On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Sydney.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission proposes to undertake a fit-out of new office accommodation at 100 Market Street in Sydney and to relocate all Sydney staff to these premises. ASIC currently occupies tenancies at 1 Martin Place, 77 Castlereagh Street and 55 Market Street, and short-term project space at 130 Pitt Street. The lease for the largest tenancy, at Martin Place, expires in June 2010.
The proposed fit-out is for 18,575 square metres over six contiguous floors at 100 Market Street. This will provide a single tenancy for all current and projected Sydney staff and will result in increased operational effectiveness. The fit-out will result in a flexible, efficient, collaborative and contemporary work environment which reflects current industry standards and accords with ASIC’s policies in relation to security of staff and information, and occupational health and safety. The estimated cost of the integrated fit-out is $37 million plus GST, including $2.92 million for security and $5.02 million for IT and communications infrastructure. The costs will be offset by a substantial lessor contribution to fit-out negotiated as part of the new lease.
In its report the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, the planned integrated fit-out will maximise efficiencies in cost and time and will allow the fit-out works to commence in June 2009, this month. This will in turn allow ASIC to take occupation before the lease expires at 1 Martin Place, 77 Castlereagh Street and 55 Market Street in June 2010. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
I would just like to take this opportunity to say a few words. The former chair of the Public Works Committee, Mark Butler, presided over this particular inquiry. We have, unfortunately, lost him. He did a great job; I wish we could have him back. I advise the House that this morning the Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, appointed a new chair, Senator Jan McLucas. We look forward to continuing the good work of the Public Works Committee.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I introduce a bill that will deliver on the commitment of the Rudd government to modernise Australia’s consumer credit laws.
This piece of legislation will—for the first time in our country’s history—provide for one, single, standard and uniform regime for consumer credit regulation and oversight.
And for the first time, Australian financial services consumers will have a truly national set of laws.
The bill follows the historic agreement by the Council of Australian Governments in October 2008 to implement a two-phase approach for the Australian government to take over responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit.
By replacing the state based Uniform Consumer Credit Code, which operates inconsistently across the eight jