranium mining and thus puts a distinctively hollow ring to the claim that she is supporting the resources sector. In fact, of course, she is deliberately standing in the way of the development of the mining sector in Queensland.
It is also disappointing, I have to say, that there are so many on the other side of this chamber who support uranium mining but are not prepared to speak out about this ban in Queensland. When you are a national leader or when you are a representative of the community and come to this place, with that comes a responsibility to ensure that you say what you believe in and what you know to be right. I do not think that during this debate—unless we have a sudden regression by one or two members, and I shall not name them—anyone on that side of the House is going to speak against uranium mining. I would suggest that they be honest with themselves, with this chamber and with the Australian people and, having decided that this legislation is worth supporting—and they will all vote for this legislation when the vote comes, as will we—they carry that message to the people of Queensland, particularly to the current Premier, Anna Bligh. We cannot afford to be hypocritical about this. The Labor Party cannot afford to be inconsistent or destabilising on this matter any longer. I know it is a big ask but it is one that is very necessary, and I would urge the member for Brand to carry the message back to his colleagues as to just how important it is to be consistent and forthright when it comes to the importance of the resource industry and every part of it, including the uranium industry.
There are, of course, other inconsistencies with regard to uranium when we talk about the Rudd Labor government. They want us to believe they understand the importance of uranium—the importance of it as a resource to Australia and the importance it plays in reducing greenhouse gas emissions—but the real issue is to not watch what Labor say but what they do. One of the first actions of this current government was to overturn the decision made by the Howard government to allow Australian uranium sales to India for peaceful energy-generating purposes. If we are selling uranium to China—supported by the Labor Party and by the coalition—it makes sense to sell it, under the same conditions and the same guidelines and under the same inspection regime as the International Atomic Energy Agency, to a nation of 1.3 billion people or more all aspiring to a better standard of living, all driving demand for more energy and all relying heavily on fossil fuels. Australia cannot pick and choose on this issue. You need to be consistent, and if you are going to abate greenhouse gas emissions there is no better place to start than India. China is already heavily committed to a nuclear industry, and that industry will be supplied by Australian uranium, as are many power stations around the world. But, when it comes to India, this issue is tied to a technicality. India has no record of proliferation. It has no record of selling nuclear secrets or of giving nuclear secrets to rogue states. It has accepted a set of conditions that are as stringent as the conditions we laid down for China, and to refuse to sell uranium to India highlights the fact that the Labor Party still cannot get their minds around the whole issue of uranium. Worse still, it highlights that they do not understand the issue of trade.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Trade has left the chamber, though I am sure he had a good reason, because I would have liked to have asked him what sorts of discussions he has when he goes to India and says, ‘We see you as an emerging nation; we see you as an incredibly important trading partner’—and India is all of that—‘but we will not sell you everything. We are happy to sell you our coal, our diamonds, our natural gas and perhaps our copper or whatever; we sell all those things to China and we sell China uranium as well, but we will not sell it to you.’ I wonder what the reaction of the Indian people is. I can guess that this issue is jeopardising Australia’s entire trade and investment relationship with that country. Not only is it doing that but it is costing Australians jobs. It is costing us export earning opportunities and it is costing us investment opportunities at a time when the resources sector most needs it.
Do not think that this ideological stance will prevent India from getting uranium. They will simply get it from another country, and they will probably get it under terms and conditions far less stringent than Australia’s. I am sure that were we to take a far more realistic approach to this we could not only service that market, create jobs for Australians, reduce emissions in India and ensure that there is a very stringent regime of inspections done by the IAEA but also ensure that the uranium industry develops internationally.
The uranium industry in Australia is an industry which has more potential than it has so far realised. It is an industry that has from time to time suffered, as I have mentioned, from political vagaries. As ERA would point out, it also has to contend with some extraordinary effects of nature. ERA’s mine was flooded a little over two years ago and a force majeure declared. That mine, like most mines in the resource industry, whether or not they are for uranium, has been able to bounce back from that, and it was pleasing to see that ERA posted very healthy production and profit figures over the last 12 months. If the industry is to have confidence and to continue to invest, and if the industry is going to be able to seek out and exploit markets overseas, then we need both sides of this House to take a practical, careful and particular but realistic approach to uranium policy.
This bill goes some way to doing that. I am hoping that, with the passage of this bill and those opposite voting for it, we will see a greater commitment to not only the uranium industry but the use internationally of uranium as a fuel which will lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore be to the betterment of mankind as a whole. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008. On the surface this bill may appear little more than a sensible rearrangement of royalty regimes in the Northern Territory. This would not normally be seen as having any great impact on the country. However, this bill does in fact have several extremely significant wider ramifications, of which I shall speak.
Firstly, there is the signal of the growing independence of the Northern Territory. There has always been an idea that somehow the Territory is a poor relation of the other states and somehow less able to run its own affairs. This is highlighted in the issue of uranium. When the Commonwealth government granted the Northern Territory self-government in 1978 there were some areas of control kept by the federal government, one of which was the ownership of uranium. This meant that royalty arrangements were made on a case-by-case basis, making it almost impossible for there to be any coherent and accurate assessment by companies as to the viability or otherwise of potential projects in the Northern Territory. Anyone who knows anything about developments, especially on the sort of scale needed with these projects, understands that the more certainty companies have, the more likely the project is to proceed. It is also often the case that mineral deposits are not just uranium. In some cases there are other deposits as well—copper, for example. Therefore, freeing up these deposits of uranium may well enable other valuable mineral resources to be mined as well, further adding to the wealth of the region, which is even more important than ever in these times of economic gloom and doom.
Therefore, this is quite a watershed moment for the Territorians. The first consideration is: what sort of revenue are we talking about? Energy Resources of Australia, ERA, produces about 11 per cent of the world’s uranium oxide, coming entirely from the Ranger mine in the Alligator River region of the Northern Territory. It is sold only for the generation of electricity under strict international safeguards monitored by the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Northern Territory has also given the green light for exploration on the Angela and Pamela prospects, which are said to contain more than 12,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, worth up to $2.5 billion. Of course, as world demand for uranium increases, the price is driven up. One source says that, after a three-year low of around US$40 a pound in early November 2008, the uranium price has soared to US$53 a pound only two months later. Long-term prices are expected to be around US$65 a pound.
The second important aspect of this bill is the revenue flow to local Aboriginal communities. I think it is fair to say that in the last few years there has been more scrutiny than ever of Aboriginal communities—how their people live and how royalties can be used to provide real benefits for their people. These royalties can be used to provide essentials such as better housing, good quality water and other important services such as education, health and community services. Hopefully, the mistakes of the past will remain in the past and this new opportunity will be taken with both hands by local leaders and provide palpable and permanent benefits for the local Indigenous population. There are also other benefits. A recent newspaper article said that ERA employs approximately 500 full-time employees, with 18.5 per cent being Indigenous employees, a figure that has nearly doubled in the past two years. The company also promotes indirect employment opportunities, facilitates skill development and supports Aboriginal business enterprises.
With the change in the WA government, local Indigenous leaders held a conference late last year. This was aimed at educating traditional owners and industry on uranium issues, the environment and native title implications. Hopefully, in the near future, WA Indigenous communities will start to reap the benefits which will soon be flowing to the Northern Territory people. This revenue flow and the employment and other opportunities that come with it hold great potential for Indigenous people. It should provide an encouraging and inspirational showcase of what can be achieved when people of goodwill get together and work for the benefit of all. As I said in my speech of a year ago, we need to break the cycle of dependency, vulnerability and despair pervasive in some Indigenous communities. These royalties could be the circuit-breaker, enabling the next generation of Indigenous Australians to reap the benefits of mainstream Australian society.
The third important aspect of this bill, and possibly the most significant, is the realisation by most members of the government that nuclear power is again being seen as the energy saviour of not just developed but developing countries. For far too long Labor Party policy on uranium mining has been at best contradictory and illogical and at worst detrimental to the nation’s economy. Its intellectually incongruous three-mines policy put the intelligent, pro-resource development members of the Labor Party at constant odds with ideological Luddites who are still carrying banners and mouthing slogans of the Cold War. Thankfully, sanity has prevailed, due in no small part, I suspect, to several sensible senior ALP figures who realise the three-mines policy is untenable and ludicrous. Their force of argument has finally dragged most of the rest of the ALP into the 21st century
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has moved to end uncertainty over the Olympic Dam project with an expansion worth $7 billion to produce copper, gold and uranium. The Premier said the mine was valued as a ‘trillion dollar resource’. Of course, Mike Rann as ALP president pushed hard for Labor to scrap its ‘no new mines’ policy last year.
There is still the recalcitrant rump of naysayers in the WA Labor Party but, thankfully, we now have a Liberal-National government there, which has wasted no time fulfilling an important election promise and opened up my home state to the huge potential which uranium mining presents. Current WA ALP leader Eric Ripper had his ears well and truly pinned back by the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, who accused him of patently false and irresponsible scaremongering on the issue of uranium mining. This is the same minister who was in the Northern Territory about 30 years ago working for the union representing uranium miners.
He was pro-uranium.
Exactly. That is precisely what I was saying. This was about the same time that Midnight Oil first started haranguing Australians about the evils of uranium.
They were not pro-uranium.
Definitely not. Those personal histories must add a bit of spice to Labor cabinet meetings.
The Australian Workers Union also savaged WA Labor over its ideological opposition to uranium mining and urged it to fall into line with current federal ALP policy. Secretary Paul Howe said:
It’s not the 1980s. Labor in WA needs to demonstrate they are interested in developing the economy of the state.
This ideologically atavistic position of WA Labor is very damaging, as Paladin MD John Borshoff said:
You can’t operate in a regime where you have to ignore the policies of an elected government for fear of what a change in government would bring—that is the very definition of sovereign risk and the behaviour of a Third World country.
Then there is the implication of the energy future for many countries, especially in Europe and Asia. There has been a growing realisation in Europe and Asia that for a variety of reasons—some valid and others less so—nuclear energy is the only solution to a series of problems.
The Weekend Australian recently heralded the return of Sweden to the nuclear family. New reactors will be built there for the first time in nearly 30 years. This is despite Sweden having extensive hydro-generating capacity. According to the report, even after the four-party coalition was split three to one, the dissenting party leader still supported the move to nuclear energy:
I am doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren.
The article noted that there is the added concern ‘about the reliability of Russian-supplied fuel after Moscow’s gas dispute with Ukraine last month’. Poland is planning on having its first nuclear plant by 2020 and Britain has decided to replace its ageing reactors and create new sites. France, which is the nation most dependent on nuclear energy—about 75 to 80 per cent of France’s energy is nuclear generated—has ordered its 61st nuclear generator. Finland is building the largest reactor in the world, a third-generation pressurised water reactor, which is expected to open in 2011.
China indicated last month that it may consider increasing nuclear generation capacity from nine gigawatts to 70 gigawatts by 2020—an enormous increase. An MIT report said China may have to add as many as 200 nuclear plants by 2050 to meet its energy needs. There is also a huge market in India, which has been a contentious issue that Australia cannot ignore. That was pointed out by Greg Sheridan nearly four months ago when he noted:
A single statement in support of uranium sales by the Opposition’s new foreign affairs spokeswoman, Helen Coonan got substantial press coverage in India.
This new economic giant has 15 operating nuclear power plants and seven under construction. India knows that the only way to enhance the lives of its people is via access to power. Currently an estimated 400 million Indians still have no access to electricity. Nuclear power can change that dramatically.
As you would know from my past speeches, I am not a particular fan of Tim Flannery and his opinions about climate—neither is the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, I presume. However, it is interesting to note that in the Australian of 5 February 2009, Flannery ‘accused Australia of taking an immoral position by exporting polluting coal to India but refusing to sell it uranium to help it establish a cleaner power-generation industry’. He continued:
Australia’s moral position of selling them coal, which is a bloody poison, but not selling uranium doesn’t make any sense.
The Greens are now the only party which is refusing to acknowledge reality. But what is new?
Going right back to the early history of mankind, each significant advancement in our civilisation has gone hand in hand with new energy sources. The initial use of fire enabled early humans firstly to live more comfortably with fire for heating and cooking and then to advance by producing bronze and then iron and other metals. There were gradual developments in our civilisations over the following centuries but the next enormous, exponential leap in the development of human society, especially in the West, was the Industrial Revolution. That advance would have been impossible without a quantum leap in the development of energy sources—specifically, using coal to make steam, which literally drove the Industrial Revolution. Thus energy became once again the literal driver of man’s incredible advances over the last couple of centuries. And now once again energy is front and centre in the deliberations of many governments.
The economic benefits to Australia of this initial step by the federal government, together with a welcome policy change in Western Australia, will also be huge. The mantra over the last few weeks has been the importance of keeping jobs in Australia to try and insulate us as much as possible from the disasters befalling the world economy. New projects, such as the expansion of current mines and the opening up of new ones, will provide the very best economic stimulation possible. This means real jobs, real and significant infrastructure, real earnings from real wealth and, most importantly, creating wealth instead of borrowing it from future generations of Australians.
Finally, there is the ultimate flow-on effect from this and other similar arrangements which will surely come in the near future. Although European countries are now expressing renewed interest in nuclear power, there is one principal problem associated with this reawakening. There was flourishing nuclear science going in parallel with the development of nuclear power in the fifties and sixties. Then, with the realigning of ideology to fit in with the antiprogressive theology of extreme and almost unquestioned green politics, these nuclear programs became unpopular in some countries. Germany, the UK and others, which had once embraced the new technology, were browbeaten by the disingenuous scare tactics of the Left to start winding back their nuclear programs. They started decommissioning nuclear power stations and basically recanting on their faith in nuclear power, on which they had previously relied to provide non-fossil fuel power for the future.
France, of course, was an exception, because it had no natural energy resources of its own. Not surprisingly, France did not want to be totally beholden to other countries for gas or oil, so the preference for nuclear energy was easy. As the French said about nuclear power: no oil, no gas, no coal—no choice. Now the other countries are coming around to their previous position and looking once again to nuclear power. They realise that nuclear power can carry them over at least the next century while new energy sources are being investigated and developed. The big problem is that, while their nuclear programs were up and running, they had the expertise to run these programs. With the winding back of nuclear energy programs, there was little or no renewal of this expertise. As the nuclear industry was diminishing, the men and women who were highly trained in this area were getting old and retiring. Thus, just when they are so badly needed, where are the nuclear scientists and technologists who will be needed to back up the increased demand for this energy?
We saw in last year’s budget the very short-sighted reduction in funding for organisations such as ANSTO, reductions which I spoke strongly against on 3 June and 23 June last year and again in the most recent sitting week. With the very welcome change in the mindset of the federal Labor Party on the issue of uranium mining, here is the perfect opportunity to see the opportunities this provides down the line. Here is the opportunity to really become the ‘really clever country’. The United States realised the huge potential for computer technology, and Silicon Valley came into being. We can have our own uranium based version of Silicon Valley right here in Australia, geared to nuclear science and technology. Instead of reducing funding for nuclear technology, what a really forward-thinking government would do is seize this opportunity. Australia can become a centre of excellence for training the many scientists and technicians who will be needed in the coming decades to run the proposed new plants. This is a total win-win for Australia. We would be servicing both ends, if you like, of the nuclear process: providing the raw material with which to drive the new plants and also providing educational facilities at which the next generation of staff could be trained.
In summary, this bill could not have come at a more opportune time. One could almost say that the nuclear planets are aligning—with the realisation that nuclear power is an important part of many nations’ energy mix, with a welcome change in uranium policy within the Labor Party, with renewed interest in funding progressive programs for local Indigenous communities and with the real prospect that Australia can become a world leader in nuclear technology. The potential benefits exist not just for the Northern Territory and Indigenous Australians but for the whole country and our trading partners. We are at a crossroads with regard to energy right now. We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend we can somehow make do without nuclear energy, as the extreme so-called environmentalists do, or we can admit that energy is the key to the world’s future, stop kidding ourselves about pie-in-the-sky energy sources and get real. Let us take this once-in-a-lifetime conjunction of events and make the most of it.
I am pleased to speak on the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Bill 2008. This bill is generally on unifying the mining royalty regime. It provides consistency for this industry in difficult financial times. As we have heard, presently uranium royalties are worked out on a case-by-case basis as a result of the Commonwealth-Territory arrangements in place at the time. This legislation will see government royalties set at 18 per cent. This is in line with other mineral royalty regimes in the Northern Territory. It will allow the industry to grow with certainty, and the coalition commenced these changes in 2005, led by a previous speaker this evening, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources reported on this issue in 2006. The committee report was led by the chair, the former member for Forrest the Hon. Geoff Prosser, and it had some great recommendations.
Australia has one-third—some say even 40 per cent—of the world’s medium-cost uranium reserves and seven of the world’s 20 largest uranium deposits. The Ranger mine in the Northern Territory is the only one currently operating; however, this legislation will apply to Jabiluka as well. Uranium moves the world towards cutting emissions. If the world were not using nuclear power, CO2 emissions would be 2.5 billion—not million but billion—tonnes higher per year. Australia’s known uranium deposits have around two million tonnes of uranium oxide in ground resources. Currently Australia exports around 10,000 tonnes of uranium—in other words, yellowcake—a year, which puts $900 million into the domestic economy and saves 400 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. So on an annual basis the collective amount, as I said, to this date has been 2.5 billion tonnes.
Interestingly, the Labor Party have got a real problem with this, because they are so divided on it. They have been running their three-mines uranium policy for many years, which is the height of cant and hypocrisy. There are three mines in the policy: Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory. In other words, as somebody said to me, uranium in the Northern Territory and in South Australia is okay, but in Western Australia it is bad. Alan Carpenter had this problem at the last state election. He thought that he could run some very clever ads saying—
Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Canning will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 4 September 2008 referring two petitions from residents of the Canberra and Queanbeyan region about the Canberra Airport 2008 draft master plan.
The Australian Government regulates the Federal leased airports through the Airports Act 1996 (the Act). Under the Act, airport operators must prepare an airport master plan which sets out the strategic planning framework at that airport over a
20 year period. The master plan is a key document that gives the aviation industry and other businesses certainty to plan and invest for the long term and gives clarity to travellers, airport users and the community affected by aviation activity. Master plans require updating every five years or earlier should I require it. The Act requires airport operators to provide a 60 business day public comment period for master plans. When submitting a master plan for my consideration, airport operators must clearly demonstrate how they have given due regard to comments made during the public comment period.
In late 2007, Canberra Airport released a preliminary draft master plan for a 60 business day public comment period. A significant number of the 122 public submissions received raised concerns about the potential noise and traffic impacts arising from the Airport’s proposed freight hub. I do not consider Canberra Airport adequately addressed the substance of these concerns in the 2008 draft master plan.
Canberra Airport submitted the 2008 draft master plan for my consideration on 16 September 2008. On 21 November 2008, in accordance with the Act, I refused to approve the draft master plan on the basis it does not provide the necessary detail to meet the statutory purposes of a master plan and enable well informed public consideration of the proposed 20 year plan for the Airport.
I considered the draft master plan lacked an adequate level of detail about land use planning and the impact of the Airport’s expansion plans on airport users and the community. This was largely due to a lack of detailed maps or diagrams to complement the Airport’s stated development objectives and to reasonably articulate its intentions for the use of the airport site to the public. This lack of detail did not allow the public or myself to reasonably determine the intended uses of the airport site or the extent of any potential conflicts relating to land use on the airport or surrounding areas.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of my 21 November 2008 Media Release, which broadly outlines my reasons for refusing to approve the Airport’s 2008 draft master plan.
I have written to Canberra Airport informing them of the reasons for my decision and given them until 20 May 2009, or the statutory 180 days, to prepare and submit a new draft master plan for my consideration. The existing 2005 master plan remains in force until I approve a new plan.
In revising the draft master plan, Canberra Airport will need to undertake a further 60 day public comment period and bilateral consultations with relevant departments and agencies. It is critical that Canberra Airport carefully take into account the public’s concerns and genuinely respond to these concerns in the revised master plan.
I acknowledge that many of our major cities are growing rapidly, which means more people are being affected by noise, congestion or other effects from airport operations. I support continued investment in aeronautical infrastructure at airports, however this needs to be balanced, planned and responsible.
In relation to a curfew at Canberra Airport, the Government considers it important to maintain a network of non-curfew airports nationally to ensure access for airlines and overnight air freight services to major airports. At Canberra, and other non-curfew airports, it is important to examine a range of alternate options for managing the impacts of aircraft noise particularly at night.
I believe one key element in improving noise management measures is better education and information-sharing through high quality and accessible aircraft noise information to enable increased involvement of communities in decisions relating to airport operations. I note that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government has recently announced its intention to study aircraft noise levels at Hackett in the ACT with the results to be independently reviewed. The effective management of aircraft noise also requires appropriate land-use planning by State and Territory Governments to ensure that development near airports and under flight paths is compatible with airport uses.
I can assure you I will be giving detailed consideration to community concerns in reaching my decision on the revised draft master plan for Canberra Airport in 2009.
I trust this information will be of assistance in addressing the Committee’s concerns. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to a petition presented on 1 September 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 3,246 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 4 September 2008 enclosing a copy of the petition submitted by Disability and Age Pensioners of Logan, Bethania and Beenleigh that was presented to the Standing Committee on Petitions by Mr Brett Raguse MP, Member for Forde. I apologise for the delay in replying.
The petition called for an increase in Pharmaceutical Allowance and food vouchers.
As you know, the Pharmaceutical Allowance is paid to help pensioners and some allowance recipients with the cost of prescriptions. Although it does not represent a full subsidy of the concessional co-payment, it provides some help with pensioners out-of-pocket costs for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listed items.
An indexation process is carried out each year, using the Consumer Price Index, to see whether there should be any increase to Pharmaceutical Allowance. The indexation process for Pharmaceutical Allowance and the co-payment has been carried out for 2008. The concessional co-payment is $5. As Pharmaceutical Allowance is $5.80 a fortnight, due to the size of the Consumer Price Index increase and the requirement to round Pharmaceutical Allowance down to the nearest 10 cents, there was no increase to Pharmaceutical Allowance in 2008.
Despite increases to prescription costs for concessional patients in 2008, individuals and families are protected from large overall expenses for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listed prescriptions by the safety net arrangements, in combination with the payment of Pharmaceutical Allowance.
Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme scripts for concessional patients are generally free after the purchase of 58 scripts in the 2008 calendar year. This helps to protect people from high pharmaceutical costs.
Although there is a difference between Pharmaceutical Allowance and the co-payment, a Pharmaceutical Allowance recipient with a concession card will pay around $139.20 a year for most prescription medicines. Beyond this, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net ensures that any further Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions can be obtained free of charge for the rest of the calendar year.
There are no plans to introduce food vouchers. However, the Australian Government has announced a $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the global financial crisis.
Feedback received by my Department during recent consultations also made it clear that the Government needs to take urgent action to assist pensioners with the cost of living pressures they are facing now.
The Government has responded to these messages by delivering a $4.8 billion down payment to pensioners, providing them with immediate financial help in the lead up to comprehensive reform of the pension system. This builds on the $7.5 billion in support provided in the Government’s first Budget, bringing new spending since the election on pensioners, seniors and carers to $12.3 billion.
The $4.8 billion down payment will be made available through a payment of $1,400 to single pensioners and $2,100 to couples. Payments will be made automatically in the fortnight beginning 8 December 2008 to those on eligible payments as at 14 October 2008. Where only one member of a couple is eligible, the person will receive half of the couple rate.
The lump sum payment will be paid to eligible recipients of Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension, Wife and Widow B Pensions, Partner Allowance, Widow Allowance, Bereavement Allowance, Department of Veterans’ Affairs Service Pension, Department of Veterans’ Affairs Income Support Supplement and people of age pension age who receive Parenting Payment, Special Benefit or Austudy.
For the first time, lump sum payments are being extended to include Disability Support Pensioners.
People receiving Carer Allowance will also receive an additional $1,000 for each eligible person in their care.
The Government is also reforming the pension system to prepare Australia for the challenges of the future and is committed to getting it right for the long term. These payments are intended to provide additional support between the Government’s announcement of the down payment and when long-term reforms are delivered in the context of the next Budget.
The Pension Review is investigating the appropriate levels of income support and allowances, the frequency of payments, and the structure and payment of concessions or other entitlements. The review will be completed by the end of February 2009.
Thank you again for writing. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, to a petition presented on 28 August 2008 by Mr Raguse (from 219 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 19 September 2008, referring a petition from residents of New South Wales requesting action on not-for-profit community based preschools in NSW. I apologise for the delay in responding.
A key element of the Australian Government’s ambitious and wide-ranging reform agenda for early childhood education and child care is our commitment to quality, early childhood education for all children.
Under our commitment, by 2013 every child will have access to a quality, affordable early childhood education program. The program will be delivered by a university-trained, early childhood teacher for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year, in the year before formal schooling, and through a diversity of settings including community-based preschool. To achieve this goal, the Government has committed $520 million over the next four years, increasing to $450 million per year when fully implemented.
Universal access funding will be distributed through states and territories as part of the Government’s reform agenda under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments. Each state and territory, has been asked to develop a strategy to achieve universal access to early childhood education in consultation with the non-government and not-for-profit sector and other key stakeholders. It is proposed that a roundtable discussion about the strategy in NSW be held later this year.
As a first step to improve access to preschool, the Government is contributing $2.5 million to fund two projects being delivered in partnership with the NSW Government. The first project, Preschool Access for Indigenous Families, invests $2 million to increase funding to 35 NSW community preschools to reduce or remove barriers to preschool access, particularly for Indigenous children from low income families, and children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Under the second project, Building Strong Connections, the Government is contributing $500 000 for 21 NSW Department of Education and Training preschools to undertake a local needs analysis to enable them to develop plans and engagement strategies to increase the attendance of Indigenous children. These projects will inform long-term planning and development of the NSW strategy.
As you would be aware, the delivery and regulation of preschool is a state government responsibility. I understand that as part of the NSW Government’s Preschool Investment Reform Plan announced in May 2006, an additional $85.5 million over five years is being invested to improve affordability and access to preschool in NSW. Of this, $25.9 million has
been provided to over 500 community based preschools. The NSW plan includes a new funding model which better targets funding to support preschool participation by children from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities.
On the issue of preschool enrolments, the Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2008 suggests that NSW has one of the lowest preschool participation rates at 64.6 per cent, compared to 87.2 per cent nationally.
In relation to the petitioners’ request that the Government extend the Child Care Tax Rebate (CCTR) to preschools, it is important to clarify the distinction between registered care for COB and approved care for CCB/CCTR. The Government provides assistance to families for two types of child care:
Families using registered child care may be eligible for the registered care rate of CCB per child if both parents are working, training or studying, but they cannot receive CCTR. Preschool workers can apply to become registered carers to enable parents to claim the registered rate of CCB. The higher rate of CCB is available for approved child care because it must meet additional requirements and CCTR is linked to this process. These requirements include those listed below. Families using approved care may receive up to the maximum rate of COB per child and, provided both parents are working, training or studying, they may also be eligible for the CCTR. Preschools, therefore, can apply to become approved services if they:
These requirements are in place so that more Government assistance is directed to child care services that meet the needs of working families and can guarantee a quality service.
I trust my comments are of assistance to the Standing Committee on Petitions and the petitioners of NSW.
from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, to a petition presented on 17 September 2008 by Mrs Safin (from 369 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 29 October 2008 about the petition regarding the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study.
I announced the Study on 3 September 2008 including the establishment of a project reference group. The Government has set aside $3 million to undertake the Study with $ I million being available in 2008-09 as an early start election commitment and the balance available in 2009-10. A copy of the terms of reference for the Study is attached.
A project reference group has been established to ensure that key stakeholders have input into the Study. The group has met once and is expected to meet again early in the new year. It comprises representatives of:
My Department is currently running a process to engage specialist consultants to assist the Study.
A Discussion Paper that provides the context of the issues under consideration in terms of the freight task and community concerns and presents a range of options including a realignment of the rail line to the north of the Adelaide Hills is expected to be released by the end of May 2009 with a view to having a final report to Government by around September 2009.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study
Terms of Reference
September 2008
1. Introduction
The local community has raised concerns about noise levels, safety and inconvenience for road users of this main interstate rail line through the Adelaide Hills and has sought realignment to the north. These concerns and a proposed realignment of the track are reflected in a report that was prepared by the Mitcham Community Rail Freight Task Force in 2007 (the Task Force is an initiative of the City of Mitcham).
The interstate track runs parallel to the urban passenger rail network from Belair and crosses over urban passenger rail lines at Goodwood Junction and Torrens Junction with nine at-grade rail crossings between Belair and the Keswick terminal. Given the proximity of Goodwood Junction to the rail crossing on Cross Road, west-bound freight trains giving way to passenger trains often sit across the road causing road users to experience delays as the boom gates remain down for extended periods.
The rail industry is taking action to address the current noise caused by “squeaky wheels” with the installation of noise monitoring equipment to monitor noise levels. Data from this equipment is utilised in an ongoing program in conjunction with the State Environmental Protection Authority to analyse and identify the causes of wheel squeal, and to develop operational solutions to eliminate or at least minimise the problem. Reports are submitted every three months to the State Environmental Protection Agency showing trends for wheel squeal noise. The ARTC will trial an alternative method of rail lubrication during 2008, and assess the impact this has on wheel squeal. Wheel squeal is not unique to the Adelaide Hills.
The Australian Government has committed funds to undertake a comprehensive study into the feasibility of improving the capacity and the efficiency of the main interstate freight rail line between Murray Bridge and Adelaide. The study will look specifically at the feasibility of a new alignment that would run to the north of Adelaide. It will also identify other options that may involve any of capital investment, further maintenance or improved flow management.
2. Study objectives
The Study objectives are to:
3. Study area
The Study is to include consideration of the current alignment of the Melbourne Adelaide interstate freight rail line and the proposed northern access alignment which is described at Attachment A. This will include the two key points where the interstate track crosses over urban passenger rail lines at Goodwood Junction and Torrens Junction and the impacts these junctions have on rail and road movements.
4. Other studies
This Study should consider other transport infrastructure studies including but not limited to:
The study should also take account of work associated with upgrading the public transport network in Adelaide, including re-sleepering and electrification.
5. Methodology
In order to fulfil the Study objectives and deliver key outputs, an indicative project methodology, which may be modified and/or refined in consultant submissions, is as follows:
The indicative project methodology is expected to involve the engagement of one or more consultants with relevant expertise in the areas of economic research, modelling and/or forecasting demand for infrastructure needs, undertaking cost benefit analysis of infrastructure projects, advising on current infrastructure in relation to appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness to met future needs and identifying best practice models in provision of infrastructure.
6. Meetings
Consultants will be required to liaise directly with the Project Manager regularly throughout the Study.
It is envisaged that regular (at least monthly) meetings of a Project Steering Committee will ensure appropriate guidance and governance of the consultants. The Project Steering Committee will comprise the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and DTEI.
7. Consultation
The consultants will convene regular meetings and briefings with a Project Reference Group during the study process. The Project Reference Group will be established to ensure appropriate input from and engagement with key interest groups. The Project Reference Group will include the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the Freight Rail Operators Group, Mitcham Council and the Local Government Association of SA.
The consultants will be required to prepare a discussion paper by Mid April 2009 and invite submissions over the period May to July 2009. Where the issues raised in submissions warrant, they are to be followed up through targeted consultation. The Project Manager will attend all such consultations.
8. Key outputs
The key outputs of the Study are to be presented in the form of a:
The final version of each report is to be provided in bound hard copy (10 copies) and soft copy (both word and PDF format to enable loading to the Departmental website).
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to a petition presented on 22 September 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 267 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning Kempsey Hospital.
The Commonwealth Government has committed to establishing the Health and Hospitals Fund to support future health infrastructure priorities. The Government has already committed $5 billion to the Health and Hospitals Fund from the 2007-08 Budget surplus. Announced priorities for the Health and Hospitals Fund include capital expenditure and renewal and refurbishment of hospitals, major hospital facilities, medical technology equipment, and major medical research facilities and projects. Funding may also be provided to the States and Territories to assist them address major health infrastructure challenges. The Health and Hospitals Fund will be established from 1 January 2009.
I will soon be writing to various key stakeholders, including the State and Territory Governments, outlining the process for applying for funding from the Health and Hospitals Fund. I would welcome a proposal to consider Kempsey Hospital at this time.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, to a petition presented on 21 October 2008 by Mr Hartsuyker (from 4,422 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2008 concerning my response to the Petition lodged with the Standing Committee in June 2008 regarding maintenance of the historic Wells site at Be’er-Sheva, Israel.
My Department provided a response to the Petition to your Committee on 23 September, with the approval of my office. I regret this delay in formalising this portfolio’s formal response to the Petition, but I am pleased that Departmental staff were able to attend the public hearing conducted on 24 September to answer further questions.
In accordance with Committee requirements, I enclose a copy of that response. I trust this meets all required procedures relating to this matter.
Restoration of the Wells at Be’er-Sheva, Israel
The issue of the condition of the wells was raised prior to the dedication of the Park of the Australian Soldier, on 28 April 2008, by Mr Leon Bignell MHA, South Australian Member for Mawson, and Mr Steve Herbert MLA, Victorian Member for Eltham. At the request of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), the Australian Ambassador to Israel, Mr James Larsen, met with the Mayor of Be’er-Sheva and requested that everything possible be done to maintain the wells in an orderly state. The Mayor advised that the wells were at that time clear from rubbish and would be included in an ongoing revitalisation project for the river and surrounding areas which will ensure that the wells are kept in a satisfactory condition in the future. The Ambassador inspected the site and confirmed that it was free from rubbish. The Israeli Embassy in Canberra advised DVA it was also in touch with authorities in Israel concerning the condition of the wells.
The wells at Be’er sheva are located in an unpopulated area south of the city. Prevailing winds from the Negev Desert make the task of maintaining the wells difficult and they are often strewn with rubbish from the nearby markets.
The Park of the Australian Soldier incorporates nine explanatory panels in English, Hebrew and Arabic that explain the significance of the battle in 1917, and the Australian involvement in the Second world war and peace operations in the area.
At the time of the Park dedication, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, together with LTGEN David Hurley AO DSC, then Chief of Joint Operations, representing the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, launched a project entitled Anzac Trail at Bet Eshel, (near the site of the 1917 charge). The Anzac Trail is an initiative of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) of Australia and will provide a route through the northern Negev tracing the course taken by Anzac troops. The project includes the development of sites and points of historical, cultural and ecological interest along the route, including with the city of Be’er Sheva. The complete length of the route is approximately 60 kilometres and will include detailed signs, trail markings, shaded areas, benches, and bicycle and audio stations.
The Department is currently seeking assistance from the Australian Embassy in Israel regarding progress of the trail.
from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Griffin, to a petition presented on 16 June 2008 by The Speaker (from 214 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 regarding a petition about the social impacts of khat use in Australia that was recently submitted to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions.
My Department is aware of the recent East African Women’s Foundation campaign, and also recognises that among localised communities residing in Australia, khat is consumed for traditional and cultural reasons.
There are currently Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) regulations in place limiting the importation of the plant for personal use. At this point in time, the Australian Government does not intend to pursue changes to regulations related to khat importation.
In relation to writing to other Ministers about this matter, I suggest you also contact the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon Tony Burke MP, whose portfolio includes AQIS.
I trust that this information is of assistance and I look forward being informed of the outcome of the Standing Committee on Petitions’ consideration of the khat petition.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, to a petition presented on 22 September 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 1,807 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
ABC NewsRadio in Bendigo
Thank you for your letters dated 29 October 2008 and 26 November 2008 concerning petitions from the residents of Central Victoria which have been lodged with the Standing Committee on Petitions in relation to the proposed introduction of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) NewsRadio service to Bendigo.
The Australian Government confirmed in the 2008-09 Budget that funding is to be made available for the ABC to rollout Stage 3 of the NewsRadio extensions. This is the final stage of the proposal to provide the NewsRadio service to transmission areas with a population of 10 000 or more.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is responsible for the planning and regulation of broadcasting services, and it has concluded that there are a number of areas under Stage 3, including Bendigo, where suitable high power radio spectrum is not available, unless changes are made to existing spectrum allocations.
ACMA has accordingly proposed variations to the existing Bendigo Licence Area Plan (LAP) which would involve changes to the broadcasting arrangements for three community radio stations which currently operate under Temporary Community Broadcasting Licences: Goldfields Community Radio Co-Operative which operates as Fresh FM, Phoenix FM and Central Victorian Gospel Radio.
These would require Fresh FM and Phoenix FM, which currently use the 89.5 MHz frequency on a share time basis, moving to share a lower power frequency on 101.5 MHz with Central Victorian Gospel Radio. The new ABC NewsRadio service could then be transmitted on the 89.5 MHz high power frequency.
This proposal is consistent with the general planning principles for these services, under which the national broadcasters are allocated spectrum for high power, wide coverage services where possible, and community broadcasters’ spectrum for low-medium power services.
The proposed LAP variation would enable the three community broadcasters to continue operating on their existing Temporary Community Broadcasting Licences, until the process to allocate a permanent community broadcasting licence can commence.
ACMA recently completed a community consultation process in relation to the proposed LAP variations. This process is provided so that all views can be considered before a final decision is made on the allocation of spectrum for particular radio services.
I am aware that there is support in some sections of the Bendigo community for the retention of the 89.5 MHz frequency for community radio purposes but it should also be recognised that the three community services are operating on temporary licences, with no guarantee of tenure and that broadcasting spectrum for Bendigo radio services is scarce.
I would also note that the Government considers that the extension of the ABC’s NewsRadio service to large centres such as Bendigo is important and that it will be welcomed by many in the community. The scarcity of suitable broadcasting spectrum in this region means that not all of the community radio services may be able to be accommodated.
The timing of a decision on the proposed changes to the Bendigo Licence Area Plan is a matter for ACMA.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I hope this information assists the Committee in its consideration of this matter.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to two petitions presented on 22 September and 20 October 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 4,020 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 seeking my response to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding hunting as a conservation tool.
The petition claims that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (World Conservation Union or IUCN) promotes hunting as a powerful conservation tool. The IUCN is a global environmental network made up of government and non-government organisations. Although not all member organisations would be supportive of promoting hunting, the IUCN recognises that, where appropriate and adequately regulated, hunting can be a useful conservation tool. The IUCN has passed resolutions that state that hunting can be-compatible with conservation and can provide an economic incentive for the conservation of natural areas.
The state and territory governments have primary responsibility for managing wildlife including waterfowl harvesting. Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have banned duck hunting. The Australian Government becomes involved when the specimen is being exported, the activity occurs on Commonwealth land, or where there is a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. In the case of waterfowl harvesting, the relevant matters of national environmental significance include: declared Ramsar wetlands, listed threatened species and communities and listed migratory species.
The Australian Government supports sustainable use of wildlife where the activity is adequately regulated to ensure that the harvest is ecologically sustainable, does not have a detrimental impact either on the harvested species or their ecosystems, is conducted in a humane manner and is compatible with other management objectives for the relevant area.
I am unable to comment on the economic value of hunting to the rural community. However, I appreciate that some rural and Indigenous communities benefit from the commercial harvesting of species such as kangaroos and crocodiles. Some Indigenous communities also benefit from traditional hunting of native species for consumption by their own community.
from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to a petition presented on 14 October 2008 by Mr Hawker (from 1,805 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 about a petition submitted to the Committee about a social security agreement between Australia and the Philippines.
Australia currently has 21 bilateral social security agreements. A number of factors are considered in deciding whether to enter into negotiations with another country. It is a pre-requisite that the other country has a compatible social security system and that an agreement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Other relevant factors include people-to-people links, the level of business activity, community and political pressure, broader bilateral relations and costs to the Budget.
Officials from my Department met with representatives of the Philippines Embassy on 21 November 2008 for discussions in connection with this matter.
My Department is currently negotiating a number of social security agreements on behalf of the Australian Government and there are a number of long standing formal approaches from other countries seeking to commence negotiations. The petition for an agreement with the Philippines will be considered as part of a review of priorities for future social security agreements.
Thank you again for writing.
from the Minister for the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, to two petitions presented on 22 September and 13 October 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 14 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 about a petition submitted to the Committee about a social security agreement between Australia and the Philippines.
Australia currently has 21 bilateral social security agreements. A number of factors are considered in deciding whether to enter into negotiations with another country. It is a pre-requisite that the other country has a compatible social security system and that an agreement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Other relevant factors include people-to-people links, the level of business activity, community and political pressure, broader bilateral relations and costs to the Budget.
Officials from my Department met with representatives of the Philippines Embassy on 21 November 2008 for discussions in connection with this matter.
My Department is currently negotiating a number of social security agreements on behalf of the Australian Government and there are a number of long standing formal approaches from other countries seeking to commence negotiations. The petition for an agreement with the Philippines will be considered as part of a review of priorities for future social security agreements,
Thank you again for writing.
from the Minister for the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, to two petitions presented on 22 September and 13 October 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 48 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2008 concerning a petition regarding the partner service pension.
The Government recognises the contribution that partners of veterans make to the support of the veteran community. For this reason, the partner of a veteran with qualifying service is eligible for partner service pension on the basis of their age five years earlier than they would be eligible for age pension. There is further concession on the age requirement where the couple have a dependent child, or the person is the partner of a veteran who receives disability pension at more than the general rate. As well as meeting one of these eligibility criteria, income and assets must be below certain amounts for the pension to be payable and Australian residence criteria must also be met.
In recognition of the special circumstances of veteran families, no other requirements must be met to receive partner service pension from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). I would like to emphasise that similar dependency-based payments for non-veteran families under social security law began to be phased out many years ago. Non-veteran families claiming an income support payment under social security law must meet additional requirements.
The 2008 Budget included a measure to cease partner service pension for all partners who had separated from their veteran spouse. The pension was to cease from the earlier of twelve months after the date of separation, or from when the veteran commenced a new de facto relationship. The measure was to commence on 1 January 2009. It should be noted that, where a couple is recognised as being separated due to illness, the partner retains their eligibility for partner service pension.
Prior to introducing the legislation into Parliament, approval was obtained to provide an exemption for separated partners who have reached age pension age (currently 63.5 years for females and 65 years for males) by the time twelve months have passed since separating from the veteran. Generally, these partners would have been eligible for age pension under the social security law at the same rate of payment. Thus, in recognition of the age of this group, and the administrative effort required in transferring this group to age pension for a cost neutral outcome in administered expenditure, it was considered to be appropriate to exempt them from this measure.
The partner service pension measure was passed by the Parliament on 1 December 2008, with three important modifications to the original legislation, and received Royal Assent on 9 December 2008.
Firstly, implementation has been delayed by six months so that it will now commence on 1 July 2009. The delay is to ensure that those affected have adequate notification and time to adjust their circumstances.
Secondly, separated partners will retain eligibility for the full twelve months after separation even if the veteran commences a new de facto relationship. This means that all partner service pensioners will benefit from the full twelve month period of grace after a partner separates from a veteran. The twelve month period of grace gives the partner time to adjust their circumstances and arrange for alternative sources of income, whether through workforce participation, or through income support payments under social security law. The change also ensures that a separated partner’s eligibility for partner service pension is based solely on their own circumstances rather than on the circumstances of their former spouse.
Thirdly, an exemption will apply to those partners who have not reached age pension age but who separated due to an unsafe or abusive domestic environment for them or their children, where the veteran has an accepted mental health condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This is in recognition of the extreme trauma often experienced by those in a violent or abusive relationship and the difficulties they face in re-establishing themselves on leaving the relationship.
There are-up to 580 separated partners who will be affected by the changes to partner service pension on 1 July 2009.
I would like to emphasise that the twelve month period of grace is unique for income support payments in the Australian welfare system. All other income support payments cease immediately when eligibility criteria cease to be met. In this case, the period of grace is further recognition of the contribution that partners have made to the support and well-being of their veteran partner.
The changed eligibility criteria for partner service pension reflect current community expectations regarding eligibility for taxpayer funded income support payments. There are no plans to create a new category of service pension as requested by the petitioners.
Thank you for referring this petition to me for comment.
from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Griffin, to a petition presented on 13 October 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 30 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 3 November 2008, concerning a petition presented by the Member for Riverina, Mrs Kay Hull MP, for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions, in regards to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Museum at RAAF Wagga.
I am pleased to advise that positive progress is being made towards satisfying the requests of the petitioners for the refurbishment of the building and for the museum to be reopened.
The Director of Air Force Heritage met with the Mayor of Wagga Wagga and several of his Council staff early in November to discuss a number of options. Initial agreement with the Mayor has been reached and Air Force will further consult with the Wagga Wagga City Council and the local community regarding the development, opening and maintenance of an Air Force heritage display at RAAF Wagga. The new display will utilise the previous museum building at the entrance to the Base, which has some minor safety and cosmetic work still to be completed. Defence has approved the re-allocation of funds towards the completion of the building so that it is suitable for housing the display. Depending upon the availability of local contractors, the refurbishment of the building may be completed by the end of February 2009.
On 24 November 2008, the RAAF Heritage Advisory Council endorsed the proposal as developed with the Wagga Wagga City Council. I am pleased to note that the Federal Member for Riverina, Mrs Kay Hull MP, has agreed to play a central role in the engagement with members of her community to develop and implement plans to open and manage a display of Air Force heritage items at RAAF Wagga. I expect initial engagement with the community to start early in the New Year, and that a timeline for opening of the display will be agreed with the community.
I hope this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, Dr Kelly, to a petition presented on 16 October 2008 by Mrs Hull (from 2,713 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 4 December 2008 about a petition forwarded to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions regarding an election commitment by the Coalition for passing lanes on the Bucketts Way. I apologise for the delay in replying.
Since 2002 the Australian Government has provided around $24 million towards road improvements along Bucketts Way under the former Roads of National Importance Program and the AusLink Strategic Regional Program.
The Australian Government provides considerable funding to local councils for them to use on roads at their discretion. In addition, councils may also choose to utilise their allocation of the Australian Government’s Local Government Financial Assistance Grants towards road funding as this grant is untied, Bucketts Way travels through four Local Government areas, Gloucester, Port Stephens, Great Lakes and Greater Taree Councils. For the 2008-09 financial year, these councils will receive a combined total of $ 18,208,689 in Financial Assistance Grants.
In addition, you will be aware that recently the Australian Parliament passed legislation that will provide councils and shires with more resources to maintain and improve local roads across Australia. The legislation will provide extra road funding to local governments by extending the Roads to Recovery Program for another five years until 2014 and increasing the program’s funding from $300 million to $350 million each year.
The local Councils in the area may also wish to contact the Hon Michael Daley MP, NSW Minister for Roads, seeking NSW Government funding towards this project, as Bucketts Way is classified as a regional road and as such is eligible for NSW Government funding which has been provided previously for the upgrade of this road.
Thank you for raising this matter.
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to a petition presented on 4 December 2008 by Mr Baldwin (from 1,344 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 4 December 2008 about the petition by the residents of Greenway to the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives concerning the intersection of Old Pitt Town Road and Boundary Road and their request for the Australian Government to commit funding for the upgrade of the road.
The intersection of Old Pitt Road and Boundary Road, Oakville has been nominated by the Baulkham Hill Shire and Hawkesbury City Council as part of the 2009-10 NSW Black Spot Program. The NSW Black Spot Consultative Panel met on
8 December 2008 to consider nominations for 2009-10. Projects recommended by the Panel will shortly be submitted for my consideration and approval. I will take the petitioners support for this proposal into account when considering the projects put forward by the NSW Consultative Panel.
Thank you for raising this matter.
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to a petition presented on 1 December 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 1,607 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter dated 26 November 2008 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning a petition on the persecution of Christians in Iraq.
The Australian Government has continuing concerns about the persecution of Christian and other minority groups in Iraq. Despite significant improvements in the security situation in Iraq, there are still instances of sectarian violence that are causing the displacement of families and communities.
Australia condemns all incidences of human rights violations against religious minorities. Through our Embassy in Baghdad, the Government has been active in bringing its concerns to the attention of the Iraqi Government. I also raised Australia’s concerns about the protection of human rights in Iraq when I met the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, in Baghdad in June 2008. The Government continues to monitor human rights in Iraq, including the persecution of Christian and other minority groups, and has instructed the Australian Embassy in Baghdad to make high-level representations on the matter at every appropriate opportunity.
On 19 December 2008 I announced that the Australian Government would provide $1 million to assist Christian and other minority groups in Ninewa Province, Northern Iraq, who have been the victims of recent outbreaks of sectarian violence. That assistance will be provided through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Medical Corps (MC). It will fund emergency provisions, medical support, reconstruction efforts and the tracking of families who have fled into neighbouring countries. This funding brings the total humanitarian assistance provided by the Australian Government to Ninewa Province to $3 million. Australia is already providing $2 million through the MC to assist Iraqis in Ninewa Province who have suffered from violence. This funding is going towards emergency medical training, women’s centres and mental health services for primary school age children.
Australia is also providing funding to assist vulnerable and displaced Iraqis more generally, to be delivered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This is part of Australia’s overall assistance program to Iraq, worth $165 million over the next three years.
As a further measure, in July 2008 the Government announced an increase of 500 places to Australia’s humanitarian immigration program in 2008-09 specifically for Iraqis. In this regard I note that you have also written to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
Thank you for referring this petition to me.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 24 November 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 4,414 citizens)
Mrs Irwin
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2008 seeking my response to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the environmental impact of human activity.
The petition expresses concerns that biological systems critical to human needs are adversely affected by human activity. It calls for Australia to increase its efforts to reduce negative environmental impacts and to work with other nations to reduce human reproduction and to decrease global per capita adverse environmental impacts.
I agree that a growing population and an expanding economy put increased pressure on natural resources, if the rate at which we consume resources and cause other environmental impacts continues unabated. However, I do not consider that a stable population is necessary to achieve long-term environmental sustainability.
The Australian Government believes that the key to achieving a sustainable future is to take decisive steps to tackle major problem areas like water resources and carbon emissions and more broadly to pursue policies which decouple economic growth from environmental impacts.
The single biggest action the Government will take to de-link population and economic activity from carbon emissions is to implement our election commitment to introduce an emissions trading scheme that will place a limit, or a “cap” on the emissions which can be produced in Australia. Emissions trading is central to achieving the Government’s goal of reducing Australia’s greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
The Government understands that climate change is a major threat and that for much of Australia, it means more droughts and less rain. We can - and we must - make better use of our available water resources. This means improved efficiency and productivity of water use. In our towns and cities, we must secure water supplies for current and future needs, including from a range of new sources that rely less on rainfall given the clear threat climate change poses to traditional water sources.
These reasons underpin the announcement by my colleague the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, of the Government’s $12.9 billion investment over 10 years in Water for the Future. Water for the Future is the Government’s strategy to secure the long term water supply of all Australians. Details can be found at; www.environment.gov.au/watedindex.html.
In April 2008 I launched the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s report of Australia’s Environmental Performance Review. The review assesses environmental management efforts at national, state, territory and local government levels and indicates cause for optimism regarding the consumption of materials per unit of Gross Domestic Product, which have declined by about 20 per cent since 1990. The per capita water consumption has reduced by 21 per cent in major urban areas over a 25 year period. The conclusions and recommendations are based on three broad themes: Environmental Management, Towards Sustainable Development; and International commitments and co-operation. If the Committee is interested in examining the report, the conclusions and recommendations are at;
www.environment.gov.au/about/international/oecd/publications/pubs/oecd-review08.pdf.
The Government takes the issue of population size and growth seriously. The petition implicitly raises the complex issue of sustainable population levels. Although I am unable to comment on reducing human reproduction on a global scale, the Government is committed to ensuring that changes to the Australian population are socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
You may be aware that population growth and wider sustainability issues were discussed at the recent Australia 2020 Summit and the Government is currently considering its response to ideas raised at the Summit. The final report addressing the issues of population, sustainability, climate change, water and the future of our cities is at; www.australia2020,dov.au/final report/index.cfm.
Thank you for referring this petition to me for response.
from the Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to a petition presented on 24 November 2008 by Mrs Irwin (from 7 citizens)
In the time remaining to me this evening, I would like to notify the House of some of the upcoming activities of the Standing Committee on Petitions. As part of its rolling program of hearings into petitions presented, the committee will be inviting officials from three government departments to attend a public hearing this Wednesday here in Canberra. Officials will be in attendance from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. On Monday, 23 March the committee intends to visit the Central Coast, where arrangements are being made to speak with petitioners from the area and from further afield in New South Wales.
On Monday, 30 March the committee intends to travel to Brisbane, where it will take the opportunity to speak with petitioners from Queensland as well as to the clerk and officials from the Queensland parliament about the system for receiving electronic petitions which is currently being used in that state. As part of this committee’s inquiry into electronic petitions for the House of Representatives, we have been receiving evidence on and exploring ideas of how an electronic petitions system might be adapted or developed for our own parliament. I look forward to being able to advise the House in more detail on these and other developments in the near future.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee’s report, Report into state law enforcement integrity models, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I am very pleased to speak to the tabling of the report of the inquiry into state law enforcement integrity models conducted by the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. As the committee chair, I will begin by thanking the deputy chair, Senator Johnston, and my fellow committee members for their work. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who appeared before the committee or who made submissions to the inquiry—and especially those who took the time to do both. On behalf of the committee I also thank the secretariat and support staff for their diligence, professionalism and good humour.
The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, or ACLEI, commenced operation on 30 December 2006 under the stewardship of John McMillan, who was the first Integrity Commissioner, and it has continued to develop through the committed leadership of the current commissioner, Phillip Moss. I take this opportunity to thank both Mr McMillan and Mr Moss for their work in that role and for their contributions to the inquiry.
ACLEI was created to provide oversight of the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies—namely, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. ACLEI was not created in response to evidence of misconduct or corruption in those agencies, but rather as a sensible addition to the national integrity and anticorruption architecture, which is an important feature of our democracy. It was always contemplated that ACLEI would develop and expand from its initial form. For this reason, the parliamentary committee’s first inquiry sought to consider state anticorruption agencies that stand as models of this kind of organisation.
As the report makes clear, the various state based organisations present a range of anticorruption models. The agencies in question came into existence out of varying circumstances and they were designed to fit within differing law enforcement and public service oversight environments. It was through the evident contrasts and commonalities that emerged in the inquiry that the committee was able to consider ACLEI from a number of important perspectives, which include the committee’s consideration of ACLEI’s current scope, jurisdiction and function. The considerations in this area went to the merit of agencies that have a specific law enforcement brief—as ACLEI does—in contrast to agencies with a broader public service integrity jurisdiction and role. Consideration was, first, given to ACLEI’s potential to provide oversight of other Commonwealth agencies which have some law enforcement functions and to the issue of ACLEI’s prevention and education role. Second, consideration was given to the question of the funding and resources, both in terms of ACLEI’s existing operational needs and in terms of the resources necessary to allow ACLEI to expand and evolve. Third, the committee considered various issues related to the technical and practical necessities of ACLEI’s current and future operation. Fourth, the committee considered the role of a parliamentary or integrity inspector in relation to anticorruption agencies.
As a relatively new parliamentarian, can I say that the committee process and its outcomes are, in my experience, one of the most substantial and rewarding aspects of parliamentary work. It is understandable that the executive and legislative functions of the parliament, along with the adversarial nature of party politics, receive most of the public and media attention, yet the committee system, with its capacity to incorporate cross-party views and to draw on the collaborative work of parliamentarians who represent different views and different constituencies, is a part of our system of government that deserves more credit. I am not the first person to observe that there is a review and maintenance function exercised by the committee system that is too often overlooked and almost certainly underregarded.
The committee’s first report is an important first step in the committee’s review and advisory role with respect to ACLEI. I look forward to the further work that lies within the scope of the next inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
Does the member for Fremantle wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee’s report entitled Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I am pleased to speak to the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on the statutory oversight of ASIC. I would like to thank the secretariat for their work on this report as well as ASIC officials for their ongoing cooperation with the committee and their participation at the committee’s public hearing on 28 November last year. I also want to thank all the members of the committee for their hard and diligent work.
The report covers a number of regulatory issues stemming from the financial crisis, including the short selling ban and hardship exemptions for frozen mortgage fund redemptions. The committee also continued its interest in financial market regulation, ASIC’s restructure, superannuation issues and financial literacy.
Short selling
Last year’s temporary ban on all short selling, and the proposed new disclosure regime for covered short selling, was the most significant issue discussed at the hearing. ASIC told the committee that it implemented the ban to provide a circuit-breaker during the height of the share market turmoil. It is hoped that the new disclosure regime for short selling will help the regulator identify those who profit from short selling during chaotic trading periods through false market rumours and insider trading. The committee also welcomes ASIC’s involvement with other national regulators to achieve an internationally consistent approach to regulating short selling.
Freeze on redemptions
A freeze on redemptions from cash management and mortgage trust funds following the announcement of the bank deposit guarantee has left many people without access to their savings. ASIC told the committee that 52 mortgage trusts had frozen redemptions, and the regulator has responsibility for administering hardship relief by the funds to eligible applicants. The committee will continue to monitor the effects of the bank deposit guarantee on this sector and the administration of hardship payments where they are needed.
Financial market regulation
Insider trading, false rumours and market manipulation continue to be of concern for us as a committee. ASIC has increased the number of investigations it is conducting in this area, although the difficulty of proving these activities makes it a difficult task. Initiatives such as ASIC’s Project Mint and the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee’s investigation of overseas approaches are important steps in tackling these issues.
ASIC review and restructure
The implementation of ASIC’s restructure had almost been completed when we met in November, including senior executive appointments. Recruitment has apparently been made easier by the financial crisis and job insecurity in the private sector. The external advisory panel had not yet been appointed though. ASIC emphasised to us the importance of bringing cultural change to the organisation and getting staff to think about the market, rather than process. The committee supports these changes within ASIC.
Superannuation
The provision of projections to members of super funds continues to trouble ASIC. The funds are currently not permitted to provide projections because of the personal advice provisions in the Corporations Act, restricting an important source of guidance when members are calculating their contributions level. Although the committee understands the risks with super funds offering projected retirement benefits, particularly in current circumstances, the situation is preventing members from making informed decisions about their retirement income. ASIC should press for reform in this area as a matter of urgency. As we understand it, ASIC is doing work in that area.
Financial literacy
Finally, improving the financial literacy of Australians was discussed at our hearing with ASIC. The committee strongly believes that financial literacy is crucial to minimising the harm done by investment scheme collapses and other financial products likely to cause financial hardship. The recent collapse of Storm Financial has highlighted the need for investors to better understand the character of the products they invest in. The committee has again urged ASIC to do more in the mainstream press to warn consumers about investment pitfalls.
It continues to be the case that ASIC plays an essential role in providing confidence as well as regulation to the markets. It is also essential that people who invest in Australian financial products understand the rules by which ASIC can apply pressure to organisations and financial institutions. The message of the committee to ASIC and to other people involved in financial products and services is to use the lessons that are being learnt from the global financial crisis to provide better governance and put better structures in place. I commend ASIC for the work it is doing but ask it to continue its efforts to improve the systems it has in place and its vigilance over financial systems and products to make sure consumers are protected. (Time expired)
Does the honourable member for Oxley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the House:
I am pleased to move this motion on rural health and, I hope, give the issue of the health and medical services of rural Australians some prominence in this parliament. Australia is one of the most urbanised nations in the world, and this Labor government is one of the most urbanised governments we have ever had. It is actually difficult to find one government MP who has lived a life and run a business in rural Australia. This is of concern because, with our declining rural population, we need champions for the bush, and in this place I see too few.
I represent over 95,000 people in rural and regional Australia, and in these areas we have health services of a considerably lesser standard to those in the capital cities. All patients, no matter where they are, should be afforded the same care and support, but this is not happening. The New South Wales state government, in particular, has failed my constituents time and time again. Overworked doctors and nurses should not have to help cover the bills for medical supplies in the hospitals in which they work, and local service clubs should not have to fundraise all year round just to buy basic hospital equipment.
It is fairly well known that the New South Wales government is in a state of recession and that its health services are battling to pay their bills. Ordinary recurrent operating expenses are not being met. This, were it to happen in Sydney or Melbourne, would be highlighted as an utter disgrace. Good health outcomes are very much about early intervention, and I really think this is the key because time and again too much time passes between symptoms being noticed, a proper diagnosis being made and medical attention actually arriving. I cannot stand it as a local member when I hear the stories of people who say, ‘It was just too far,’ or, ‘We could not afford it,’ or, ‘We did not know,’ or, ‘The specialist was not visiting.’ That is really not good enough. The Rural Doctors Association says that rural communities’ access to early medical intervention is:
… currently compromised by metrocentric policies, shortfalls in appropriately trained personnel and inadequate funding systems and systems that jeopardize sustainable local emergency services.
As the federal member for an electorate that bounds three states, I am always surprised at the restrictions that prohibit doctors from practising in two states at once. It is incredible to me that the New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian state governments cannot—or will not—make it easier for doctors to practice in two states in order to provide suitable health outcomes for the residents of their states. In Farrer, there has been much talk of cross-border health agreements for years. I have yet to see one successful completed agreement. There has been much grandstanding and many promises. In fact, there is supposed to be an arrangement in Albury-Wodonga by July 2009. I will watch closely to see how this develops.
At the more western end of my electorate, there is trouble getting GPs and health workers because communities just cannot offer the salaries those professionals would attract in either a more remote area of Australia or a big city practice. In instances that have been quoted to me recently where a doctor is found who is willing to work for the wages that are able to be paid, on becoming tied down in interstate bureaucracy and differing licensing requirements the doctor, in many instances, just gives up and looks for work elsewhere. The ability to attract doctors to regional Albury was of such concern that a local group of health professionals formed their own working party, and employed someone with their own funds, in order to recruit a new generation of GPs, specialists, psychiatrists et cetera. They were concerned that the ageing of the current doctors meant that our community would soon be without doctors. It has been a successful program and I commend them on the initiative, but it should not have had to come to that.
In the town of Finley, the area health service was not able to negotiate an agreement to retain the services of a doctor in the town. The local nursing home took on the task. Since I was elected as member for Farrer in 2001, the Tocumwal community has lobbied for an ambulance station for eight years. Everyone knows they need an ambulance station but still there is not one. Last year in the New South Wales state parliament, my colleague John Williams, the member for Murray-Darling, raised the issue of renal dialysis, outlining that a government study had said that there would be a massive explosion in demand for renal dialysis services, a major driver being the increase in Aboriginals having a high rate of kidney failure which required renal dialysis. But in Deniliquin, in my electorate, at least five people were travelling to Shepparton for renal dialysis services—a round trip of 500 kilometres. The Rotary club raised community funds to purchase a renal dialysis chair for the local hospital, but the Minister for Health refused to negotiate or commit. These are examples of how the rural people that I represent struggle on a daily basis for the same services as their city relatives. Admittedly, it is a positive story of their resourcefulness and resilience, but it should not have had to come to this. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I would like to thank the member for Farrer for giving me yet another opportunity to speak on regional and rural medical services. It is also another opportunity for me to point out the lack of purpose in relation to this area of health care from the previous federal government. I remember during the last election the case of two small hospitals in the electorate of Lyons—at Rosebery and at Ouse—where politics was played for the purpose of playing politics because of cutbacks from the federal government to the state. Those communities were used politically, with no opportunities to improve their service delivery.
I got a bit excited when I read the motion. Initially, it sounded very good—‘that the House supports long-term viability of regional and rural medical practices, hospitals and services’. That was very good and to the point, and I certainly agree with that. And, of course, the Royal Flying Doctor Service does an excellent job and we should recognise it whenever we can. However, I certainly cannot agree with the rest of the motion. It is a shame that, over the last 11 years, those on that side of the House were not more concerned about rural health. I know that the member for Farrer was not a member for that length of time, but there was a lot that could have been done that was not done. It is a shame that they relied on 17-year-old data—population figures from the 1991 census—when they developed the incentives for doctors and other rural workforces. It was pretty old data. That was the sort of support for long-term viability for rural health that those on that side of the House showed in those decisions.
Part 2 of the motion gives me quite a deal of concern. It suggests the member for Farrer’s lack of real understanding of health and service delivery in rural and regional Australia. I want to outline a few of the failings of the previous Liberal government. In the 2004 election the Liberal government promised $15 million to establish the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund. Despite this, it was revealed in the estimates of 2007 that only $3.5 million of that program had been allocated. In the 2007 election, the Rudd Labor team promised to rectify this.
In the budget last year we honoured that commitment when we announced $46 million over four years for rural and remote communities, strategic planning for small rural private hospitals and our new National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program, which is operating tremendously. On 28 January 2009, just a few weeks ago, Minister Roxon announced the first 53 of those projects—a total of $12 million. In less than 12 months after the budget we have already allocated more than three times as much as the Liberals managed to allocate for the whole term of the last government. I think those figures speak for themselves. This is in addition to the substantial funding commitment of GP superclinics, many of which will be built in regional areas. We have established an office of rural health, in case the opposition and the member Farrer missed that significant development. They may have missed that.
In part 2 of that motion the member for Farrer also suggests that the state governments are responsible for failing to provide adequate health services for Australians in rural, regional and remote areas. The shadow minister, who has just arrived, raised that in the chamber today during question time. This seems to be the little game that that side wants to play—blame the states for health care. The opposition has forgotten that in 2000 more than $1 billion was removed from the Commonwealth-state funding for our hospitals, which resulted in the Commonwealth share of funding falling from 50 per cent to 45 per cent. So there is a fair bit of history that goes with this as well, and there is a fair bit of history that the member of Farrer should mention when she gets into these discussions. This is not a one-way street. This government has done more in its first year than what the previous government did in a three-year term. (Time expired)
I would like to congratulate the member for Farrer for bringing forward this very crucial and vital private member’s business and for the way she has put it together, with thought and commitment to her electorate and to rural and regional areas. I would like to support the member for Farrer in raising some of the issues that are certainly impacting upon rural and regional areas. My most significant concern at the moment is the lack of obstetricians being attracted to the Riverina region, and obviously to regions right across Australia but most particularly in New South Wales. We had a practising obstetrician in the public sector. He was overrun and overwrought and eventually, after telling the state government time after time that he could not continue like that, he eventually had to resign. In place of that local obstetrician we now have a 19,000-kilometre fly-in fly-out arrangement at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. We bring in an obstetrician from London. I will quote from the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser, which stated that ‘the costly travel exercise has been going on for 12 months’. The position on offer is for a Director of Obstetrics, but it has not been accepted by the obstetrician who has been flying in and flying out from London for 12 months now to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital.
The practice of flying locums in to cover the shortage of doctors in Wagga Wagga has been at significant cost to the people—about $320,000 per doctor a year. But the problem that I would like to raise is that a doctor has been flying in and flying out from London to provide the service at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital and this position has not been advertised on the New South Wales Health website in order to give other candidates the opportunity to apply. That is of great concern. I think that that has been rectified since the doctor has determined that he is not going to take up residence, but this is where money is required—in recruitment and retention. We have a fabulous recruitment and retention committee in Wagga Wagga. I think it is unique. A group of specialists with private money have set up their own recruitment and retention workgroup. They have an executive officer who goes off to conferences and health gatherings of doctors all over the country recruiting specialists to come to the Riverina.
We have significant problems. Dialysis particularly in Wagga Wagga Base Hospital is certainly a challenge. Many people drive for many hours to receive dialysis three, four or five days a week, but family members have to wait outside in the car park for the five hours of dialysis time because there is nowhere in the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital for them to wait for their family member or the person they travelled with.
There has to be a different view on how we are going to attract particular specialty crafts. I refer back to obstetrics. There must be cooperation between midwifery and obstetrics. There needs to be a new model of care for obstetrics. Money should be allocated by government, including the state government, to encourage new models of how we are going to deliver services to rural and regional Australians. I am very pleased to have the A healthier future for all Australians—interim report December 2008, wherein there has been some consideration given as to how we start to resolve these issues. I would certainly encourage the government to have further talks with New South Wales— (Time expired)
This is a very important motion, but I am afraid that justice has not been done to it in this chamber tonight. As much as I respect the member for Farrer, I do take issue with the criticism from the opposition that the Labor Party has not lived the life of the bush, does not represent rural communities and only represents the urban areas. I do not agree with that, but even if it were true—and it is not—this government’s record will prove that we have done more in the area of rural and regional health in 12 months than the former government did in 12 years. The reality is that those from the opposition who represent those areas have been very good at driving political agendas but very bad at driving dollars and funding for health into regional and rural communities over a very long period of time. If I can recall the Howard years for any one great thing it is the practice of cutting funding to health, whether it was in urban, rural or regional areas.
What we need now is change. We need a government that is prepared to work in partnership with the states, not just blame them and take money away from critical and vital areas. Unfortunately, this motion does very little to put any of that on the record. The motion talks about supporting the long-tern viability of regional and rural medical practices and hospitals—and we ought to do that—but very little evidence has been provided of any action in that area over the past decade. The motion also notes the concern at the failure of state governments to provide adequate health services. But, if that is the view of those opposite, why did the Howard government stand idly by while this took place?
The motion talks about the Royal Flying Doctor Service, but opposition members failed to actually mention it in their speeches. That shows what little regard they place upon the great services provided by that organisation. The motion also calls on the Australian government to eliminate inequality in healthcare services, and so the Australian government should work to eliminate inequalities—inequalities that have stood in place for many years and decades. But it will actually take a government that is prepared to put funding on the table and work with the states and local and regional communities to make that happen. You cannot just talk about it. The difference is that this government, the Rudd government, has been prepared to commit $64.4 billion to the states and territories and it has further committed $1.1 billion for doctor training in those communities to make sure that what is contained in this motion can actually be delivered. Otherwise, they are just hollow words; they are just words in a motion that are politicised and designed to draw attention and blame somebody else for what, in the end, is a collective problem and an issue for all of us in this place.
This should not be a debate about who is responsible, because we are all responsible. The opposition, and perhaps the shadow minister for health, would do themselves a great service today if they took a very close look at the words contained in this motion and actually decided to act in partnership with the government, the states and rural and regional communities. Perhaps if those members elected to those areas and who, allegedly, care about these issues could see what positive plans can be brought forward then they could assist this government in actually delivering that funding and they could support us in this place when we try to make a difference. Health to me is a little bit like infrastructure—if you do not continually maintain it and invest in it every year, eventually it falls apart and gets to a state of disrepair that makes it exceptionally difficult to fix. That is the situation we face today. We will fix infrastructure and we will fix health as well.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I move:
That the House:
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
It is going to be a tough year. It has been tough in my electorate in south-west Sydney for a number of years. We have seen house prices fall by 16 per cent, we have seen the number of home repossessions go through the roof and we have seen rents skyrocket. Interest rate cuts over the last few months have really helped, but I fear that what is happening across the rest of the world will sweep through Australia and steal away jobs from people who are already struggling to pay their mortgage. You cannot pay the mortgage if you do not have a job. Unemployment is already 50 per cent higher in Blaxland than it is across the rest of the country, and the statistics that the ABS put out indicate that it is already on the rise. Statistics that the ABS put out in December showed that more people turned up to Bankstown Centrelink seeking unemployment benefits than anywhere else in New South Wales and almost anywhere else in the country. That is why last week I asked the Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, to come to Bankstown and have a look for himself and to talk to the people on the ground, on the front line. That is also why two weeks ago I, and everyone on this side of the House, voted for the $42 billion stimulus package.
But there is more that we can do than just vote for legislation. As members of parliament there is a lot more that we can do—practical, real things to help people. Members would have heard me speak in this place before about the housing stress information nights that I held across my electorate last year. They were run by experts like Paul Clitheroe, and we brought together organisations like Legal Aid and the Consumer Credit Legal Centre to give people practical advice. Here is just one example resulting from those information nights. A woman named Sophia Helene came up to me in the street last year, gave me a hug and a kiss, and said: ‘Thank you for putting that together. The information that I got that night helped to turn my life around.’ I am going to do the same thing again this year, except this year I am going to run free home budget information nights, giving people basic home budgeting skills and basic financial literacy skills.
I know there is a need for something like this because last month I put together a free home budget kit and I put some information about it in the local newspaper. In two days we had 231 phone calls to the electorate office from people asking for a copy of the kit. Next door to my office is a financial counselling service called Creating Links, and they have a waiting list of two weeks. Those are things that the government are already doing. The federal government have increased the budget for financial counselling from $10 million to $20 million, and at last we have a government that are doing something about financial literacy in our schools. But there is more that we can do.
I think there is more that Centrelink can do. Centrelink run what are called financial information seminars, which usually focus on things like pensions, superannuation or share portfolios. I think they can do some more good work here. Let us remember that one in three Australians—more than six million people—is a Centrelink customer. I think those people—in fact, all of us—could do with a helping hand, with a bit of information on how to run a home budget and basic financial literacy skills. I think there is more that we can do there.
I also think that the private sector can do more. That is the subject of this motion before the House. I know from talking to the Australian Bankers Association that banks are doing a lot of good work in this space already. We should pay particular credit to some of the programs that are being run by the ANZ, Westpac and the Commonwealth. But I think they can do more. One idea could be lending their staff to the charities and the NGOs that I am talking about to provide the sort of information that people need, financial counselling services on the ground, a little bit like the way big law firms offer pro bono services to community legal centres. I think banks could do the same or, even better, banks could fund positions in these organisations—organisations like the Smith Family, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul or the organisation next door to my electorate office, Creating Links. All banks have corporate social responsibility plans and, in these tough times, I think they should be focusing these corporate social responsibility plans on financial literacy and financial counselling—not just on lending money responsibly and cutting interest rates but on lending a helping hand, on giving people the information, the advice and the skills that they need to get through these tough times ahead. (Time expired)
I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Blaxland, and indeed the need for financial literacy. We cannot have a sensible discussion in this House with respect to the government’s role in financial literacy without going back to 2004, when the then Howard government established a Consumer and Financial Literacy Task Force to develop a national strategy to improve consumer and financial literacy in this country. The task force recommended that a national financial literacy body be established to take a strategic approach to the issue and to facilitate improved cooperation, efficiency and effectiveness amongst provider organisations. The then government committed $5 million to establish a National and Consumer Financial Literacy Foundation and a further $16 million over two years for an information program, a total of $21 million.
In 2006, then Minister Dutton—whom, I note, sits at the coalition table as we speak—celebrated the first year of the establishment of the Financial Literacy Foundation. He stated:
One of the key achievements of the Foundation has been to work with the States and Territories to produce a National Curriculum Framework for Financial Literacy in schools for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 …
Other achievements that then Minister Dutton should rightly be proud of include the implementation of a pilot program, in partnership with the Master Builders Association, to introduce financial literacy training to cadets, apprentices and the MBA membership; the establishment of an Education and Trainers Network; the development of working relationships with a wide range of partner organisations that deliver financial literacy; and the improvement of cooperation between the FLF and Innovations and Business Skills Australia.
The Commonwealth government’s website Understanding Money was created by this foundation. It gives all Australians the opportunity to increase their financial knowledge and better manage their money. It provides a national focus for financial literacy; builds the capacity of all Australians to better understand and manage financial risk and take advantage of increased competition; raises awareness of financial literacy and its benefits; creates opportunities for Australians of all ages to learn more about money; and provides practical support to educators and trainers to improve the availability of quality financial literacy education.
The foundation has partnered with government, industry and community sector organisations to create Understanding Money resources. Some of these include the ABA, CPA Australia, the Australian Stock Exchange, the Financial Services Institute of Australasia, the Financial Planning Association of Australia and others. The foundation’s advisory board provides guidance on these issues and has nine members, chaired by Mr Paul Clitheroe. The Howard government provided $21 million over two years.
On 1 July 2008, the functions of the foundation were transferred by the Rudd government to ASIC. On 13 May, the Treasurer stated:
The transfer of the Foundation to ASIC consolidates the Australian Government’s financial literacy response … and strengthens ASIC’s role in safeguarding Australia’s economic reputation and wellbeing.
I am a little surprised, though, that ASIC’s website says:
Full details on how the Foundation’s functions will fit in to ASIC’s overall education initiatives, using ASIC’s existing resources, are still being worked out.
This function was transferred nine months ago. If the Rudd government were serious about financial literacy—and I honour the seriousness with which the member for Blaxland views the area of financial literacy and I note the work he is doing in his electorate—then why, nine months after transferring it to ASIC, is ASIC still unsure about how it is all being worked out? In the 2008-09 budget, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs announced a $20 million commitment over four years to expand financial counselling services and support for working families under financial pressure. In 2004, then Minister Dutton committed $21 million over two years. The Rudd government committed $20 million over four years. Something does not quite fit with the Rudd government’s commitment to assistance with financial counselling and services.
Senator Sherry, in his speech on 2 July 2008, outlined the Labor government’s plans for financial literacy and financial counselling: transferring the foundation to ASIC; getting ASIC to develop and coordinate a long-term, national strategy; getting ASIC to maintain a national financial literacy hub; getting ASIC to develop and promote a range of projects; getting ASIC to develop initiatives targeted at tertiary students; and getting ASIC to address attitudinal and behavioural barriers. That is all fine in principle and fine in theory. I am just concerned that ASIC’s website says, ‘Full details on how the functions will fit in to our overall initiatives are still being worked out.’ (Time expired)
I rise today to commend the member for Blaxland’s motion to the House. In these tough economic times many residents have told me they are finding it difficult to balance the family budget. These budgets that are worked out around the kitchen table every week are under a great deal of stress and pressure. Many families are facing problems with debt, be that from phone bills, credit cards or mortgages.
In this difficult climate it is important that everyone steps up to their responsibilities, and I take this opportunity to commend the work of many financial counselling services who work tirelessly to provide financial literacy and support for families who are doing it tough. I am not entirely sure where the member for Fadden got his figures, but certainly the financial counselling services in Adelaide have welcomed our government’s increase in—in fact, doubling of—money to provide financial services. They have been very pleased that they have seen this doubling of money that allows them to provide these services. However, the demand for these services has increased. One organisation, Uniting Care Wesley Adelaide, estimates that, even with this doubling of funding, it turns away 100 people looking for financial counselling appointments every week.
In response to this evident need for assistance in our community, I took the lead from the member for Blaxland and hosted my own debt relief information forum last week, on 18 February, in the Hopgood Theatre in Noarlunga. I would like to thank the many panellists and organisations that came along: St Vincent de Paul, Uniting Care Wesley, the Financial Ombudsman Service, Legal Aid, Centrelink, the Hackham West Community Centre and Anglicare. All these panellists provided some expert information that was very much appreciated by those who attended. They also provided individual stalls at which the residents who attended, after they had got general information, were able to approach the panellists for very specific information. I know that, while some people were a little embarrassed about asking questions in front of a whole lot of people, they did take the opportunity to ask questions in private. And I would like to thank everyone who gave up their time to come along because they believed that this issue is a very important one in our community. I would also like to commend the residents who attended and took that opportunity to be proactive and learn more about how to better manage their cost-of-living pressures. Janet Scott is one of the residents who decided to take the time to come along and help herself and her family be prepared for these harder economic times.
What we all learnt that night was not just how important it is to get help but also how important it is for families facing these problems to take action early. We heard this time and time again: ‘You must take action early.’ We also heard that families need to stay in touch regularly with their creditors. This information was also emphasised over and over again. We also learnt from the Legal Services Commission of South Australia that there are options. Often people feel that there are no options. However, they should get in touch and get some information, act early and stay in touch. Debt pressures can seem overwhelming and people need support to be able to respond quickly before it is too late. I hope that the forum was useful to the residents of Kingston, and I am proud to support the many non-profit organisations that do this work in our community—like the ones I have mentioned: Uniting Care Wesley, Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul, who provide full and independent financial counselling without charging the sorts of fees that others do.
I know my time is running out, but I do want to get to the essence of the motion. I am pleased that the motion before us today calls on Australian banks and financial institutions to provide support in this area. As with many other people and many organisations within the community, banks do need to stand up and take some responsibility and to utilise, as the member for Blaxland alluded to, their expertise in this area. Australian banks have a unique opportunity to help hard-hit working families by providing additional support for financial literacy and financial counselling, and I think it is very important that they do so.
At my debt relief forum, the Noarlunga experts took their time to share their advice on dealing with debt issues and I think this is incredibly important. (Time expired)
I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion in the House this evening. I think it is very important that we encourage financial counselling and improved financial literacy, because we live in an age which is thriving on credit—or which was, until recently, thriving on credit; now it is actually suffering a backlash from too much credit. I think we had a situation where banks and financial institutions, in competing for market share, were very aggressive in their lending practices—very aggressive: lending to 100 per cent of valuation, or 105 per cent of valuation. It really called into question the ability of the borrowers to repay. I think that many borrowers would not have got into the predicament in which they find themselves had they had the financial skills to think through for themselves their ability to repay those obligations that they were taking on.
It is very important, when we have such large loans, that we note the fact that interest rates can go up as well as down. So, whilst we have borrowers who may be quite comfortable at current interest rates, when the economic cycle turns—as it inevitably will—we will see rising interest rates again, and that will call into question the ability of many borrowers to make the repayments which they will be committed to. So I think it is a very important notion that we encourage financial literacy and that we assist people to manage their affairs as best we can.
Financial institutions certainly have a substantial community obligation to ensure that the people to whom they lend can repay the money that they have borrowed. It is in no-one’s interests—it is not in the interests of the shareholders of a financial institution—to lend money to people who cannot repay it. And that is the ridiculous nature of the subprime crisis in the US, where funds were loaned to people with no capacity to repay. They did not have the financial skills to assess the situation in which they were going to find themselves. Having proper financial education in schools, perhaps at TAFE colleges and in higher education, would give people the skills they need to operate in a financial world that is far more complex than it once was. So I very much commend this motion, in the few remaining moments I have available to me. I think it is a motion very worthy of the time of this parliament and that improved financial literacy is something that we should be encouraging.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Over the last several weeks members of this House have heard a great deal of the tragedy that has afflicted the people of Victoria. More particularly, what they have seen is a unity amongst Australians in responding to their particular circumstances. Tonight I want to indicate to the House that the generosity that has been given by all Australians is very much a feature of our multicultural society. Over the last week I know that amongst the Chinese community in Sydney, in particular, there have been extraordinary acts of generosity. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that generosity because what it does is reflect the inclusive nature of our society.
There are some who often think that so-called ethnic communities are not part of our broader Australian community, feeling the same emotions and having the same responsibilities and the same duties as others. The Chinese community, in particular, have been generous to quite a considerable degree, and I want to take this opportunity tonight to thank them for their generosity. I attended a function, along with the member for McMillan and the member for Reid, at the Marigold Restaurant in Sydney when over $343,000 was handed over to the Australian Red Cross Executive Director, Lewis Kaplan, which was to assist in relation to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. Russell Broadbent was present and he acknowledged the generosity of this contribution. His electorate had been particularly affected. This donation had been raised by the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation, along with other organisations—some of the Tongs and Sze Yup Societies of Sydney, the six Lions Clubs, the Wayin Network and the Australian Chinese Chamber of Trade and Commerce. The two individuals behind this act of generosity were Peter Wong, President of the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation, and Hudson Chen, along with Benjamin Chow, Monica Chu and Katie Young.
This organisation has been generous before. It raised considerable funds to assist those afflicted by bushfires in New South Wales. It raised moneys to assist with the earthquake in East Timor, floods in China, the tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, the snowstorms in China and the Sichuan earthquake, all of which demonstrate the breadth of their charity. Mr Zhao Shang Yan gave $188,888.88 and Mr Henry Ngai of ABC Tissues gave over $50,000. It demonstrates that the Chinese community are very much engaged and very generous. The function I attended with my colleagues was also attended by His Excellency Mr Wu Shan, Consul General of the Peoples Republic of China in Sydney.
Lest it be thought that this was the only activity amongst the Chinese community, I think it should be acknowledged that there were other major fundraising activities that took place in Sydney during this last week. The Committee for the Peaceful Unification of China, under Mr William Chiu; the Chinese Opera Group; my former state parliamentary colleague Helen Sham-Ho; and the Inner West Group also raised funds. Mr William Chiu’s support through the Committee for the Peaceful Unification of China raised more than $200,000.
So it can be seen that amongst the Chinese community in Sydney in less than a week more than half a million dollars was raised for the Victorian Bushfire Appeal. I think that, if anybody were questioning the commitment of our broader culturally diverse community to our society and its values and all that it is about, they would only have to contemplate the enormity of this generosity to understand their commitment to this nation. (Time expired)
I wish to speak tonight about the Ipswich Business Breakfast Forum I attended on 6 February 2009, which was in relation to Australia’s CEO Challenge, a workplace partnering against domestic violence. When a CEO takes up the challenge against domestic violence, their organisation can make a real difference to the lives of women and children. Partnering with and supporting women’s refuges and domestic violence prevention programs is crucial, and one in particular was taken up and assisted in my electorate—that is, the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence, a great organisation performing wonderful work for women and children in my electorate.
Australia’s CEO Challenge Executive Director is Wendy Reid, a very committed community worker whose vision is a world without domestic violence. Preventing domestic violence in family life and workplace situations is crucial not just economically but in terms of social justice and equity in our community. Facilitating partnerships between business and refuges is extremely important, and business can make an important contribution to assisting the relief of women and children who suffer this dreadful violence.
In 2008 the World Health Organisation said there are 1.6 million deaths per year from violence in our world. Fifty-four per cent of all deaths are self-inflicted—that is, suicide—35 per cent are from intimate and family violence and 11 per cent are from collective violence—that is, war. The Australian public would be very surprised to know that 35 per cent of deaths in our world each year are from intimate and family violence, whereas only 11 per cent are from warfare. Every two weeks in Australia two women leave their homes suffering from domestic violence. In 2006, according to figures, 116 adult deaths took place in Australia from domestic violence. Acts of domestic violence can be: controlling what a woman spends her money on, controlling what she wears, harassment and intimidation, threats to person and property, all manner of physical assaults and sexual assaults and, simply, controlling behaviour.
In my life before this parliament I acted in family law for more than 20 years and both prosecuted and defended thousands of cases involving domestic violence, so I know that intimate family relationships—relationships of blood, marriage and culture—are perilous for women and children. One in three women experiences domestic violence in their relationships. The Queensland Police Service estimates that about 30,000 instances of domestic violence are dealt with by Queensland police annually. However, many go unreported, so there are many more than that. Signs at work include bruises, frequent accidents, vague explanations, plans being cancelled at the last minute, having to check things with their husband or partner, changes in behaviour, unexplained sick days, frequent calls and emails from their husband or partner and long hours spent at work simply to avoid going home.
The impact of domestic violence on our workplaces is enormous. Four million women and six million men are in the workplace in Australia. It is estimated by a report to the Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Women’s Advisory Committee entitled Impacts and costs of domestic violence on the Australian business/corporate sector that domestic violence costs $1.5 billion annually in direct and indirect costs and opportunities lost. Access Economics, in its 2004 report The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy, estimates that domestic violence cost our economy $8.1 billion in 2003.
I urge all CEOs and all businesses in my community and nationally to get behind Australia’s CEO Challenge to harness the power of the workplace to tackle domestic violence. It is important that the patterns of power and control, including physical, sexual, emotional, verbal and financial abuse, are gotten rid of in our workplaces and in our family life. The repercussions for women and children in my community and in the community nationally are horrendous. We should do everything we can in our workplaces to ensure that women are protected so that their children can have lives of fulfilment free from domestic violence. I commend Australia’s CEO Challenge for the work they do.
It is a pleasure to speak in the adjournment debate on matters to do with my electorate. I have the great pleasure to table two petitions that have been taken in my electorate. The first of those is a petition about the Waterfall Gully Road upgrade, which I raised last year. The second is a petition about water and the South Australian government’s failure to secure the water supply of the city of Adelaide.
With respect to the first petition, Waterfall Gully has been an unfortunate bugbear in my electorate for far too long. The same part of the road has been the scene of fatalities and, more recently, very serious accidents. On 25 February 2007 a cyclist was killed on Waterfall Gully Road. The transport safety audit said the cause of the crash was inconclusive, but the residents of Waterfall Gully and other members of the community in Adelaide know full well that the road is dangerous. When a road leads to a fatality there is a need for action to be taken.
More recently, a second cyclist was knocked unconscious and had his collarbone broken on 8 January 2009. On 25 October 2007 a cyclist was injured after falling off their bike near the place where the fatal accident occurred in February 2007. Waterfall Gully Road is in desperate need of upgrade. Carmel Zollo and Patrick Conlon, who are the state ministers responsible for transport and road safety, have said that works will not begin in 2008-09. Vickie Chapman, the state member for Bragg, has said the patch-up jobs are clearly not working and we need a major project to commence ASAP. Tragically, until the state government takes the upgrade of Waterfall Gully Road seriously we will not see the kinds of improvements that we need to avoid fatalities and injuries in the future.
As for water, I have spoken on it many times in this House and the petition reiterates my deep concern that the state government are getting water wrong in South Australia. They have dragged their feet on desalination for far too long and they have most recently announced another scoping study into how to save the Lower Lakes. What the Lower Lakes need is not more studies but action. They need an action plan that will secure the water supply, that will mean that the Lower Lakes do not need to be flooded by sea water. That is the plan that we know that Peter Garrett and the state government in South Australia have up their sleeves but it is not a policy that we will support. We believe instead that a proper action plan needs to be put in place. (Time expired)
The petitions read as follows—
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The following citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that there is a vital need for Waterfall Gully Road, Waterfall Gully, South Australia to be upgraded urgently to restore this road to enable both vehicle and pedestrian traffic to use this road safely.
We the undersigned are aware that the State Government have allowed Waterfall Gully Road to deteriorate to such an extent that is has become dangerous for vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Waterfall Gully Road leads to one of Adelaide’s popular tourist attractions, Waterfall Gully. Many tourists visit this site and also local residents use this road for jogging, walking and cycling.
Your petitioners therefore request the House to support this important community issue and encourage the State Government of South Australia to ensure that Waterfall Gully Road is repaired immediately.
from 145 citizens
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The following citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that there is a need for a coherent and complete water infrastructure plan for all South Australia.
We the undersigned call on the South Australian Government to:
Your petitioners therefore request the House to support this important community issue and encourage the State Government of South Australia to develop a comprehensive water infrastructure plan.
from 1,382 citizens
Petitions received.
Between 10 and 15 March this year, the Australian International Airshow and Aerospace and Defence Exposition will be held at Avalon Airport in Geelong, in my electorate. The airshow, which has been known as Airshow Downunder, was first staged at Avalon Airport back in 1992. Since then it has become a biennial event which in many circles has put Avalon Airport and Geelong on the world map. It is now the fourth largest airshow in the world. In 2007 it attracted nearly 200,000 visitors. It is a unique airshow because of its spectacular flying shows.
Measuring three kilometres in length, Avalon Airport has one of the longest landing areas in Australia, so it can handle the very largest civilian and military aircraft in the world, which makes the airshow so spectacular. But also, being located 15 minutes outside of Geelong and not near a residential area, this is a place where a great show can be put on for the public. They can sit on a flight line, giving them a vantage point which is simply not possible at other airshows around the world.
But this event is much more than just a spectacular display of aeronautical brilliance. It is, for example, a very important event in the calendar of our nation’s Air Force. It is also the showcase for the Australian aviation and aerospace industries. The airshow is considered the place to be to do business in those industries. In 2007 the airshow featured 600 participating exhibiting companies from 20 nations along with senior military personnel from around the world. All the big names were represented: Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Rolls Royce. This is a pointer to how economically important the airshow is to the Geelong region. The National Institute of Economic Industry Research reports the gross economic benefit of the airshow to the Geelong region as being $22 million. For Victoria it is $120 million. In addition to the 600 participating exhibiting companies there are 600 accredited journalists taking the story of the airshow at Avalon, and by association the Geelong region, to the world.
The economic importance of the airshow underlines how important economically Avalon Airport is to Geelong. Since Linfox bought the airport in 1997, jobs have grown tenfold. There are now 1,300 full-time jobs at Avalon, with thousands more in downstream activities. The Jetstar terminal handles close to a million passengers a year, and for the Geelong and western Victorian region it is estimated that an additional 250,000 interstate visitors come to the region because of Avalon. These extra visitors grow local tourism and generate tens of millions of dollars in economic activity.
In essence, Avalon is Australia’s first secondary airport to greater Melbourne. In aviation around the world it is in these secondary airports—airports like Luton, Gatwick and Avalon—that we have seen great growth. Jetstar services Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, but Linfox sees a real future for Avalon as the centre of a secondary airport network around Australia, including airports on the Gold Coast in Queensland and in other secondary cities.
It is the hope that Avalon will become an international airport and will have all the attendant attributes of an international airport: greater retail space and in time, we hope, a hotel. Its location makes it ideal for specialist international freight—from the Grand Prix air cargo, which will come through in a few weeks time, to giraffes and elephants which have been transported in exchange programs with other zoos around the world. All of these have gone through Avalon airport.
There is an important maintenance program at Avalon, a prime location for Qantas 747 aircraft maintenance. Through that maintenance and Jetstar, Qantas has played a critical role in the blossoming of Avalon Airport. Avalon is now the largest employment centre in the Geelong-Melbourne corridor. This year the airshow occurs during a very difficult economic time which threatens the jobs of so many in the Geelong region. Through that gloom, the airshow, Avalon Airport and the role of Qantas at Avalon are rays of hope for jobs in the future—which leads me to make a small request of Qantas in parliament tonight: wouldn’t it be great if, as a symbol of the importance of Qantas to Geelong and the importance of Geelong to Qantas, Qantas were to bring its new A380 aircraft to Avalon for the airshow. It would certainly be a showstopper and it would win over the hearts of all of us in the fair city of Geelong.
I, too, rise to talk on a very important local event in my electorate which happened last weekend. I am sure most in this House would be aware of the Kangaroo Island Cup—the cup that stops the island—which was run on Saturday at the end of the three-day-long Kangaroo Island Racing Club meeting. It is a fantastic meeting. It truly does stop the island.
Some of you will not be aware of Kangaroo Island. I know the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, Mr Shorten, who is sitting on the front bench, has not been to the island. I wish he had been.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. This is the adjournment debate and the member for Mayo has the call.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection. The parliamentary secretary is of course welcome to visit the island at any time; I would happily escort him around. It is one of the best kept secrets in our country. It is seven times the size of Singapore, but it is only 15 kilometres off the mainland of South Australia. Of course, that stretch of water has many a good snapper in it. If you are ever looking for a good snapper-fishing trip, I would urge you to visit that part of our country.
Kangaroo Island is visited by 160,000 people every year. It has a population of 4½ thousand, so it relies solely on tourism. That figure includes around 40,000 international visitors. More international visitors go to Kangaroo Island than to any other tourism location in South Australia, and it is a very important part of our tourism economy. We think that there is more potential for Kangaroo Island, particularly in this situation of global financial crisis and a lower Australian dollar. We want more Australians and more South Australians to visit Kangaroo Island. It is such a well-kept secret and we want to make sure that people know about how good it actually is.
The KI Cup, which has been run for 125 years, was won this year by Bravely, in one of the closest finishes in the cup’s history.
Never heard of it!
It is not likely to win a Melbourne Cup, I can probably suggest, the member for Canning, but it had a great run over the 1,900-metre course and it beat out—
Mr Randall interjecting
The member for Canning asks if I backed it. I did actually back it. It was the only punt I had on the day, and it got home most handsomely. What I can say is that Shauna Black, the editor of the Kangaroo Island newspaper, the KI Islander, also backed Bravely. She had it on the front page last week, so we were on a unity ticket there, which was good. It was a wonderful day, and the sponsors did a fantastic job. One was Coopers Brewery, a famous South Australian company which employs many good South Australians and of course produces a very fine beer, Pale Ale, which is one of the best beers going around. Another was SeaLink, which provides the ferry service.
This leads me to my more serious point this evening. That is to call on the federal government to treat the 15-kilometre—that is all it is—stretch of water between Kangaroo Island and South Australia as a national highway. That would mean freight concessions going forward, and that would make the island more competitive. One of the great challenges the island has is getting enough funding to keep its roads and its services up to scratch. With only 4½ thousand residents, the local government has much difficulty keeping the island’s infrastructure up to standard so that the tourism industry can develop.
What I will do in support of the island’s mayor, Jane Bates, who, with her council, does a fantastic job, is ask the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to consider this submission and to look at it in great detail. I am sure that the Minister for Tourism will be in support of my call here because it will add to the economy of South Australia, it will add to the economy of our country and it will mean more people in jobs. Of course, we on this side of the House are all for jobs, so I would ask the ministers to look at this. It is a small issue in comparison to a lot of the issues we deal with in this place but it is very important for the residents of Kangaroo Island.
In summary, I again congratulate the KI Racing Club. Roger Williams, who is the chairman, did a wonderful job on the weekend. There was a record crowd, Member for Canning, which was welcomed in this time where global economic circumstances have everyone feeling a bit down. It was a great event and I was pleased to be part of it.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to inform the House about an event in my electorate of Bass which I believe marks a turning point in the health of our nation. Last Wednesday night Launceston hosted the second of 15 men’s health forums which will be held across the country in the coming months. They are designed to engage with the community—in particular, men—and shape the development of the National Men’s Health Policy. What I heard throughout the discussions which ensued was quite honestly frightening. That men have a lower life expectancy than women is not new. Fifty-one per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men will not live past the age of 50. Nine out of 10 non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men will. As a government and as a country we must act to address this, and we must act now. The fact that as we embarked on the 21st century there was no specific national health policy to address this is a disgrace.
I would like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, not only for seeking to rectify this but also for the manner in which she has gone about it. The level of consultation is extraordinary. I believe that has two effects. Firstly, it ensures we end up with the most effective and relevant national policy, a policy over which men across Northern Tasmania and the rest of the country have every right to claim ownership. Secondly, but perhaps most importantly, it gets men actually talking about these issues. It was interesting to both listen and observe on Wednesday night. Over the course of the evening those men in the room relaxed and actually began discussing real health issues. We need to put this out there. Men need to feel that it is okay for them to talk to each other, to talk to their doctor and even to talk to their elected representatives about these issues.
What are these issues? Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that men are built differently to women, and our health issues are not the same. From the physical—such as testicular cancer, prostate cancer and the like to the higher incidence of things like heart disease, kidney disease and diet related ailments—all the way through to the emotional, men are built and wired differently, and it is imperative that we develop national health policy which reflects this. I mention the emotional issues. Men do have emotions; we simply do not hear about them enough. One of the clear areas of need highlighted in Launceston was surrounding suicide rates. Some 80 per cent of suicides are men. In the age bracket of 25 to 35, suicide is the leading cause of death. These are statistics which should shock us all into action.
The forum was attended by three of the minister’s appointed men’s health ambassadors. Mr Bill Noonan, Mr Tim Mathieson and Dr Rob Walters made the trip to Launceston, and for that I thank them. The diverse views those present heard from a trade union official, a former hairdresser and a well-respected GP were incredibly valuable. Each has ideas about what can be done to improve men’s health outcomes; there were a few consistent themes. It also became apparent that the key to the success of a National Men’s Health Policy is encouraging men to talk about these issues. Men’s health ambassador Bill Noonan spoke with passion about encouraging a greater role for union officials in the workplace. He made the point that these are people elected by the workforce, that they are trusted and that they are there to represent the best interests of the workforce. This is something that I would like to encourage.
I lobbied the health minister to hold one of the first of these forums in Bass. I did this because I am passionate about the health of Northern Tasmanians. I am proud that as a government we are shaping policy which will change the way health care is delivered to men so that men will feel more comfortable about seeking preventative care. The policy will address issues men face in accessing the health system, engage men about their own health and raise awareness about preventable health issues and target men with poor health outcomes. To achieve this, the government will hear from different groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, who have the worst life expectancy of any group in Australia. As I mentioned earlier, it is on average just 59 years. We will listen to men from lower income groups, single fathers and those struggling with fatherhood, men from culturally diverse backgrounds and from other groups who may be feeling marginalised. This is an enormous undertaking but one to which the government is committed. I look forward to following with interest the implementation of a policy which, it could be said, began its infancy in the electorate of Bass.
Order! It being 10 pm, the debate is interrupted.
: to move—
That the House:
Last week I had the honour of joining my colleague the member for Parkes in attending a commemoration at Boggabilla for Len Waters, Australia’s first Aboriginal fighter pilot, and also attending a ceremony at Toomelah, where the service of Indigenous veterans was acknowledged by the laying of a commemorative plaque. Men such as Len Waters have served Australia with pride and distinction. He logged more than 103 hours of combat flying and he was involved in 95 operations and 26 sorties against the Japanese. His service is rightly acclaimed. His family, his community and Australia have much of which to be proud. It is important that we acknowledge all of those who served, and by commemorating Len Waters and laying the commemorative plaque at Toomelah we can but try to pass on our gratitude to those who have protected Australia, as well as to hold them up as examples to future generations. Today I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Les Lang, whose efforts did so much to drive forward the memorial at Toomelah. Courage and service unites all Australians, and the example of Len Waters—and the Aboriginal war memorial at Toomelah and the roll-of-honour plaque—will no doubt be a source of pride and inspiration for many years to come.
The Alzheimer’s Association of Queensland was founded in 1983 by a small group of carers. It is now the largest provider of dementia-specific care education and information support in Australia. I am pleased to say that, on 19 February, the Minister for Ageing came to my electorate of Blair in Queensland and announced $590,000 for the Alzheimer’s Association’s Ipswich Day Respite Centre so it can support carers. The centre is located opposite Ipswich Girls Grammar School on Chermside Road. The funding announcement is part of more than $2 million being provided to the association for five separate services. The funding for Ipswich will provide an additional 336 hours of respite care a week, helping many people who care for those with dementia. Ipswich carers will receive many hours of respite and additional services, including transport and meals. It will enhance Ipswich’s overnight respite services and provide for employed carers. I congratulate the centre for all the work they have done and for their longstanding commitment to the people of Ipswich and those with disability, particularly those with Alzheimer’s.
Tonight I want to speak about the Local Sporting Champions program, which provides financial assistance towards the cost of travel accommodation, uniforms or equipment for junior sportsmen and sportswomen when competing at an official national sporting organisation endorsed state or national sporting competition. An assessment panel of local community members recently met at my office and undertook the difficult task of selecting the first-quarter recipients of the Local Sporting Champions grants. Phil Willsallen of Metropolitan Funerals, Karen Andrews of Clear Island Waters, who is very active in the local community, Ron Workman OAM from Currumbin RSL, Paul Wyatt from Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club and Antoinette Badenoch from the Varsity Lakes Community Resource Centre made up the panel.
The Tobin family of Burleigh Heads received a grant to attend the Australian Judo Federation championships. All three Tobin brothers will represent Queensland Judo. Mark Tobin hopes to defend his Australian national title, Michael Tobin has won the under-16 category three years in a row and hopes to defend his title in the older age group of under-20s and Max Tobin will strive to win an Australian championship title. Heleena Ethell received a grant to compete in the Australian championships for sprint kayaking. Heleena represents both Currumbin Creek Canoe Club and Queensland Canoeing and hopes to be selected to represent Australia at the world championships later in 2009. Madeline Bone received a grant to compete in springboard diving at the Australian Age Championships. Madeline is a member of the Paradise Diving Club. Jordan Clark of Tallebudgera received a grant to represent Currumbin Creek Canoe Club at the national sprint regatta in Champion Lakes, near Perth. (Time expired)
On Saturday, 21 February, the annual Gimme Shelter concert was held at the Fremantle Arts Centre to raise funds and awareness of homelessness. This year’s concert, featuring artists who played for free, including John Butler, Mo Wilson and the Drivers, Kavisha Mazzella, the DomNik’s and Dream State Circus, was an enormous success, raising an estimated $66,000, more than three times the amount raised at the inaugural concert in 2008.
As I said to the crowd on the night of the concert, the global financial crisis and the Victorian bushfires have brought home to us the fact that the line between living a stable, normal existence and being plunged into difficulty, homelessness and even tragedy is thinner than we think. I am pleased that a portion of the profits from Gimme Shelter will be donated to the victims of the Victorian bushfires. Of course, there are disasters like this that rock entire communities and nations, and then there are the private disasters, whether through mental illness or other health issues, drug or alcohol addiction, family breakdown, unemployment or other reasons, where human beings end up utterly alone and dispossessed. Gimme Shelter is the community coming together to say we care for these people and we want to help. These people are us under different circumstances.
I want to pay tribute to Dave Johnson and Phoebe Corke, the heart and soul behind Gimme Shelter; also to the staff and volunteers at St Patrick’s Community Support Centre, especially Victor Crevatin; and to the staff and volunteers of other church and community based organisations who deal with homelessness 365 days a year. I am hopeful that this Gimme Shelter event, together with the massive $6.4 billion investment by the federal government in public housing, will mean we are— (Time expired)
Ninety seconds—you’ve got to be quick, guys!
There are many issues that have already been raised in relation to the bushfires which devastated parts of the Gippsland region on 7 February, and much of the community focus is on making sure that it does not happen again. I will have more to say on prevention activities at the appropriate time. The issue I wish to raise for the consideration of the House is the provision of information to residents during the fire crisis.
The Gippsland ABC team, led by Gerard Callinan, did an outstanding job as the official emergency services broadcaster, and I commend all of the staff involved for a remarkable effort in extraordinarily difficult conditions. But many constituents have already contacted me to express concerns about the reliability of the ABC signal, which was disrupted, particularly when the Mount Tassie transmitter came under direct attack from the fire front.
A former teacher of mine and a highly respected Sale resident, Vin Smith, makes the point in a letter which I have forwarded to the minister for consideration. Vin says:
Since the ABC is the designated emergency services broadcaster, it is obviously imperative that they are permitted to maintain optimum performance in transmission at all times. Since this was not the case with the recent fires, I am raising the issue of this transmission site’s efficacy and maintenance. If Mt Tassie cannot be protected and repairs are so difficult, perhaps a new site would be a good idea.
It is an important issue, and I thank Vin and others for bringing it to my attention.
In the absence of an early warning system, Gippslanders depend on their ABC for up-to-date information in these emergency situations. Gippsland does present many geographical challenges when you are broadcasting across mountain ranges to many isolated communities, which just heightens the need for a reliable service. I urge the minister to explore all options to ensure the ABC signal remains loud and clear. (Time expired)
Today I would like to acknowledge and congratulate two remarkable constituents of my electorate of Hasluck. Leonard and Ivy Townrow, who are residents of the McMahon Caring Centre, in Gosnells, celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary on 11 February. Mrs Townrow says, ‘We’re as much in love today as ever before.’ Every night, their single beds are pushed together and they hold hands while going to sleep. Mr Townrow refuses to sleep if not next to his wife. I also understand that their gopher races are legendary at the McMahon Caring Centre!
Mr and Mrs Townrow have three children, one of whom, Wendy Joyce, is also a Hasluck local. Together with their nine grandchildren, six great-grandchildren and the staff of the McMahon Caring Centre, including Diane Winship, 94-year-old Len and 93-year-old Ivy celebrated their special day. Seventy years of married life is truly a wonderful milestone. I sincerely wish them every happiness and many more years together.
I was pleased to host with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition some small business forums in the Dunkley electorate. I would like to thank all those involved, particularly Antonio from The Sober Mule Cafe. It was fitting that we had this roundtable discussion at the Sober Mule, because the sentiment was certainly sober and the economy was characterised as plodding along a bit like a mule—not like the Mornington Cup racehorses that were competing not that far away.
A recurring theme that came up was just how appalled many small and medium sized businesses were about their treatment by the major banks. We heard case after case where the major banks were unilaterally calling in lines of credit, unilaterally advising that a business had had its risk profile re-rated and that this was going to put up the interest rates it was paying on its business finance. In fact, we saw cases where fees charged by some of the major banks had reportedly gone up by four per cent.
The major banks have benefited considerably from the support of the taxpayer with recent announcements, and I think it is way past time that the major banks actually recognise some reciprocal responsibility to this engine room of the Australian economy, these small to medium sized businesses having a red-hot go to make sure that their caution and concern about future economic prospects do not lead to unnecessary job losses. What we are hearing is that the major banks are making a difficult situation worse. They should pass on interest rate cuts. They should end this calling in of loan facilities, where they now do not like the terms and conditions, and they should take a good hard look at themselves. (Time expired)
This week is Organ Donor Awareness Week and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kate Backhouse, a young woman in my electorate who has risen above the challenge of a double lung transplant and has gone on to raise thousands of dollars for Transplant Australia.
Today is not the first time I have spoken here about Kate and organ donation. It was Kate’s agonising wait for a double lung transplant in 2006 that brought the full reality of transplant waiting lists to my attention. I spoke then of the struggle of those on transplant waiting lists and noted with concern the low rate of organ donation in Australia. Fortunately, since then Kate has received the life-saving transplant she needed, and the energy and enthusiasm that she brings to every facet of her life is to be admired. She is a keen swimmer and has set her sights on the World Transplant Games this August.
She is also an avid charity fundraiser. Two weeks ago she gave back to the cause with a Have a Heart black tie function at Rockhampton’s Kershaw House. The event was packed to the rafters and exceeded all expectations to raise a staggering $22,000, thanks to the local community and Kate. Kate tells me that, of the money raised, $13,000 will go to Transplant Australia and the remaining $9,000 will go to the Victorian Bushfire Recovery Fund.
Kate is working to see that Rockhampton has the highest number of citizens on the Australian Organ Donor Register of anywhere in the country, and I wish her every success with that aim. Australia’s organ donation rate is still too low and I take this opportunity in Organ Donor Awareness Week to encourage all those listening to register by visiting medicareaustralia.gov.au and also to inform their family of their decision. (Time expired)
On Wednesday, 11 February, the Australian Youth Orchestra visited Parliament House, and we, as federal members of parliament, were invited to listen to their rehearsal and then meet with the orchestra members from our electorates. I was greatly impressed during the 20 minutes that I listened to the orchestra—the music was pure, clear and exhilarating. Although the conductor, 28-year-old Alexander Shelley, pulled the orchestra up on a few occasions, I recall it was the best orchestra that I have ever listened to.
I am also proud to say that Cowan was very well represented, with three musicians as part of the orchestra. Sara Herriman of Kingsley was on violin, and I know that her parents, Bruce and Amanda, are very proud of the dedication Sarah has shown to get to this place in her art. I know that Sarah has also been greatly influenced by her teacher, Margaret Blades. In the percussion section Cowan was represented by Natasha French of Alexander Heights. Natasha attributes her success to the commitment of her teacher, Tim White. I am sure that Tim, and Natasha’s parents, Allan and Julie French, are proud of what she has achieved and what she will do in the future. Also in the percussion section was Catherine Betts of Greenwood. Her parents are Wayne and Diana Betts and her sister is Candice. I know that they have always been out there supporting Catherine in her achievements.
It is important to say that it is very difficult to get into this orchestra. It has taken these young musicians years of dedication and self-sacrifice to achieve the extraordinary skill required. They have done so with the support of teachers and family members. I do not know where their futures will take them but I am confident that if it is in music or elsewhere, the outstanding commitment shown so far will guarantee them success.
On Saturday night I celebrated with my friends at the South Melbourne Football Club the opening of the 2009 season and 50 years of tradition of the great South Melbourne Football Club. I want to congratulate President Leo Athanasakis and his commilla on a glittering event and on a wonderful beginning to the year, with South Melbourne winning the Hellenic Cup, defeating Heidelberg United by 3-0. It was a good beginning to the year and I hope the club will have continuing success under its coach, Michael Michalakopoulos.
It is very interesting to see the development of the South Melbourne team. Its new captain is a young Turkish Australian called Rama Tavsancioglu. My friend Martin Foley, the member for Albert Park, and I are working very hard with the SMFC on the refurbishment of the South Melbourne ground—the Bob Jane Stadium—and, with Victorian Athletics, the Victorian government is looking into a proposal for a $74 million refurbishment of the whole ground.
Ultimately, South Melbourne deserves its place in the A-League—it will get back there as it must get back into national competition. It is now exclusively hooked up to the local community in training youngsters. It is not simply an ethnic based club any more and South Melbourne will get its rightful place in the A-League when it is recognised as a more widely based club. When a new round of clubs are being asked to join the A-League, SMFC should be considered on its merits. (Time expired)
On 17 February 2009 I had the great pleasure of having the Hon. Anthony Albanese, federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, as well as the Hon. Warren Pitt MP, Queensland Minister for Main Roads and Local Government—
I am sorry to have to interrupt the poor member. It being 6.55 pm, in accordance with standing order 192A, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs Moylan:
That the House:
This motion was originally drafted to try and coincide with international diabetes day and to recognise the landmark decision that was made by the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution making 14 November World Diabetes Day. Since long before the landmark UN resolution to recognise diabetes with its own international day on 14 November, Australian governments have ranked diabetes as a national health priority. Why do they do this? Because the impact of chronic illness is the new frontier for governments, which, without a vigorous management plan, will struggle to stem the chronic illness pandemic that is sweeping the globe.
Few chronic conditions are more challenging than diabetes. Diabetes is a silent killer: it creeps up on people. Often by the time it is diagnosed incalculable harm has already been done, and once diagnosed diabetes involves a lifetime of complex and special care. Left untreated, diabetes is the leading cause of heart disease, kidney failure and stroke, and each year worldwide every 30 seconds someone has a limb amputated due to diabetes and 2.8 million people die from diabetes related illnesses somewhere in the globe.
In many cases diabetes is preventable and early diagnosis and treatment of its complications can reduce the mortality rate. Diabetes Australia, whose theme is turning diabetes around, has and continues to have a pivotal role in assisting Australian governments to find ways to prevent, treat and manage diabetes and is strongly supportive of joining with the UN in highlighting the problem of diabetes in the community on international diabetes day as well as every day of every year. Diabetes Australia is always at the cutting edge in delivering services to people with diabetes and it manages the National Diabetes Service Scheme, the NDSS. This scheme is a world first in terms of subsidising diabetic products for people living with diabetes, ensuring effective and affordable treatment options.
Diabetes Australia has made a long and distinguished contribution to the health of the nation, always searching for ways to improve health outcomes for those with diabetes. Diabetes Australia today and each day continues to build on all that it has done in the past. To highlight World Diabetes Day, Diabetes Australia joined with Microsoft in using groundbreaking technology to provide population data about Australians diagnosed with diabetes. Almost a million Australians live with diabetes, and 715,000 of them have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes used to be a disease of the aged but today we see a disturbing trend of it being diagnosed in children. In fact, 350 children aged to the age of 15 live today with type 2 diabetes. This is mainly but not exclusively a lifestyle disease brought on by overeating, poor quality diet and lack of activity and exercise.
Type 2 diabetes is largely preventable. That is why I enthusiastically joined with my colleagues the Hon. Dick Adams, member for Lyons, Senator Barnett, the member for Isaacs, the member for Moore and all the colleagues in this place who support the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group in their work to highlight the problem of diabetes in the community.
I would also like to pay tribute to the work of Professor Martin Silink, who is President of the International Diabetes Federation. His term comes to an end shortly. I think we can be very proud that he was the first Australian elected to this prestigious international body and has done an extraordinary job in highlighting worldwide the difficulties that our communities face in managing diabetes.
It is nice to see the member for Lyons take the chair, and I once again acknowledge the work that he does in the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group to work across parties, to make sure that we have the best practice medicine against the scourge of diabetes in this country.
According to Diabetes Australia, type 2 diabetes costs Australia about $3 billion a year. The cost of diabetes to the community for a person with no complications is $9,625 a year. For a person with complications, the cost to our community is $15,850 per year. Four per cent of people who have diagnosed diabetes account for 12 per cent of the health costs in Australia, and there is no cure for type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Australia supports research through the Diabetes Australia Research Trust. Lifestyle changes can prevent or delay type 2 diabetes. This is a big issue for my electorate of Blair in Queensland. The study of diabetes will be part of the focus of the Ipswich study, conducted by the Healthy Communities Research Centre at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. All the organisations who attended the Ipswich GP superclinic indicated that the study and treatment of diabetes will be a particular focus for the Ipswich GP superclinic. According to the 2006 census data, in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland 5,743 people have been diagnosed with diabetes, including 118 with gestation diabetes, 136 with type 1 and 4,773 with type 2.
I am pleased to say that the Rudd government did listen to various people, including me, amongst others, on these matters. I do not claim any special privilege but I certainly wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing before the last budget in relation to insulin pumps. In the 2008-09 budget, the Commonwealth government announced that it would subsidise the cost of insulin pumps for young people with diabetes from 1 November 2008. This program was well received by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and by Diabetes Australia. It will provide a means test subsidy of up to $2,500 for people with type 1 diabetes who are aged under 18 years.
The Rudd government really is committed to tackling diabetes. It is committed to confronting diabetes as one of the eight national health priorities. The government has backed up that commitment strongly with real investment in short-term and long-term strategies to tackle this problem. For example, we have put in over $57 million in 2008 for diabetes research, provided through the National Health and Medical Research Council; $126 million has been allocated for the administration of the National Diabetes Services Scheme; and over $400 million was spent last year on diabetes products supplied by the NDSS and on medicines for diabetes through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. COAG last November made a really strong commitment with an historic $850 million for the national partnership on prevention. That was agreed to with the states and territories. According to the Department of Health and Ageing, around 700 young people will benefit from the insulin pumps subsidy. This is an important strategy from the Rudd government, but it is also important in terms of prevention because it will make a difference in terms of type 2 diabetes.
Childhood obesity is a real problem. You only have to visit schools and preschools to see that it is a real problem in our community. The Healthy Kids Check for four-year-olds will help to improve childhood health, and the Get Set 4 Life—habits for healthy kids guide is important for parents, because kids need to eat fruit and vegetables and have a balanced diet. The Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Project is another program, which is being run in 190 primary schools and has been allocated $12.8 million. Exercise is also important, so we have the Active After-school Communities Program. And on and on it goes. The Rudd government is strongly committed to tackling this problem.
The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission released its interim report on 16 February this year, and the government have established a preventative health task force to assist us to prepare a national preventative health strategy to tackle the burden of chronic disease. This really is a chronic problem in our community. I warmly welcome the commitment of the Rudd government. It will help my constituents who have come to see me in my electorate. It will help the people in Ipswich and the people in the rural areas outside Ipswich. I thank the member for Pearce for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. This is an important commitment from both sides of politics, and I thank her for her longstanding work in the area. Well done.
I also rise in support of this motion, and I also thank my colleague the member for Pearce for her longstanding work, commitment and drive on this issue. It is very clear, from what we have seen with the decision of the United Nations General Assembly to adopt Resolution 61/225 that this is a desperately important problem that needs to be worked on. I do not say ‘solved’, because I think that a lot of medical advances are going to be required before we see this solved.
I would like to look at this from a different perspective. I am not going to go into the technical matters to any great degree, but I note that from the year 2010 it is estimated that 1.23 million people in Australia face the potential threat of diabetes. As we know, some 90 per cent of cases of diabetes in this country are type 2—which is heavily influenced by lifestyle. This is something that parents really need to be aware of. As a parent myself, I know that when I ask my children which takeaway food or other food they would like, they will always say fish and chips or some sort of happy meal with some dodgy game in it. But I know that these things need to be for the rare occasion. Certainly I do not think that we should ever be in the position where we continually eat out at the worst of the fast-food places day in and day out; but I know that there are some people who live that sort of life, and that is not good news for the children. As I said before, as parents we need to be aware that these foods should, as a general rule, be avoided but occasionally it is okay. Parents need to set the example. They need to concentrate on the fresh food, vegetables, lean meats—responsible diet options. As it is, we do face a major problem in this country. I know that, like the member for Blair and the member for Pearce, there are some people in my electorate who face the problems of diabetes and who are overweight.
I have noticed in some of the documentation that a man with a waist measurement of 100 centimetres or more is considered to be obese, and I know that I sail close to that line myself—which is a cause for great concern. That is why I like to join the member for Blair down in the gym almost every morning that we are at parliament, apart from when I am out rowing. These things are really important. We need to think about lifestyle. I know that I cannot afford, particularly at my age of 44, to eat fast food regularly, or almost at all—although I do indulge on some occasions. It is a matter of a personal commitment and a personal acknowledgement of what we can do for ourselves, and we all should acknowledge that. We should make sure that our kids are starting off with those right habits, those good habits, of eating well and indulging on fairly rare occasions.
I think it is very important that we acknowledge the limitations we have, that we acknowledge our responsibilities as adults and parents and that we have a commitment to maintain a healthy lifestyle. We should take those opportunities—whether it is before dawn or before work in the mornings or in the evenings—to try and get out there and do a little bit of work, get that exercise going. I am not talking about taking time away from families; but I am talking about maybe trying to add some extra time to the day to live that better lifestyle, eat good food and acknowledge the limitations of our bodies. I think that is the best way forward. We should be living that life and living that example in this place.
I too rise in support of this motion and to speak on this private member’s motion before the House today. I also welcome this motion and I thank and congratulate the member for Pearce for bringing such a critical issue to the parliament. I also thank and congratulate you, Deputy Speaker Adams, for your involvement in the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. I know how committed both of you and all the members are. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, which is currently looking into issues of obesity in Australia. We are all well aware on the committee of the growing diabetes epidemic caused by obesity in Australia. We are also aware of the personal impact diabetes has on people’s lives and the implications for the health budget. On a personal note, a direct member of my family has had diabetes for many, many years.
The incidence of diabetes in Australia—type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes—has grown in the past two decades. In the 15 years up to 2004-05, the number of people diagnosed with diabetes more than doubled, to 700,000 or 3.6 per cent of the population. Of these, 13 per cent had type 1 diabetes and 83 per cent had type 2 diabetes. In 2005, there were 901 new cases of children with type 1 diabetes aged under 15 years. This was a 20 per cent increase in the rate of new cases compared to the figure in 2000. Australia is already among the top 10 countries for incidence rates for type 1 diabetes in children. In my electorate, I have had many discussions with many people—including a young woman called Michelle Teslik of Glenelg East, who gave me a real insight into her life and how so many of our young people are forced to live with diabetes through absolutely no fault of their own.
As I said, I have had experiences with diabetes—my father has been a diabetic on insulin for over 45 years now. He was diagnosed when I was about 15 years old. He is from a non-English-speaking background and, even though he could communicate in English quite well, when he had to see doctors and talk to specialists I was taken along as a translator—this was in the days before interpreters. So I have a good insight into diabetes—how it operates and how it works. My father has been insulin dependent for 45 years, and he often says that if it were not for his diabetes he would be dead today, because he had not been looking after his diet. He was drinking perhaps a bit too much and doing a whole range of other things. But when he was diagnosed he took it upon himself to ensure that he led a very healthy lifestyle. Now he is 81 and he still rides approximately eight kilometres on his bike four or five times a week and walks one hour every night.
A couple of years ago we had a group of young children who were insulin dependent here in Parliament House. I told them that my father was a diabetic and in his 80s, and one of the immediate questions I got from one of these children was: does he have both his legs and can he see? These are the fears that children growing up with diabetes have. I think sometimes it is good to give them a positive role model and to say to them, ‘Look, if you do look after yourself, if you do the right thing, you can live quite a normal life.’ I gave them the example of my father. They were quite surprised that this insulin-dependent person had all his eyesight, had all his limbs and was leading a pretty healthy lifestyle.
Juvenile diabetes, of course, is not caused by poor diet, lack of exercise or any of the other factors that contribute to what most of us think of as diabetes. We do not know what brings it on in children. It does not have anything to do with lifestyle, being overweight or a poor diet. I meet regularly with young children, and I have become very good friends with a young student from Henley Beach, Kate Cox, whose ambition is to be a politician one day. Kate lobbied me for federal support for the creation of a program to assist young people such as her to access a better means of managing their type 1 diabetes—that is, an insulin pump. Early last year I also met with young Amelia Lester, aged 13, who wrote me a heartfelt letter requesting my help in the management of her diabetes. Her request was also for Commonwealth support for access to insulin pumps.
I am very pleased that the government is supporting children like the ones I have just mentioned and others to get the insulin pumps that they deserve so much. The government made $5.5 million available to assist families with a child with type 1 diabetes to access the insulin pumps. This assistance will help many children and their families to better cope with and manage this condition. Diabetes has been a national health priority area for all Australian governments since 1996 and is one of eight national health priorities. In April 2007 COAG agreed to new measures reducing the cost of type 2 diabetes, with governments agreeing to collectively commit at least $200 million. (Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs D’Ath:
That the House:
It is my pleasure to move this motion on computers in schools. In the latest round, being round 2, 360 Queensland schools will join the digital education revolution. Of the secondary schools in my electorate, eight will be given funding for new computers this round. Combined, these schools will receive funding for 1,267 computers, to the value of $1,273,000. In addition to the funding directly for new computers, St Paul’s School at Bald Hills has received $6,000 in additional flexible funding to provide more flexibility to meet the ICT needs of students with disabilities. This funding is in addition to two secondary schools in the Petrie electorate that received funding in round 1.
I would like to read an email forwarded to me on 24 October 2008 from Adrienne Jericho, Executive Director of Lutheran Education Australia, in relation to a Lutheran school in my electorate that was successful in round 1. Dr Jericho writes:
Ms D’Ath, I am pleased to forward you a good news story about the digital revolution and Grace Lutheran College. Your government initiative has meant so much to us.
Attached to the email was an article entitled ‘Digital revolution and success through collaboration’. I would like to take this opportunity to read this article for the members of this parliament.
Grace Lutheran College at Rothwell in Queensland is a large secondary school on two campuses with approximately 1550 students. The application for 404 computers (majority being laptops) via the Commonwealth government’s Digital Education Revolution was successful in July this year. By late October 2008 almost all of the 404 computers have been acquired and implemented, and are being used by students across the college.
How was such an implementation so successful? Synergy and collaboration have been the key ingredients for such a successful implementation.
Beginning with ‘Lead Up’ then ‘Heads Up’ communications from Lutheran Education Queensland’s office prior to the government’s offer to the school, as well as keeping Lutheran Education Australia’s ICT business partners, such as Hewlett Packard and Telstra, informed the race to success began. After notification from DEEWR, Mr Peter Kellett (Head of I.T. Grace Lutheran College) prepared the school leaders and the total school community for the oncoming changes and began initial planning of implementation while reviewing and renewing the College’s current ICT Strategic Plan and Vision.
Derek Bartels (Executive Officer—ICT Lutheran Education Queensland) played a key role in ensuring that all who were impacted by the decision were kept informed. Lutheran Education Queensland acted as a conduit/troubleshooter between DEEWR (as well as local BGA) to assist Round 1 schools in strategic planning and acquisition of computers. He then requested draft orders from all Round 1 Lutheran schools so that he could ready Hewlett Packard in sourcing and verifying stock. BES (Lutheran Education Queensland HP Channel Partner) and Hewlett Packard assisted the school in choosing model and type. Grace Lutheran College planned that the rollout of the 404 computers be staggered over 4 months and all milestones and deadlines were then shared amongst all the stakeholders prior to the final acceptance by DEEWR.
As soon as Grace Lutheran College was notified by DEEWR of its successful application, everyone went immediately into phase two of implementing the above plans with small refinements along the way. Wireless infrastructure, furniture, personnel, PD programs and room alterations were implemented as planned. The final 50 computers are being unpacked and commissioned as this article is being written. The journey now continues after a successful beginning and the federally funded computers will support Grace Lutheran College’s vision for learning in the 21st Century.
This very important and successful achievement by a Lutheran school exemplifies the strength of the partnership that Lutheran Education Australia and its schools share, as they work with business partners and the Commonwealth government to realize strategic ICT educational initiatives. Indeed the rollout of 404 computers in one school so seamlessly in such a short period of time has been possible because of system strategic planning, professional development and collaboration over many years.
It is this collaboration, through this school and the other eight schools that have received funding in round 2, that will see our children, across the schools, benefit from these sorts of initiatives. Over the coming months and years I look forward to seeing this computer package rolled out as part of the education revolution in all my schools and I congratulate the federal government on this initiative.
I am happy to lead for the opposition—no, I am only kidding! Computers in schools are an important issue on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales and, while I recognise the flowery wording in congratulating the Rudd government, I reserve my judgment—but, hopefully, will congratulate the Rudd government—because many aspects of the rollout on the mid-North Coast are still to take place.
In my first speech to the parliament I mentioned computers as the most critical divide between rural and metropolitan areas of Australia. The access to the information highway for students is absolutely critical, so the principles behind this rollout are sound and certainly supported. It is a case of waiting particularly for the state public education sector to start their rollout in New South Wales—which, I have got to say, has been a frustrating delay, one that hopefully gets addressed quickly so that there is no further divide between government and non-government schools.
The rollout in the non-government sector, though, has been fantastic. The electorate of Lyne was successful in round 1 prior to Christmas and, having inspected some of the schools, such as St Columba, where I think 60 new computers were put in prior to Christmas, I can say there certainly is happiness throughout the school community, both at a student and teacher level, in regard to the new equipment and the opportunities it now provides.
I will mention the states again, though, because not only with this rollout but also with many of the other aspects of the education revolution and aspects of the fiscal stimulus relevant to education generally there is the rider of the role of the states, which in many ways is going to be the maker or breaker for all of us. I would hope that all the good work and all the good intentions in formulating these policies, winning arguments in budget subcommittees and then turning them into actual policy packages are not undone at a delivery level through the various state arms.
So I would ask that the Commonwealth not think its job done and not congratulate itself yet but actually stay vigilant, crack the whip if necessary and get through the states’ hoops—whatever those hoops may be, as crazy as they may be at times—to deliver good, on-the-ground results for students and schools throughout Australia.
The other point I would like to raise is that this is not only about computer hardware and software but about broadband connections. It would be remiss of me not to mention that issue because a computer is only as good as its ability to access the global information highway. We are sweating on the national broadband rollout decisions and certainly hoping for good news on that front. We are certainly hoping that the government not only sticks to its commitments but recognises that, hand in glove with policies such as computer rollouts, we need to significantly improve internet speeds and deal with issues such as dropouts. It is embarrassing that people living five minutes from the centre of significantly urbanised areas of regional Australia are still experiencing slow speeds and high dropouts in 2009. When we think about education for students we have to think about not only the school site but the home environment as well. I think of a girl I visited during the election campaign and mentioned during my first speech who is a year 9 student at Camden Haven High School and who is on dial-up at her home. How does she compete with someone living in this town for speed of connection and access to education? It is a two-tiered system of education delivery that we have got to address, and that is why the principles behind this are sound. But I think we are all sweating on the actual delivery so that we can put the ‘for sale’ sign up and we can congratulate each other on a job well done.
I rise in support of the member for Petrie’s excellent motion. The Rudd government’s computers in schools program is a fantastic initiative that provides much-needed technology for our students in all schools. The program, announced as part of the 2007 election campaign, aims to have one computer for each student in years 9 to 12 by the year 2011. The funding already allocated to schools in my electorate is seeing them well on the way to meeting that target. This aim is not only a clear statement of our desire to instigate an education revolution in this country but a concrete example of how the Rudd government is working in conjunction with the states to ensure that our children receive the best possible educational experience. I know that principals I have spoken to in my electorate are excited by the possibilities that this program presents for their schools and the whole new world of opportunities it provides for their students.
Under the second round of funding announced on 28 January, 18 schools in my electorate received computers. Capricornia is a large and diverse electorate, so the effect of this program reaches into many communities, big and small, and communities that represent a mixture of industries and economic bases, all of which will be looking for school graduates with information technology skills. The schools in the state system were: Dysart State High School, 41 computers; Glenmore State High School, 165 computers; Moranbah State High School, 102 computers; Mount Morgan State High School, 43 computers; Rockhampton State High School, 22 computers; Mirani State High School, 121 computers; Clermont State High School, 25 computers; North Rockhampton State High School, 216 computers; Yeppoon State High School, 200 computers; Glenden State School, 14 computers; Middlemount Community School, 30 computers; and Rockhampton North Special School, three computers. The independent schools were also in there: Rockhampton Girls Grammar School is receiving 43 computers and Rockhampton Grammar School will get 174 computers. In the Catholic system, the Cathedral College will get 187 computers; Emmaus College, 193 computers; St Brendan’s College, 80 computers; and St Ursula’s College, 110 computers. This is a total of 1,769 computers in schools in my electorate.
This latest round means that all schools in my electorate and across the nation have now been given the opportunity to obtain the necessary funding to bring them to a one to two computer to student ratio. The comments from principals in my electorate include those from the Principal of the Lighthouse Christian School, John Buchholz, who had 14 new laptops arrive in his school’s classrooms at the end of last year through round 1 of the program. He tells me that both teachers and students are excited about the new laptops because the machines replaced a series of PCs that were clunky, out of date and frustrating to use. Principal Buchholz says the laptops give the school full flexibility to move them throughout the classrooms as required and to ensure all the students have access each day to the technology they need. The students used the laptops for chemistry, physics, IT and even media and photography. They are learning new things and in new ways, and this was simply not possible before.
Another example is Heights College, which is a very fast growing school in Rockhampton. Principal Andrew Johnson agrees that the computers in schools program is a great initiative. He tells me it has delivered a range of new technologies thanks to the school receiving 72 new computers. At Heights College they have trolleys to accompany the laptops and make them extra mobile, which has been great for getting the computers to middle school students. They have also invested in interactive whiteboards, data projectors and new software. Mr Johnson said it had delivered significant benefits for all of his students.
Just last month I had the pleasure of visiting Glenmore High School on the day that round 2 of the funding was announced. I have been speaking with the principal there, Joy Ganter, who says that the 165 new computers that her school will soon receive will be wonderful. At Glenmore the computers will be deployed across the entire curriculum. This will see students working with a suite of Microsoft Office programs as well as more specific programs in the science, mathematics and industrial technology and design departments.
This program is important. There is no doubt that computers and the internet have become a necessity of life, and having our children utilising them at a young age prepares them for their continued use through their lives. The member for Petrie states in her motion that the future of this country lies within our young people and that as a government we must invest in our schools to invest in our future. This sums up the computers in schools program entirely. This package is all about investing in our youth and ensuring that they get the very best education we can provide and guaranteeing that they are well equipped to take on that future. This comes on top of the great news of funding for primary schools which was announced in the last sitting week. I know schools in my electorate are really seeing the benefits of the education revolution.
With the greatest respect for the member for Petrie, this motion is farcical in the extreme. There is no way the Rudd government can be congratulated for delivering a so-called education revolution. This revolution is beached and destroyed on the Bay of Pigs, where all revolutions end up. The Prime Minister stood there and said that Labor will undertake a groundbreaking reform by providing every Australian secondary school student in years 9 to 12 with access to their own computer at school—campaign launch, 14 November 2007. Well, 15 months in, my electorate has got five. It is not five schools; it is five computers. Now, that is a groundbreaking reform!
Labor committed $1.2 billion to the program over five years in the May budget. Yet recent announcements have added almost $1 billion to it—a 66 per cent cost blow-out—and the member for Petrie wants the chamber to stand up and congratulate the Rudd government for a fantastic rollout of computers. If a Howard government minister had dared to have the temerity to have a 66 per cent blow-out, a billion dollars, he or she would have been sacked on the spot. The centrepiece of this dudded education revolution is massively underfunded and the program is incomplete free fall. Departmental figures released under freedom of information demonstrate that to deliver on Labor’s election promise of one computer for every child in years 9 to 12 the whole program may well cost more than $5 billion, based on figures showing that the states were going to have to commit $3.27 for every federal dollar under the original $1.2 billion program. If those figures hold true, that is a blow-out in effect of 400 per cent. Labor’s $2 billion spend, though, has also cunningly been reworded to say that they will give a computer for every second student, using words like access to a computer rather than a computer for every student—a clear breach of an election promise.
The program has been plagued from the start by disagreement between the Commonwealth and the states as the Rudd government’s financial support for the computers did not extend to installation, software, networking, IT support or indeed any of the other on-costs for running computers. Instead, those on-costs were conveniently passed on to the states. That is ironic, because in my state of Queensland the Labor government has racked up $74 billion worth of debt. I can only assume the other Labor states are doing the same thing.
Round 1 of the program that was finalised late last year provided computers for less than 10 per cent of public schools in Australia. New South Wales has withdrawn from round 2 of the program. The South Australian and ACT governments have said they will use the new computers to replace old computers rather than increasing the number of computers in schools. The Western Australian government has threatened to withdraw from the program unless the program’s guidelines are sorted out.
The 66 per cent blow-out is a complete and utter failure. There is no other word that can be used. Prime Minister Rudd used the laptop held aloft as the ‘toolbox of the 21st century’—a great ploy and a con to get elected. But if you look at the rate at which computers are being rolled out it is unbelievable. If the rest of the program will be delivered at the same speed as round 1 of the program, it will take 10 to 20 years to roll out to every single secondary student between year 9 and year 12. Unfortunately, the children of Australia cannot afford to wait for Kevin 07, and with the grand total of five computers rolled out in Fadden—not five schools, five computers rolled out—we will be waiting past when we all pass away from this green earth for Labor’s education revolution to deliver anything for the Gold Coast.
Far from adopting, agreeing and indeed supporting the member for Petrie’s motion to congratulate the Rudd Labor government, I stand here and condemn the government for a con and a farce, and a deception on the children of Australia.
Order! The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion byMr Coulton:
That the House:
This issue is of utmost importance to me. My electorate is 107,000 square kilometres and many of the people who live in my electorate are very isolated. I also believe that no matter where you live in this country all our children should have the same opportunities when it comes to accessing quality educational services.
I believe this should start with early childhood education. During the election there was discussion of a rollout for early childhood preschool services to all children of four years of age. One of the problems is that in isolated areas it can quite often be a distance of 100 kilometres for a child to be delivered to preschool and therefore it is impractical for those children to attend on a regular basis. But there is an alternative, and in a couple of locations in my electorate the mobile preschools are doing an excellent job in delivering quality early childhood services to isolated children. The added bonus is that besides the children gaining social skills that they might not otherwise attain, it is a wonderful opportunity for relatively isolated parents to get together and network in a social manner.
One of the organisations in my electorate that I have had some relationship with is the Gwydir Mobile Preschool, which is operated by Wendy Baldwin. Wendy and her team travel hundreds of kilometres each week to ensure that children living in isolated areas of north-west New South Wales have access to educational services. I have met with Wendy and she has told me about the families they service and the areas they cover. Unfortunately, Wendy and her team are forever facing an uphill battle as there are not enough funding dollars available to assist them with this service. There are others as well—for example the Tharawonga Mobile Preschool, in my own area of Gwydir shire, which has been operating under the auspices of the council for some time. Once again, it provides a wonderful service but it is always scratching for funding. I believe it would be a wonderful opportunity for the federal government, as part of their policy to roll out early childcare to preschoolers, to look at this mobile preschool model.
Of course, for children to get to school, access is important. I have approximately 150 schools in my electorate. I do not think there would be many electorates that would have more than that. Many of them are small, one- and two-teacher schools. I have several schools that are over 1,000 students. But many of the schools are small. And the kids at these schools get an excellent education. Quite often, the children from these smaller, isolated schools excel when they get to high school because they have become self-reliant from the individual education they get from these teachers. One of the real issues that is confronting education, particularly in my area in the black soil plains, is the state of the roads. I firmly believe there is a case to be made for priority funding to school-bus routes. For instance, at the moment I have hundreds of children right across the north-western part of my electorate, in the Moree and Walgett-Coonamble areas, who cannot access school because the roads are impassable due to wet weather.
Finally, I come to tertiary education, in the few seconds I have left. One of the great anomalies that faces kids going to tertiary education is that they have to live away from home. As a father who has just put his third child into tertiary education, I fully understand the problem that these kids face—that is, their access to youth allowance. They have to work independently for 15 months to get that funding. They do not have an option to stay at home. They have to move off and live away from home. So they need this funding. (Time expired)
I will take up the member for Parkes’ last point, if I may, and thank him for moving this motion, because it is certainly an important issue for a lot of families in rural and remote Australia. So I thank him for that.
When I had the privilege of being able to go to university in the early seventies—I know I look a lot younger than that!—I had a lot of advantages, in the sense that, firstly, I lived in a city, so I had direct access to tertiary education. Secondly, there were ample scholarships available—the Commonwealth scholarship, which was very broad in its application, and also teaching scholarships and others. And, thirdly, we did not pay fees. So I was paying for books—and other curriculum activities, of the swigging kind! But I do not want to demean what is really an important issue.
Then I moved to regional Australia, where I am very proud to be and which I am very proud to represent. Clearly an issue which has arisen over time is that there is a discriminatory factor based on geography. We try to deal with a lot of discrimination in our country by means-testing things. Okay—so be it; we think that is a fair thing to do. But I would like to have a look at the situation in regional and rural Australia for a lot of people.
Take the families that have reasonable incomes—not massive but reasonable incomes. Their children must leave home to access higher education. The differential—the discrimination based on geography—is that they have to move to do this. We can measure that differential cost by looking at accommodation receipts, or travel receipts and so forth. The difference is that those families are up for $10,000 at least—$10,000 to $15,000, and rising—for one of their children to access tertiary education. As my colleague the member for Parkes said, he has three children, so I can fully appreciate the cost. I have two. And you might say, ‘This is just self-interest talking.’ But, you see, the difference is that I do not mind doing my bit; it is when, above and beyond that, it is going to cost $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, or $25,000 because of where I live. That is what we are raising in terms of inequity—an enforced cost based on geography.
Some people have dubbed this middle-class welfare. We will have that argument; no doubt about it. The point is: I do not mind if it is purely means-tested and that is it, but in actual fact it is a discriminatory factor because of geography. They have to go away to do their courses, and they contribute to the economy of this country. That is holding a number of students back. They cannot do it, they are not able to do it, and so they have this gap year—which has become the trend now. People say that, for sociological reasons, that is a good thing.
We all know what is driving a lot of this. It is purely and simply that mum and dad cannot afford it, or the children take the attitude that ‘I’m not going to impose on them.’ Let’s face it: when most of our children go to university, and up to the age of 25, many are dependent on us. This is demeaning, in a sense. They have to work. Most of them have part-time or almost full-time jobs. I think we have got to take into account that discriminatory factor based on geography. We can do it through a tax rebate. For instance, you have to prove your accommodation expenses, and you get a tax rebate for those whom you depend on—because if they do not depend on us they are either on allowances or they are virtually in full-time work. So I reckon it is an issue that is well worth taking up on the grounds of equity. I am not pleading poverty but I honestly believe it is discriminatory and it stops a lot of our kids—particularly in rural and regional Australia, where the tertiary retention rates are too low, and it affects the economic future of this country as well as the social wellbeing and the development of social capital in our area. So I thank the member for Parkes.
I recommend the report Time running out: shaping regional Australia’s future for commentary on this issue. It is a very good report from an inquiry in the year 2000, and a number of my colleagues in the House at present participated in it: the member for Lyons, the member for Barker and me, and the former member for Parkes. I think this is something we can take up, we can measure it, we can support it, and it will have positive benefits socially, economically and educationally.
I support this motion from the member for Parkes, and I think we should congratulate him for it. If I can take up where the member for Braddon left off, this is an important issue. I was part of the committee inquiry in 2000, and I think we came up with some good recommendations. Whilst over the years we have made some improvements, we still have this discrimination of rural students based on where they live, not on what they earn. There is no doubt that we could make a change to this without too great a cost to the Australian taxpayer.
It is a basic right of Australian children that their educational needs and their future aspirations should not be disadvantaged simply because of the location of their family home. To add to what the member for Braddon was saying, I know of many examples of parents who, when their children are getting close to tertiary education, actually leave the rural areas to go to Adelaide on the basis of making it easier for their children to go to university. The problem with that is the brain drain out of the rural areas. This is happening all the time. Many students living in rural and isolated areas are unable to easily access all levels of schooling—not only primary and secondary but also preschool and post-secondary education. We have excellent facilities at our universities in Adelaide and Melbourne, but that is of little consequence to many students in my electorate who simply cannot access them due to distance and cost.
It is a well-known fact that the alarmingly low participation rate in tertiary education for rural and remote students was 16 per cent in 1997, compared to nearly 30 per cent for metropolitan students. This is not because country students are dumber; it is just harder for them to get to university. Whilst this was last measured some years ago, I have been talking to many families in my electorate, and it is still unacceptably low. It is much harder to get our rural students to university.
The cost of accessing tertiary studies is always very difficult for isolated rural and remote families. Many people in my electorate live 400 kilometres away from a university. You cannot travel that every day, can you? So you have to shift house. With the economic downturn that we are now facing, together with the ongoing impact of drought—every part of my electorate is under EC funding, so that shows that we are all under drought—it is impossible for many parents to meet the rising costs associated with children attending boarding institutions to go to university.
Means testing of rural students’ entitlement to youth allowance or Austudy against parental income and assets denies many students the assistance that would mean the difference between them attending and not attending university. Like the member for Braddon, I think we do need a means test. We can all agree that a means test should come into it, but this is on the basis of equity. Rural students do not face the same thing as their city cousins. If you are in the city, you can live at home. If you are in the country, you have to shift, and that is an extra cost. Recent research estimated expenses of $15,000 to $20,000 per year, plus up to $6,000 for start-up costs. I am not saying we should pay all of that, but if we paid, say, $5,000 or a bit more than that then it would at least give some encouragement for rural students, and it might make the difference between that student going to university and not. It is a barrier that must be removed so that tertiary education can become a viable option for all rural young people.
I have raised this on many occasions in this parliament, as I am sure the member for Parkes and the member for Braddon have. It was again brought to the attention of the Prime Minister with a collaborative proposal which was developed by 10 members of the rural industries and rural communities stream at the Australia 2020 Summit. This summit concluded, as I have been calling for for years, that rural young people should be eligible for youth allowance if they must leave home for tertiary education.
I congratulate the member for Parkes for bringing this important motion to the House. It is an issue that affects thousands of children throughout Australia. I think that, over a period of time, the number of children who are affected by living outside metropolitan areas has shrunk but the degree of disadvantage for those people who are outside the area is still just as great. When my father went to school, he went to school in Yass. At that time, the school there finished at third year, and the only way that he could extend his education was to go to the city. He was fortunate enough to obtain a scholarship to a boarding school in Sydney. When I went to school, I went to school, once again, in the country. At that time, you could complete your high school education, but if you wanted to obtain tertiary education then you had to leave that country town and come to the city. I might add that, if I lived in that country town now and undertook my education there, I would be able to go on to university. So things have improved over a period of time for students living in country areas, but disadvantage still exists.
I have a friend, Cheryl Daley, who moved to Broken Hill with her husband. He is teaching at Broken Hill High School. She is teaching with the School of the Air. I was in Broken Hill for committee hearings, and I went along and sat in on a couple of her classes prior to the committee hearing’s commencing. Of course, the students start early and organise their days around their other activities.
Technology has improved access to education, but still not on the same level that students in metropolitan areas obtain. I think that there is a need to expand that technology and there is a need to use the internet to a greater degree. This is one way that we can address some of the isolation that students living in rural and remote areas experience. It is also interesting to note that tertiary education can also be undertaken on the internet now—that is something that needs to be expanded. It does create new opportunities for children and students that are of university age. We need to make more use of the technology that is available.
It is vitally important that we ensure there is equity in education for students, no matter where they live. If a student is born in Lake Macquarie, which is where I live, they have every opportunity, and students that live in Parkes, Bourke or Wilcannia—places like that—should have exactly the same opportunities. Children in areas like the member for Barker’s electorate should have that opportunity to access education. The future of education is all about providing equity.
What concerns me too is that there are some extremely disadvantaged young people in some of those rural electorates—Indigenous Australians that really are denied that opportunity to access education on any level. Their access to education is even further exacerbated by the isolated areas that they live in and the level of disadvantage that they experience. That is not only Indigenous students, but other students as well. I know that other members are very mindful of the needs of their constituents, so I commend the member for bringing this to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the motion, and commend the member for Parkes for raising this issue. I also thank other members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. As we have already heard, there are many education challenges which are unique to children and their parents living in the more isolated parts of our nation. The Gippsland region is probably typical of many other country electorates. We have some larger towns which offer a more diverse range of educational opportunities, but there are also many rural and isolated areas where the services are more difficult to provide and also more difficult for families to access.
In moving this motion, the member for Parkes has sought to highlight the need for additional government support and assistance to help children access a full range of educational services from early childhood right through to tertiary studies. I congratulate the member for Parkes for putting forward some practical and common-sense solutions such as the mobile preschool services in his electorate.
Education is an issue that is dear not only to my heart but to all other parents that I speak to in regional areas. We simply want to make sure that our children have access to the services that sometimes I fear metropolitan families may take for granted. From a social justice perspective it is a question of equity, and for the hard-nosed economists of the world it is a question also of productivity. Helping children from rural and regional areas to achieve their full potential will help to improve the skill base of country areas and reduce the skill shortages we are constantly faced with across a range of industries.
In a broader sense, an issue of major concern in many regional areas—and I include Gippsland in this—is the comparatively poor retention rates and participation in higher education. The Gippsland region has one of the worst retention rates in Victoria—compared to the state and metropolitan rate of about 80 per cent, in 2006 just 65 per cent of Gippsland students finished year 12.
I take up the contribution of the member for Braddon and of the member for Barker and their thoughtful comments in relation to the geographical barriers that we are placing in front of these students. There are many barriers to accessing higher education, including the lack of access in our electorates. But I believe the biggest factor is undoubtedly the cost. When you have to move hundreds of kilometres to study, set up home, get a part-time job and then excel in your studies, it is an enormous burden for students from regional areas. I fear that we are actually setting them up to fail. We need to be doing more to help rural and regional students and their families overcome these cost barriers. I support greater use of cadetships and bonded scholarships or studentships to pay students an allowance while at university and then guarantee them a job after a fixed period if they return to serve in a regional area. It is an approach that has been used at various times and I think it is worthy of further investment. I think we also need to be innovative in regard to the extra costs borne by country families when sending students away from home for further study. We need to explore all the options to overcome those accommodation and cost of living pressures, which I believe place a disproportionate burden on rural and regional families.
I would like to expand on what the member for Braddon touched on, which is the opportunities to provide a level of tax deductibility for accommodation costs for the parents who are supporting students while living away from home. Making these accommodation costs tax deductible for supporting parents would have the extra benefit of increasing the expendable income for the families back in those regional areas where there are low-socioeconomic factors and the household disposable income is somewhat lower than in metropolitan areas. Such initiatives to reduce the cost barrier would help to open the door to further studies for regional Australians.
I take up also the previous speaker’s comments in relation to the disadvantage being felt. A lot of the students from isolated areas are Indigenous students, and it is the same in Gippsland. The level of disadvantage within our Indigenous community in terms of health outcomes, unemployment and the incidence of violence in homes is, I believe, directly related to their lack of participation in the education system at an early age. To give these young people the best possible chance, the best possible start in life, we must support them through those early stages of education. It is not just an issue in the more remote parts of the Northern Territory. In our rural and regional communities in Victoria we have issues relating to our Indigenous students not participating in the formal education system. We must take up the challenge to get them to school and get them learning the skills they are going to need to succeed in our community in the future.
I believe it is going to require innovative local solutions which recognise individual circumstances in different communities rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to policy making. In my electorate there has been some excellent work done by people such as Doug Vickers, the Principal of Bairnsdale West Primary School, to encourage greater participation by Indigenous and disadvantaged children. Sometimes it may be as simple as providing resources to go to the homes of these children and bring them to school and provide them with a decent breakfast, getting them engaged in the lifelong education experience even if their parents are perhaps not as committed to the cause.
I congratulate all members for their contribution to this debate and I believe that a genuine education revolution, if that is what we are actually aspiring to achieve, must meet the needs of families in rural, regional and isolated areas.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed, on motion byMr Raguse:
That the House:
It is with a lot of pride and pleasure that I rise tonight to bring this motion before the chamber. In fact, on 19 February last year in my first speech to the House, and in subsequent speeches, I mentioned issues of adoption. Tonight, roughly 12 months on from my first speech, I will say a little bit more about the issues of adoption. For those who may remember part of that speech, it was about my own family circumstances. I was born in 1960 and my mother was only 17 years of age and single. It was just one of those things that women at that stage had no support if they were not married, and in her circumstances she lived in the family home sharing with 12 other brothers and sisters. She was the oldest of 12, so it was clear that I was not able to be cared for within that normal family situation.
I bring that to notice tonight because this is really about a wonderful innovation to recognise adoption in all its forms. There are other speakers who may talk about various forms of adoption, but it really is about bringing before the chamber the notion that National Adoption Awareness Week is very important for a whole range of reasons. It lifts the lid and takes away the secrecy that surrounded and still surrounds adoption to this day. I should say that it is an interesting time because Queensland has been the last state in the country to finally open up the adoption registers.
When I was born, in 1960, the adoption rolls were closed, so information about my birth and a whole range of other family information could not be given. In fact, by 1964 it was completely silent. In my family, it was something I was always made aware of as I was growing up. As a very young child I was told that it was a great thing because my parents had chosen me and that I was very lucky to be raised in that particular family. I had a great upbringing. I love my parents dearly, but I also knew that there was another side to who I was. I was 29 before I found my natural family. That was after many years of digging through files and information. In Queensland it was essentially illegal to have any understanding of who your natural family was or have a connection with them. So it is important to have this motion before the House tonight about National Adoption Awareness Week.
It is important for people like me who, back in the late eighties, fought very hard in Queensland to get the original changes to the legislation—to open up those files to some degree—with a whole lot of protection that was absolutely essential at the time. Nearly 20 years on, it is time for the Queensland government to act. It has acted proactively, in fact, and put legislation into the house. As there has been an election called in Queensland today, some of that legislation might take a little bit longer to be finalised. But the reality is that there is the intent by both sides of that chamber that adoption and finally getting away from the secrecy that surrounded it are very important issues. For me, as a child growing up, adoption was spoken about as though there were something wrong. It was something that should not be talked about. In fact, whenever family history was discussed at school, I would say, ‘Miss,’—or ‘Sir,’—‘I do not know my background because I am adopted.’ And my teachers would take me aside and say, ‘That is something you cannot talk about.’ So it had that certain level of secrecy.
I am very pleased, of course, with the work done nationally and by other state governments in Australia towards opening up those registers and allowing information to be provided. I will give you an example of how this information can be so important. I have four children. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, the specialists wanted to know my family history—diseases and a whole range of things. I said simply: ‘I am adopted. I have no access to that.’ He was absolutely horrified. At that time—certainly in his practice and in his way of operating—it was understood that adoption had a whole lot of limitations. Laws have changed when it comes to medical information, and I think National Adoption Awareness Week allows people to talk openly about adoption—it is not a scourge or a disease; it is a family situation. I had a wonderful life growing up. I have met all my natural family now, through a whole range of opportunities. It is a great family, and the member for Moreton knows some of them very well. I will be very pleased to hear other members talk about their personal experiences in relation to this motion before the House. Finally the shutters have come up and it is something that we can talk about. All of us are very proud of this motion. I am very proud to have been an adoptee and very proud to have had an influence in changing the laws in Queensland.
I rise this evening to commend and support this motion by the member for Forde. This motion recognises the importance of National Adoption Awareness Week and the significance of encouraging adoptees, adoptive parents and biological parents to open and continue the dialogue on adoption in Australia, and to encourage people to discuss how adoption has impacted on their lives. The second part of the motion calls on all governments, both state and federal, to support all participants in the adoption process. I congratulate the member for Forde on his contribution and look forward to hearing the other members speak on this issue—particularly the member for Fadden, because he usually makes a very worthy and valuable contribution.
As the House knows, I was fostered. It was interesting to listen to the member for Forde speak about his experiences as an adoptee, especially because of my experiences as a foster child. I was fostered in 1961. The stigma around a foster child was totally different to that for a child who was adopted. The children who lived at the top of my street were adopted, and no-one spoke about it; but the fact that I was fostered and could still have access to my real family meant there was a totally different outlook and attitude. I think it was a great contribution and it was interesting to hear the member for Forde’s story and his obvious love and passion for the family that adopted him.
I strongly support this motion as it is important to ensure the safety and security that as a community we are obliged to provide our children with. This is about children who are in need of care and comfort not only from adoptive parents but also from foster parents, kinship carers, general home based carers, intensive home carers and grandparent carers.
I have spoken about Grandcare programs and fostering in this House before, and I reiterate that this is about our duty as a society to nourish, care for and protect children in our society. In my first speech in this place I spoke about my own experience as a foster child. I also spoke about the young girl, Shellay Ward, who died in New South Wales in 2007 through neglect by her parents. Her name should live on and be a continuous reminder to us that, as a civilised society, we do fail children sometimes and the worst possible consequences arise when we fail them. We must remain ever-vigilant in all aspects of caring for our children.
Last year I was invited to promote the positive aspects of being a foster child on Radio 6PR in Perth, and I urged people who were considering fostering to take the step and make the commitment. I look forward to speaking at the upcoming Australian Foster Care Conference dinner in Perth in late March. The theme of the conference is ‘You raise me up’—what a great name that is; it is so relevant to the issue.
Back to adoption, I have a brother who was adopted and whom I have never met, but I would certainly like to thank his adoptive parents and all the adoptive parents in Australia who have taken the step. The simple fact is that there are now not enough of them. The process for adopting children in Australia is administered by each state and territory. The process for adopting children intercountry falls under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
There are some amazing facts about adoption, which has seen a steady decline in Australia since 1969. I fear that we have painted ourselves into a corner with regulation, as we now adopt more children from overseas than we do from within Australia. Figures provided to me from the Parliamentary Library show that in the year 1981-82 only six per cent of all adoptions in this country were from overseas. In the years 2007-08, that figure has increased to 61 per cent. In the same year, 23 per cent of adoptions were ‘known child’ adoptions, which are adoptions of children who are Australian residents and have a pre-existing relationship with the adoptive parent or parents. It includes step-parents, other relatives and carers. The remaining 16 per cent of adoptions were local adoptions.
One may ask why we are now adopting more children from outside Australia. Before I give some of the reasons, let me give another fact about adoptions which gives an indication of how the face of adoption in Australia has changed. In 2007-08, there were 440 adoptions in Australia—down from almost 10,000 in 1971-72. The report Adoptions Australia 2007-08 states that these trends coincide with declining fertility rates and an increasing proportion of children born outside registered marriage—which I think we used to know as ‘outside wedlock’. Other reasons are the availability of effective birth control and the emergence of family planning centres combined with the increased social acceptance of raising children outside of a marriage—as I am currently doing myself.
My experience as a foster child was positive. I lived with a loving, caring family who provided me with a positive outlook. They provided me with the security that children look for, and I encourage all parents to take the step to adopt or foster. (Time expired)
Like the member for Forde, I am an adoptee. I was adopted from New Zealand by two very loving parents who continue to support me in all my endeavours. As the member for Forde said, when we were growing up in the 1960s there was a stigma attached to children who were adopted. I always knew that I was adopted, and I think that is a really good thing and it made understanding it a lot easier. But, like the member for Forde said in terms of his experience at school, it was through regular interaction and telling people, ‘I am adopted’ that you found that people looked at you in a different way and you were told that this was not the sort of thing that you should be saying. I got it from one of my cousins, who said that I must feel very lucky that I had been adopted and that I should be grateful to my parents for adopting me. There was a stigma attached in the manner in which it was said, and this is something that National Adoption Awareness Week is about trying to break down. It is about trying to make sure that we are able to talk about our experiences and that we feel free to go and find our birth parents, if that is what we choose.
I waited until I was well into my 30s before I decided to look for my birth parent. My wife at the time was probably more excited than me and encouraged me to do it. Part of the reason that I did not do it earlier was the stigma that was there. I also felt some sense of betrayal to my actual parents in taking this particular step, but I can say that I am really glad that I did take it. I have a fantastic relationship with both my adoptive parents and my birth mother and birth family. In my adopted family I have a sister but with my birth family I now have two brothers, whom I am in regular contact with. In fact in the next month or so I will travel to New Zealand to be with one of my brothers and his partner for the birth of their first child. So you suddenly have access to this enormous new family and it is incredibly rewarding.
It is also an incredibly difficult thing for all of the people involved. Obviously the people here can see the emotion that is still there when I talk about this. But that emotion should not be there in some senses. That is part of the issue and the problem in this—we are made to feel that there is something wrong with our upbringing; that adoption is the wrong thing to do and that in some senses we have failed. Of course that is not true. My birth mother did not tell her family—her husband whom she married subsequent to me being born and her children—about me. When contact was made that caused all sorts of problems for her—having to sit down with her husband and say, ‘Look, I’ve had a child before and he’s been in contact.’ But she always carried a photo of me in her diary.
Clearly this was a woman who had gone through a great deal of pain after our separation. It was a difficult thing for her to do but she did not hesitate—in New Zealand they had an adoption system that was more advanced than the Queensland system in that it had been open for many years—and she put her name down hoping that one day it would happen even though she knew it would completely upset her life in terms of her new family. I can say that it has been an incredibly rewarding experience for all of us. It is something that this motion goes to in terms of trying to make adoption more open so that people are able to speak about it and so that people are encouraged to unite, and these sorts of experiences—which was a very happy one for me, even though it might not sound like that—can actually take place. I commend the motion to the House.
I find myself in distinguished company, but unlike those who have spoken before me I have no background in this area. The members who have spoken of their experiences, whether of adoption or of fostering, certainly have my deep respect. I literally have no concept of the circumstances and the challenges that they have faced in their lives but it appears that they have gone on to do very well and I would like to think that the challenges they have faced in the past have made them better men. I am sure that is the case.
The issue of adoption is something that I have had quite a deal of interest in. As I said, I have no background in it but I know someone who is working in the sector as a psychologist and I have slowly begun to formulate some views on the circumstances and the backgrounds that face those who wish to adopt in this country now.
As has been said before, these are different times. There was a stigma involved for some in certain circumstances in the past—unmarried mothers or mothers who faced pressure to give up their children for a number of reasons, but basically because they were alone; they did not have husbands. We have moved on from those days. It is seen as much more acceptable for mothers to raise children even if they do not have a partner. But I have a great regard for those who have adopted in the past and those who are seeking to adopt now.
In this time, when we have an increasing amount of infertility problems in this country, it seems that there is a progression of facing one’s infertility issues and then maybe thinking about another step: adoption. Adoption these days is a very different matter. In the past, I understand, for those who adopted it was basically lock, stock and barrel—‘You have a new child’—and what was in the past was completely in the past. Obviously things have moved on, and that is excellent. These days, as I know from the experiences of my friend in Western Australia, we have a situation where the adoption of Australian-born children is very rare; we are talking more about overseas adoptions. There is now an obligation for the parents doing the adoption that they embrace and work with the culture of the child whom they are adopting. In many ways, I get the feeling that adoption, sadly for those people who are looking for this sort of option, is no substitute for the ability to have one’s own child.
Those who wish to adopt are doing a great thing—to hopefully provide a child with a better life and more opportunities. That is great, and it is to be commended, but they need to realise that there are a lot of responsibilities now and that it is not like it might have been 20 or 30 years ago. Most of that is obviously for the best, but they should be very clear about it possibly not being everything they were looking for.
The other thing that I would say is that—although in Western Australia you can now sign up for adoptions when you are up to 45 years old—because there is such a shortage of children who can be adopted from overseas, they are now saying that there is almost no chance of it being successful unless you start at the age of 38 or earlier. I will finish quickly by saying that I have a great regard for those who have been adopted and those people doing the adopting. This country has greatly advanced and is more advanced than it was. (Time expired)
I commend the members for Swan, Dobell and Cowan for their contributions, and particularly the member for Forde for putting this motion before the House. They are all part of the group of 42 first elected on 24 November 2007. I particularly acknowledge the member for Forde because his natural family comes from St George, my home town. We shared our first day in parliament together. It was the day of the apology to the children of the stolen generations, perhaps the best day we will ever have in this House. My big sister Debbie was here in Canberra that day. She has always been very important in my life and was like a mum in a lot of ways. Debbie and I have talked a lot about how those Indigenous women must have felt to have no say and no choice about the removal of their children. These children were not removed to homes filled with love and hope. Nowadays, people are quite desperate to adopt, as we heard from earlier speakers, and there is a good chance that any adopted child will be well loved and well cared for. However, the removed ATSI children were almost treated as slaves or navvies. In my sister Debbie’s words, ‘I don’t know how they survived.’ They certainly deserved an apology on that, our first day in parliament.
My sister Debbie was born in December 1958. Our father left home when she was 13 and Debbie had to take up a lot of the parenting burden as my mother went back to full-time nursing. She finished year 10 at the St George State School in November 1973, which was as high as you could go in that town. Despite our tough economic circumstances, my mum wanted Debbie to go away to a Catholic boarding school so that she could complete senior year like our older brother, David. However, in what must have been a very interesting exchange in a change room at Hannah’s in Toowoomba while Debbie was trying on her new school uniform for years 11 and 12, she told my mum that she was pregnant. She told me that she did it in a public place in front of a lot of witnesses so that mum could not kill her.
I do not recall Debbie going off to Darwin a few months later for a holiday with our cousins, the McSkimmings, but she must have because a baby was born on 23 June 1974 at the Royal Darwin Hospital. Debbie called the baby Daniel but never saw him. At the time of the birth that scared little fifteen-year-old girl was doped to the eyeballs she said. She never saw the nursery and never saw the baby. She was in a public ward with a lot of very elderly Aboriginal ladies. She remembers that the one next to her was very nice to her and helped her a lot. She was told by the authorities that the little boy had been adopted to a family either in Darwin or possibly Adelaide.
Debbie heard the babies crying off in the distance in the hospital and it made her milk come in. Was it the crying of her baby that prompted this physical process? She only recalled this memory and wondered about it in the last month—prompted by her interaction with her nephew, my son Leo Perrett. Physiologically, she did not understand her physical response as a 15-year-old, but she now wonders if she heard her own baby’s call down the corridor.
After the birth Debbie moved back to St George, got a job and looked after me and my younger siblings. She met a good man called Philip, and when things started to get serious she thought she had better tell him about her son. Of course, in the way of small towns, Philip already knew about him.
That little boy born in the Royal Darwin Base Hospital was adopted by two wonderful people called Hans and Mavis. They always told their son Andrew Garbe that he was adopted, as was his younger sister. Hans and Mavis also encouraged Andrew to find his birth parents. Andrew was around 15 or 16 when he started looking. That is when Debbie was about 30. She had her 50th birthday in Glen Innes in December last year.
My sister Debbie never put her name on the contact register because she felt she had given up the right to seek out her son—that is, if he had not been told by his parents that he was adopted then she had no right to contact him and tell him so. Debbie was contacted by the adoption agency in Darwin by registered mail on 2 June 2008. She was asked whether she was the person who had been in Darwin in 1974 and was told that a young man was seeking family. Debbie felt nervous, apprehensive, excited, emotional and upset. But then she had to put all those emotions on hold and tell her three girls, Christine, Tricia and Leanne, that they had a brother. My nieces’ initial reaction was surprise that they were never told this great family secret, despite their eight uncles and aunts drinking around them so much over the years. After that they were just glad their new sibling was a boy, rather than a new sister to argue with.
On Tuesday, 3 June, Debbie contacted the agency and said that she could either write to her son or leave her phone number. She left her number and three hours later she had her first conversation with her 34-year-old son. There were a lot of tears. They tried again the next day and there were still more tears, but they kept calling and crying and laughing. Debbie says it was unbelievable—like a part of her that had gone had come back again. I have seen my son Leo change so much in the last five weeks, whereas she had 34 years of catching up to do with someone that she did not know.
Debbie and Philip flew up to Darwin on 1 August and met Andrew for the first time. He also met his sister Leanne, who coincidentally had already arranged to go to Darwin. The immanent will that stirs and urges everything moves in mysterious ways. Andrew is a great bloke—when I look at him I see family. There are so many things that are nature over nurture. He has a love of books and reading, and also needs a bit of time out. (Time expired)
Order! It being almost 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Debate resumed from 1 December 2008.
The question is:
That grievances be noted.
On 2 February, World Wetlands Day was celebrated across Australia. The event marks the signing of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance in Ramsar in 1971.
The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre estimates that six per cent of the world’s land surface is wetland. Wetlands are an important natural resource—healthy wetlands harness biodiversity, protect against flooding and absorb many of the pollutants in our river systems. They are also a valuable human resource, and it is this that has led to their degradation around the world and in Australia.
The express aim of the convention is the protection of wetlands and the reversal of degradation. Australia, like 158 other nations, is a signatory to the treaty and I am pleased to say that progress has been made in the recognition of the extraordinary wetlands which we have within our own country. National and regional parks have been created around wetlands; successive governments have allocated money towards their restoration; local voluntary organisations have administered millions of dollars of funds.
However, I rise today to speak to this grievance motion with concern for the health of vital wetlands within my inner metropolitan electorate of Swan: the wetlands surrounded by the Canning River Regional Park. I am concerned that through this government’s actions the work of a range of stakeholders across the Canning wetlands will be undermined.
I would first like to give some context to my argument. The Canning River Regional Park is located nine kilometres south-east of Central Perth and extends for six kilometres along the Canning River between the Shelley and Nicholson Road bridges. It is quite simply a site of tremendous natural beauty. The freshwater river weaves through lush vegetation, feeding into the estuary after Kent Street weir and eventually into the Swan River. The wetlands support fragile saltwater and freshwater ecosystems and a variety of birdlife can be found. Bicycle tracks, walking paths, boardwalks and even a miniature railway traverse the park, making the natural environment accessible and enjoyable to the public. There is a good mix of conservation and recreational spaces.
The natural beauty unfortunately masks severe problems. Nitrogen and phosphate levels are high and constantly monitored by the Swan River Trust. Earlier in the month during a visit to the Wilson Wetlands Action Group, a local environmental conservation organisation, I witnessed two ladies from the Swan River Trust monitoring water quality. A couple of weeks later, people have been warned to avoid contact with a stretch of water upstream from Kent Street weir, where algal levels are toxic.
The recently released Swan Canning Water Quality Improvement Plan states that 251 tonnes of nitrogen and 26 tonnes of phosphorus enter the Swan Canning river system annually. Much of this nutrient load originates in rural areas. However, a significant amount originates within urban areas in my electorate. The Mills Street main drain is one such example. The Mills Street drain catchment drains industrial, commercial and residential use land. It discharges into the Wilson Wetlands and flows into the Canning River downstream of the Kent Street Weir in Cannington. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are considered high. Likely sources of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and soluble reactive phosphorus, both available for algal uptake, are fertilisers used on home gardens and parkland, animal wastes, septic tank leachate and discharges from industry. According to the draft Water Quality Improvement Plan released last week, Mills Street drain has been classified as a subcatchment where total load reductions greater than 50 per cent are required to meet modelled water quality targets for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Steady progress has been made. A trust report shows that nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations have fallen over the past years. The Wilson Wetlands Action Group has revegetated areas of the main drain and installed a litter sluice gate to absorb nutrients and trap litter respectively. However, there is much more we can do. These targets are a good first step. A much-needed local water quality improvement plan is being devised for the subcatchment by Mark Cugley of the Swan River Trust. It is due out in the middle of the year. I will work with Mark and the local conservation groups to try and find an improvement.
This example is representative of much of what is going on around the park: solid policy development and community group interest leading to slow, tangible, yet fragile progress. The progress of the wetlands could not have happened if it were not for government money and local volunteer organisations—both inextricably linked. Government of all levels have legislated to protect the area and allocated funding for wetlands conservation. Local volunteer groups have administered the funding, supplementing this with their own hard work.
I want to expand on this point before explaining how it is under threat. On 28 January 2009 I was privileged to receive a tour and a briefing of the wetlands from Russell Gorton, President of the Wilson Wetlands Action Group. The group has four main objectives: to prevent the fragmentation of the regional park; to maintain a river buffer; to work with agencies to protect flora and fauna; and to improve biodiversity. The group meets on a twice-monthly basis to undertake conservation work. This work involves planting native vegetation around drains such as Mills Street drain, as mentioned previously. It also involves some more innovative projects. I was particularly impressed to see how the group combined sport and environmental objectives with its creation of a BMX conservation site adjacent to the Kent Street weir. The project was funded by grant money. Every tax dollar spent on volunteer groups achieves better value for money. The labour of course is free.
Last week I had the privilege of meeting Jo Stone, of the Canning River Regional Park Volunteers. Jo took me on a tour of the southern part of the wetlands—from the Ecocentre, at Kent Street, down to Litoria Flats, at the Ferndale end of the park. At Litoria Flats, Jo showed me the revegetation that her group had achieved. The process would be long but ultimately rewarding. Jo jovially pointed to the spots she would be planting when in her wheelchair. Jo showed me spots planted courtesy of the ‘compulsory volunteering’ of school groups in WA. The local community is working together towards a better environment.
Finally, the South-East Regional Centre for Urban Landcare, or SERCUL, under the astute leadership of Julie Robert, has also been making progress on local issues. The group is larger and has managed to secure a greater degree of funding from an array of sources. The innovative Water Quality Partnership is an example of this. The project, which is aimed to promote a cooperative and consistent approach to water quality monitoring activities across the region, brought together funding from the Swan Catchment Council and funds from the Natural Heritage Trust delivered in partnership with the Department of Water and local governments.
All of these groups should be commended. The actions of these groups are strengthened by a sound institutional forum, the Canning River Regional Park Community Advisory Committee. I was fortunate enough to be invited to a meeting of the committee last Thursday night, and I was impressed by the sheer professionalism and passion of those in attendance.
I have explained the good work being undertaken in the park; now I will explain why it is under threat. These local conservation efforts have been dealt a serious blow by funding cuts in the latest round of Caring for our Country grants. The Caring for our Country grants scheme was brought in by the Rudd government. This round of funding—regional base-level funding—goes to Perth NRM. Perth NRM then allocates this money to local projects, often run by, or in collaboration with, conservation groups like those which I have just described above.
Last Monday’s announcement of the Caring for our Country regional base-level funding has allocated Perth NRM just $2.3 million a year, without indexation, for the next four years. This compares to the $3.2 million received by Perth NRM in 2008-09 and the $4.2 million to $4.6 million that Perth NRM had become accustomed to receiving in previous years under the Howard government. These cuts represent a serious threat to the outstanding conservation work being undertaken by local groups in the Canning River Regional Park region. Projects are likely to be cut. Perth NRM will have to cut back some of its project staff. Perth NRM has already ceased half of the projects that it used to run, with the loss of 20 jobs. Progress at the Canning River Regional Park will suffer.
This is not an isolated occurrence. Members will remember that I spoke to the House in November about the disgraceful allocation of the Caring for our Country open grants funding. Of the $28 million made available for projects, only 10 per cent was allocated to WA, a state with over one-third of Australia’s landmass. This government is cutting environmental funding. I ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to categorically make more money available for Perth NRM and the Canning River Regional Park.
Finally, I wish to briefly make the case for further action that this government can take to help conserve the Canning River Regional Park wetlands. Hydrocotyl is a problematic plant that spreads quickly over the wetlands and can even colonise land. It is difficult to control and costly to manage. The weed spreads quickly over the surface of the water, starving the river of sunlight and oxygen and killing aquatic life below the surface. At the committee meeting on Thursday night, all stakeholders said they had run out of money to buy weedkiller, which has a limited effect. Although a declared weed, hydrocotyl appears only 45th on the Weeds of National Significance list. If hydrocotyl were higher up the list, it would likely be eligible for more research grants—grants which are needed, given the poor results the current treatments are yielding.
In conclusion, the Canning River Regional Park, in my electorate, is a natural treasure and I would encourage all people in my electorate to experience its wonder. However, despite its outward beauty, there are many problems with the water quality of the hydrological system. I urge the government to reverse its decision to cut funding to Perth NRM and open grant recipients.
The combination of the global financial crisis and the extreme weather conditions experienced throughout the world in recent times presents world governments with an unprecedented dilemma. It is a dilemma that has become a crisis that is centred around climate change on the one hand and the world economy on the other. It is a crisis that has been made even more difficult to manage because weather patterns and economic management both require cooperative global solutions. Further complicating the problem is the fact that weather patterns affect, and can even devastate, economies. And there is a strong body of credible opinion that believes economic activity is, conversely, having devastating effects on our weather patterns. The two are inextricably linked. It was former US President Bill Clinton who in 1992 coined the phrase: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ One need only look at the economic cost of the Australian drought, the Victorian bushfires and the Queensland floods—without even considering the natural disasters in other parts of the world—to understand that the phrase should be: ‘It’s the environment, stupid.’ Of course, that understanding may not yet have permeated sufficiently throughout the community, and that in itself remains a problem for governments. There is, however, a growing awareness throughout the world, and certainly throughout the global scientific community, that climate change cannot simply be dismissed. No responsible government can continue to ignore the impact that climate change will have on our economy and our natural habitat.
Just who decreed that the economy should dictate how we live our lives, I do not know. But it was no single person; rather, this idea probably evolved from the insatiable appetite of humans to want more and more. And that human trait has manifested itself in the same human greed that has culminated in the global financial crisis. The destructive human greed that has brought down world economies is simultaneously destroying the earth’s environment. Concerningly, the global financial crisis is causing a dangerous distraction from the issue of climate change. Those who think that the economy comes first should think again. Unless we adopt sustainable practices, all life on earth is threatened. What was once thought of as a vague and futuristic problem is now at our very doorstep. Tomorrow’s climate change problem was always today’s problem; it is just that we have been slow in realising it. But it only requires the application of basic common sense to appreciate that the rampant destruction of the natural environment, induced by human activities, would have consequences. The signs have been there for decades and are common knowledge: the rapid extinction of species of life on the planet; the desertification of fertile lands; the global degradation of water and air quality; the growing inability to process domestic and industrial waste; the toxicity introduced to, or increased in, the environment by much of human activity; the depletion of resources; and so on and so on.
Although traditional communities have better maintained and respected their relationship with the natural world, those of us in the not so aptly named advanced world have progressively become detached from it. Climate change is a troubling reminder of this detachment. With each new scientific report there are warnings that its dangers have become more imminent. The latest advice is that the pace of climate change is likely to be much faster than previously predicted. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Christopher Field, the founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said we were basically looking at a future climate that is beyond anything that has been considered seriously in climate change simulations. According to Field, the pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions because emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the estimates used in the IPCC’s report of 2007. He said that industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected, and higher temperatures were triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems. In other words, he argues that the unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions have kick-started a vicious cycle of high temperatures that melt more of the Arctic permafrost, which in turn releases more carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. According to Field, the shrinking Arctic ice cover is being countered by the north-west spread of vegetation. However, although the extra vegetation takes carbon out of the atmosphere, it is a relatively slow process compared to the immediate benefit from the ice cap reflecting the sun’s heat.
Concern about the wide gap between public policies and scientific knowledge about global warming led award-winning US researcher Professor James Hansen to personally write to President Barack Obama. In his letter, Professor Hansen referred to the profound disconnect between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the climate change problem as detailed by the science. At the same time, last December a report from the US Geological Survey, commissioned by the US Climate Change Science Program, also highlighted that climate change could be coming faster than previously feared. Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, who was the lead author of the report’s chapter on icesheets, said in the Washington Post that cutting emissions linked to global warming was one of the best strategies for averting catastrophic changes.
Politically, we have been playing catch-up with the scientific assessment of climate change risks. In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro the world economy recognised that climate change was real and promised to reduce CO2 emissions along with taking other measures against global warming. It took five years to develop the first climate change treaty—that was the Kyoto protocol. The intent there was to cut emissions by five per cent of 1990 levels. Hopefully we will see further treaties and agreement will be reached in Copenhagen at the end of this year. The irony however is that the level of emissions has skyrocketed over the past decade.
Of course we have choices. We can take the view that we will adapt to the environment as it changes. That may well be possible—who knows? Nobody knows because never before have the world’s climatic conditions been quite the same. Climate change sceptics point to past similarities in weather patterns. Similarities are exactly that—similarities—and do not mean that the weather patterns are identical. An alternative choice is to understand the cause of changing weather patterns and determine whether modifying human activity will affect climate. This brings me to the issue of carbon emissions and climate change.
There is compelling evidence that human-caused carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change. There is equally compelling evidence that humans can reverse that impact if the nations of the world act in unison. I am also aware of some of the counterarguments in this debate, and I do not necessarily dismiss them. The stakes however are too high. We are gambling with the lives of future generations—not just some lives but all lives. We are gambling with the future of every living creature and plant on the earth as we know it today. We have already caused the destruction of too much of our world through a combination of ignorance and greed. We can no longer plead ignorance. Just as the risk of doing nothing in the wake of the global financial crisis is too high so too is the risk of doing nothing in the wake of the recent extreme weather introduced natural disasters.
So what are the consequences if we reduce carbon emissions and our climate still changes? The consequences are that we will breathe cleaner air, we will have fewer health problems, we will cause less destruction of our natural environment and we will leave our children with a planet in much better condition. The choice is stark and it is simple. Of course critics will say that carbon emissions reductions come at the expense of jobs. That is disputable and there is substantial evidence that the carbon-emitting jobs will be more than replaced by green economy jobs.
The earth has finite resources and economic growth compounds the destruction of the earth’s natural environment. Whilst the predictions may be questioned, never before has the earth sustained so many people and never before has mankind been so environmentally destructive. Comparisons with past weather patterns provide little comfort. What is meaningful and what we must rely on are rational predictions based on the current economic output, future growth forecasts and documented climate trends over recent decades. In that respect the evidence of the IPCC reports is alarming and compelling.
Even taking a conservative view of climate change forecasts, the environmental and economic consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic. For example, a two-degree Celsius rise in global temperature will result in between 660 million and three billion people being at risk of water shortages, 25 per cent of species in the present habitat becoming extinct, and between 25 million and 50 million people being at risk from sea level rises. The list goes on.
There are alternatives to high-carbon-emitting energy sources. There are tens of thousands of jobs to be created in a green economy and the cost of transitioning to a green economy is affordable. We need to act now. The Rudd government has a comprehensive environmental strategy that it is implementing; the coalition has a confused political strategy. There may be disagreement about forecasts, but we cannot wait to see who is right or wrong in the climate change debate.
I wish to raise the somewhat vexing issue of tax deductibility for expenses incurred by our volunteers, especially in the wake of the devastating fires in Victoria. Volunteer fire services, like the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and of course the Country Fire Authority, the CFA, in Victoria—those great volunteers who have worked so hard, so tirelessly, and sacrificed so much—are not able to claim a tax deduction for any equipment they buy in support of the work they do or indeed for any of the petrol their vehicles use in getting to where they volunteer to help make our community safer.
At present our volunteers cannot claim expenses as a deduction on their tax, as our tax system only allows deductions against income earned. You are allowed to deduct an amount that you incurred whilst earning your income. Volunteering, by its very nature, does not earn an income, and generally any stipend—if the word can be used—or other amount earned is tax free.
The value of volunteer groups across the nation is outstanding. No-one in this place would discount what volunteers do. In fact, there are more volunteers per head on the Gold Coast, where my seat of Fadden and my neighbouring seats of Moncrieff and McPherson are, than in any other commensurate place in the nation. We know volunteering; we love volunteering. I especially thank Leticia Vargas of Volunteering Queensland for all of her hard work. But this parliament needs to have a serious debate about making legitimate expenses incurred by volunteers tax deductible against their primary source of income.
I will give the parliament one great example of a group of volunteers—people who come together to assist; communities that come together with community spirit to make a difference. In one of my communities, Coombabah, a number of ladies got together to say, ‘How can we help the people ravaged by bushfires down in Victoria?’ These are people who are not very wealthy but they wanted to do something. They approached the centre manager at Coombabah Plaza, a man called John Corby, who very generously allowed them to put on a fundraiser at Coombabah Plaza and agreed to have the centre open on Saturday, when the shops are normally closed, to allow the fundraiser to occur. So a group of fabulous local residents—Kay Hobson, Francis Vause, Vicki Tuck, Coral and Neil Honey and Jocelyn Reynolds—got together and said: ‘Let’s have a fundraiser—a sausage sizzle and a raffle—with the proceeds to go to the bushfire and wildlife appeal.’ They engaged the majority of local businesses at the Coombabah Plaza, and those businesses generally gave of their time, their expertise, their goods and their manpower. Those businesses at Coombabah Plaza—Liquorland, the Animal Welfare League, Northern Performance Realty, Vines Cafe Bistro, Coombabah Pharmacy, Lyndal’s Hairdresser, Hillsea Real Estate, Access One Home Loan Centre, Coombabah Newsagency, Coombabah Bakery and Coffee Shop, Anne Dines Hair Salon, Your Interior Designer, Coombabah Meat Man, Avanti Bridal and Formal and Spar Express—all contributed. This wonderful group of volunteers raised $1,847.80 through donating their time and resources.
The plaza came alive as people and the community got together for a worthwhile cause. People volunteered their time, their talents and their efforts. The community came together, and it was fabulous to see. Whilst so many businesses gave of their time in such a great volunteering spirit, I especially mention the local bakery that gave so much bread that they did not have enough for their regular customers—that is how much they gave to this appeal. A local butcher gave as many snags as they were asked to give, without question. That typifies the great heart of the volunteers in Fadden and especially in Coombabah. I think I speak for all parliamentarians in saying that it typifies the great spirit of volunteers within their communities.
That is why there is merit in a debate on tax deductibility for expenses incurred by volunteers. You may be surprised to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no legal definition of a volunteer for tax purposes, yet Volunteering Australia defines formal volunteering as:
… an activity which takes place through not for profit organisations or projects and is undertaken:
There are no provisions for this activity to claim expenses. The ATO is explicit in its advice in this respect:
Voluntary work is usually unpaid and, if an individual receives a payment in their capacity as a volunteer, it is generally not assessable income. Most expenses incurred in undertaking voluntary work are—
therefore—
not tax deductible.
If you look across what the rest of the world is doing, you get an insight into what is possible. In the US, volunteers can receive tax deductions from the federal government on many costs associated with volunteering, such as mileage and other travel expenses, paper, copying, convention attendance fees, parking, and uniforms if the volunteer purchases his or her own uniform. These deductions apply only if you are not reimbursed for these expenses by the organisation you are assisting and they are itemised on the tax form that you put in. This is something this country should have a debate on. Volunteers are the backbone of our great nation. If we take away volunteers and the not-for-profit organisations that volunteers work in and support, I think it is not stretching the imagination to say that our nation would collapse.
Government is not intended, nor is it able, to provide all the services. Indeed, government should not. I believe in small government—in government providing a hand up, not a handout. I believe in communities and individuals working within their communities. I believe that communities are able to solve problems far better than government, notwithstanding a government’s ability to be involved in major capacities. The heart and soul of our lives and what makes them better is the communities and the individuals we interact with on a daily basis—not government. There is room to examine this issue of volunteering and tax deductibility, and I commend this course to the House.
I want to talk about volunteerism, and I want to commend the government in one respect and, in another respect, seek for it to do some things. I want to commend the government for the Volunteer Grants Program 2008, wherein funding totalling over $21 million was announced and grants of up to $5,000 were made available for each organisation to purchase small equipment items and to assist volunteers by, for example, contributing to reimbursing fuel costs incurred by volunteers in carrying out their voluntary work. In my area, more than 20 organisations received the benefit, and that was right across Australia in every electorate. I know that community groups were very appreciative of that.
I also want to commend the government in relation to its announcements on local community infrastructure, which allocated some $500 million for community infrastructure—for sporting grounds, swimming pools, community centres and town halls. In relation to that, each local government area is allowed one application, and projects must need a Commonwealth contribution of at least $2 million. These are large projects. My concern is that there are a lot of groups falling between the cracks, and I believe government should be attempting to assist them. Small donations—$5,000 for some organisations—are excellent, but I will come to the other organisations.
I agree with the member who spoke earlier. Volunteers play an enormous role in our community. Recently there was an Australian Bureau of Statistics study on social trends. It reported on 9 July 2007, and it is worth quoting a few things from it. It states that, in 2006, 5.2 million people—34 per cent of the Australian population aged 18 years and over—participated in voluntary work. They contributed 713 million hours to the community, doing many different activities in organisations and groups with a diverse range of interests. Overall, 32 per cent of men and 36 per cent of women were volunteers. What is interesting is that, of those 713 million hours, 407 million hours were spent in capital cities and the balance of 306 million was spent in all other parts of the states. That shows that people in regional and rural Australia are obviously putting in hours at a higher rate.
I know that government cannot involve itself in every activity of our lives but, when you have volunteers putting in this level of effort, in my humble opinion it is in the interests of the community to have a partnership approach from government and a level of seeding for all levels of volunteers. For instance, in my area I am Vice-President of Revesby Workers Club. It is a large, licensed club with 34,000 members. We have 36 sporting bodies. Little Athletics has 300 kids participating every Friday night at the University of Western Sydney oval in Milperra. They have had to find the money for lights and then for repairing those lights. The universities are cash-strapped at the moment as a result of the issue of student unionism and sporting facilities. They are not the only ones.
We have taken on board a local rugby league club. We have not had rugby league at the workers club for many years. We did in the sixties, and they were expelled as a result of certain incidents, which I will not go into. We have taken a partnership approach with them. We encouraged them, they came to us, they have money of their own and we have, in effect, agreed to lend them $60,000 at reasonable bank rates and to give them $30,000 so that they can extend their clubhouse. We give the other clubs within the workers club some $200,000 per year in seed funding. That includes the ladies group, disability groups—we have a whole range of groups. That partnership helps them. Without the money they could not survive, but they put in a lot themselves. We have a happier community, a more tightly-knit community, a community that comes together.
It seems to me that what government needs to do, as I said, is to expand the availability of money a little bit. One cricket club in my area, of which I am the patron—I will not name them but they are a first-grade club in the Bankstown area, so it is not hard to work out what they are called—have been renovating and building grandstands. Our club, Bankstown Sports, put in large amounts of money to assist them in the first stage. They want to go to the next stage. They have raised a million dollars. They are looking for half a million dollars so that they can further advance the local facilities on the ground, which will be available to the community, and something beyond that. At the moment there is no program that they can look to for that level of funding, because it is too small for one end of the scale and too large for the other. They have been a tremendous club within our community. We have had Cricket Masala there, we have had shield cricket matches—a whole range of matches—because it is a high-quality ground with high-quality volunteers. The other day I was told that one of the fellows from the athletics club spends eight hours before athletics commences on Friday night at six—virtually the whole day—preparing the ground.
So my grievance is this: although these are difficult economic times, we need to nurture the spirit of volunteering that is in our nation, because in dark times it is the spirit that will prevail. If government can nurture that spirit then as a community we will see our way through the dark times. That is why I believe what the government is doing at the top and bottom end of the spectrum is something that should be commended. It is not partisan; it goes to every council and every electorate in the country and it is on merit. That is the way it should be. You should not have a situation where members of the opposition are excluded from accessing funds for their local community because they are in opposition. That is not the right way to do it. They should compete on merit.
This study on voluntary work in Australia includes, I think, good information to justify what I am suggesting. For instance, on page 4 it says:
The pattern of volunteering varied with life stage. People aged 35-44 years were in the age group most likely to volunteer (43%).
So what you see there is bonding within the families as a result of volunteering. The study goes on to say:
The four most common types of organisation for which people volunteered, namely sport and physical recreation, education and training, community/welfare and religious groups, accounted for three-quarters (74%) of volunteering involvements. The remaining quarter includes a very wide range of advocacy, emergency service, environmental, animal welfare, self-development and other recreational and special interest groups.
I know that we cannot provide for everyone, but in my opinion this is money well spent. As the study says on page 10:
In the course of doing voluntary work, many volunteers incur expenses, such as for telephone calls, travel, and uniforms, or unspecified costs which might include wear and tear on own equipment or income foregone for duration of service. In 2006, 58% of volunteers incurred expenses.
And they are not reimbursed for those expenses.
I suggest that we need to look at this so that we can provide seed funding at every level of the volunteer community. It is in the national interest to do so.
I want to talk about some very serious issues that a lot of my Labor colleagues would not understand—but you would, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, because you represent a rural electorate. Southern regional Australia is in the grip of the worst drought on record. That is exacerbated in Victoria by the pipeline issue. This is where the Labor government has decided that long-term food security and the protection of permanent plantings do not matter. We are talking about orchards, tomato crops and annual crops, and one of the biggest industries is dairying. Manufactured dairy products are mostly exported. The two big companies are Murray Goulburn and Fonterra, but there are others as well. In fact, about 22 companies who manufacture milk have factories in my electorate, and the vast majority of their output is exported.
The manufacturers are there because the area was traditionally drought-proofed with an irrigation system. That irrigation system had never failed us in over 100 years. And it probably would not have failed us now either. We would get over our current problems with drought—no doubt exacerbated by climate change. However the Victorian government have another issue, and that is their failure to put in a long-term water policy for their metropolitan areas, particularly Melbourne and Geelong but also Ballarat and Bendigo. The easiest solution for them technically, but also financially, is to take the water from the north of the state—unfortunately, that is in the Goulburn Valley, from the Campaspe and Loddon rivers—and pump it over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne. This means that we are permanently in drought. Whenever there is a demand for water in Melbourne—because Thomson Dam is low—there is also low rainfall in northern Victoria. This means that our long-term future in terms of ever again having an abundance of water—which guarantees the dairy production and the manufacturing sector—is gone. This is a very, very serious issue.
We are told that we should not complain, because the state government has invested in its own ageing irrigation infrastructure and is therefore lining channels with plastic and cutting off a lot of the farmers’ spurs when they have been found to be no longer viable or they are not prepared to pay for taking over their part of the channel supply system. The good farmers of northern Victoria are told that they should be grateful for this state government investment in its own infrastructure—and a lot of that funding has been committed by the federal government—and that they therefore should give up what would have been this year 30 per cent of their available water supply to the people in Melbourne.
We do not think that is a fair trade or a fair deal at all. You can imagine a suburb in outer Melbourne being finally given a new school—perhaps for the first time a secondary college—and being told, ‘Because you have got a secondary college you have to give up your hospital or your train station.’ It does not happen in suburban Australia or metropolitan Australia and we do not think it should happen in a rural region. The costs are not just to the long-term economy. The problem is that we do not have the capacity to guarantee food security for all of Australia. This is one of the parts of the food bowl of the great Murray-Darling Basin.
We also now have failed government policy in relation to the labour supply. I mentioned that we are big fruit growers. We have had this promise of a Pacific islander guest worker program for seasonal fruit harvesting that was to have delivered workers before the season this year—in other words, in November-December. The three trial regions were said to be Swan Hill, Stanthorpe and perhaps around Griffith. However, despite the organisation of this guest worker program being between at least four Australian government departments and despite some tens of millions extra being granted to them to help fund this program, we have only just had 50 guest workers delivered—far too late for the summer fruit season, even for the grape season—to Robinvale to pick almonds. The guest workers were to come from Tonga, Kiribati, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. We see that some from Tonga have arrived. You might say: ‘Well, at last. It is late, but the Pacific islanders are being given a go.’ The trouble is that just a few kilometres from there, in my electorate of Murray, the town of Pyramid Hill, population 400, just last week lost 57 workers with their pet food factory closing. So we have the government bringing in Pacific islander seasonal workers from Tonga—50 of them—to pick almonds, and a short distance away we have the pet food factory in a town of 400 people sacking 57 Australian workers.
Just how this government is responding to the domestic and global economic problems that we have does not quite compute, does it? They have to be more flexible. They have to understand that regional Australia is in meltdown not just because of the worst fires on record in Victoria and not just because of the worst drought on record but because of being overlooked and neglected by this government’s policy. When you think that only 14 per cent of farmers were eligible for the so-called stimulus package announced the other day—in other words, those on exceptional circumstances payments—and they were to be paid $950 each in a one-off payment, it would become almost laughable if it were not so tragic. You can imagine the despair and the disgust when the farming community heard about that.
In fact, they have as we speak a begging request to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, saying, ‘Please understand that the manufacturing dairy industry, which is now being paid below the cost of production for its primary production, will fail.’ It is in its seventh year of drought. There are 40,000 workers associated with the manufacturing dairy industry in Australia. The centre of that particular industry is in my electorate of Murray. When you are offered a price half that offered at the opening of the season and it is below the cost of production and you have locked in your seasonal inputs at the first price offered to you—your fodder, your water and your veterinary services have all been locked in at a price you expected to be paid—to have that slashed in half a few weeks later means that the only conversations you begin to have with anyone are with the banks.
Unfortunately, all the stimulus package had for farmers, besides the $900-odd, was extra money to buy the water from so-called willing sellers in the Murray-Darling Basin. So the banks will lean on these dairy farmers and say, ‘You have got your herd you can sell; you have got your water you can sell.’ You have no-one left in the water market but the Australian government, so it is goodbye irrigated agriculture. Some people might say: ‘That’s fine. Who cares?’ I guess I care, because I would like to think that my children and grandchildren, when they go to the supermarkets, will have a choice of Australian fine food, not imported food—not to depend in the future on, say, milk powders from China or New Zealand. We need to recall it was a New Zealand company that had the problem with the Chinese milk powder contaminations.
We are staring down the barrel in Australia of not being food self-sufficient. It seems extraordinary when we fed half the world in times of war, but it is a reality for us in Australia today. It requires Australian government policy which is innovative and closely developed in cooperation with the industry itself. I beg the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to urgently address the collapse in the dairy manufacturing industry and to understand they cannot hang on another six months. They can hardly hang on another one month, the pressures on them are so great.
The pressures for them can only be relieved by selling their means of production, which are their herds and their water. What we have left after that is a dry property with millions of dollars of infrastructure in the form of dairy buildings, milking sheds, silage sheds and so on that a hobby farmer does not want, much less any other sort of manufacturer or food farmer. So this is a serious problem. I am also very concerned that there are environmental consequences. When dairy farmers have to leave, their properties become a dry wasteland of rolling weeds, and when it does rain again we can expect to see a salinity problem.
So this government must act and look beyond the automotive industry, which instantly got a bailout, and the retail sector, which got bailed out before Christmas. What is wrong with help for the dairy manufacturers, I wonder? I do know, I suppose: they do not vote Labor typically. But this is not a time when we should be partisan. We should be saying that this industry is in great distress. It employs 40,000 people and it generates export earnings of billions of dollars annually—the biggest export quantity and quality and value of product out of Geelong in Victoria each year. If this government does not act very quickly I do not think it will be good enough for us to look back and say, ‘We could have done it.’ We simply must, because there is too much value to lose.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak about a couple of significant events that have taken place in my electorate of Solomon recently. Last Thursday, I had the honour of representing both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence at the commemoration of the 67th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. The service was held at the cenotaph on the Esplanade to mark the anniversary. It was very touching to see at the commemoration so many of our veterans, survivors and their families, as well as dignitaries and officials. Over 3,000 people were enthralled at the spectacular re-enactment of the anti-aircraft ground fire by the Army and the fly-by by the RAAF Hornets. The re-enactment took place at 9.58 am to mark the moment when the first bombs fell on 19 February 1942.
In a recently published book of some 7,000 pages documenting the Second World War there were only two pages dedicated to the bombing of Darwin. We need to tell this story because over 250 people died that day and it is a story that a lot of Australians do not know.
I would also like to thank the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Alan Griffin, who made the trip north for the occasion. I know that he always enjoys coming up to Darwin. Alan and I also attended the Australian American Association commemoration of the bombing of Darwin at the USS Peary gun memorial. It was a very special service this year because, as was reported in the Northern Territory News, the family of the last survivor from the USS Peary have closure after they scattered his ashes at the site where the ship went down in Darwin Harbour in 1942. Dallas Widick was one of 31 sailors who survived when the USS Peary slowly sank after sustaining devastating blows. Ninety-one of his comrades went down with the ship. Mr Widick, who was the last remaining survivor, died in his home in America surrounded by his family and friends on September 22 last year. His wife Lorna said it was her husband’s dying wish that his ashes be committed to the sea over the USS Peary wreck so that he could spend eternity with his shipmates.
During the week I also had the pleasure of being at the opening of the Sattler room at the RSL in Palmerston. The room is named after Sattler, who was a pilot during the Second World War. The week just gone in the electorate of Solomon highlights the significance of the Australian Defence Force to Australia and their importance to the Northern Territory. With over 5,000 ADF men and women based in Solomon, I am particularly proud to be their representative in a government that is committed to the ADF.
Last week I also had the great honour and privilege of presenting the Nakara Primary School’s outside school hours care service with the NT Active After School Community Super Site award for 2008. I would like to put on-record my congratulations to the children and staff of the Active After School Community program at the Nakara Primary School. To be selected the Super Site award winner in front of 70 other participating sites around the territory is a fantastic effort for all those involved. The super site award recognises the outstanding contribution made by the Nakara Primary School in the coordination and delivery of the AASC program. The school has excelled at helping children and their families to be more active, providing healthy and nutritious afternoon teas, and encouraging local community involvement in sport.
Whilst visiting the Nakara Primary School I also had the pleasure of talking to the school’s principal Mr Barry Griffin, an extremely hardworking and committed educator—just like all the teachers I have met. Barry was talking to me about how excited he is about receiving his school’s share of our government’s $14.7 billion boost to the education revolution. The building education revolution will commence this year and provides new facilities and refurbishment in schools to meet the needs of the 21st century for students and teachers. Forty-one primary schools in Solomon will directly benefit from the immediate funding for major and minor infrastructure projects.
Barry was talking to me about his need for new classrooms to replace the demountable classrooms he currently has in use. He also talked with a lot of excitement about the opportunity for weather proofing his multipurpose hall and being able to have kids exercising without being subjected to our unpredictable extreme weather conditions in the north. I was also pleased to hear Barry talk about community groups using the updated facility, something that I know will be appreciated by many not-for-profit organisations, which often do not have adequate space to undertake the great work that they do.
It is not only Barry who is excited at the prospect of our building revolution. Last week I also had the pleasure of being shown around Malak Primary School by its Principal, Paul Nyhuis. I spoke to the kids and talked to the staff out at Malak. What a fantastic school! It also has a unit dedicated to children with autism. What a great feeling I had when Paul told me about the school’s plans to improve their facilities with a community room for kids, teachers and community groups. Just like Nakara Primary, they are desperate to weatherproof their undercover areas so that kids can exercise without passing out from heat exhaustion.
I also spoke to a small business man in Palmerston with regard to the first round of stimulus packages. I asked him how it had impacted on his business. He told me that December had been the best December he had had in eight years and that it went on into January. It is making a difference, because he had kept on the casual staff that he would usually have to lay off in January. This plan strikes the right balance between supporting growth and jobs now and delivering the investments needed to strengthen the economy for the long term.
I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the media outlets in Darwin and Palmerston for the fantastic work they have done for the Victorian bushfire appeals. So as not to offend anyone, in case I miss someone, I will not mention all of them. However, I would like to say a big thankyou to the NT broadcaster Pete Davies, who raised over $400,000, a tremendous effort. Pete Davies is a guy with a lot of energy. We do not always agree. He gets me on air and has a go at me at times on different issues—
He must be brave.
He is brave—I will take that interjection—but when it comes to community activities and being committed to the community of Darwin and Solomon, you would go a long way to find someone more committed than Pete Davies. The moment the news broke of the horrible events of 7 February, Pete Davies started to get people to ring in with pledges of support. From that, a population of 80,000 people in Darwin and Palmerston raised a total of $400,000. To me, that is a fantastic effort. So I would like to thank Pete for that.
Order! There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.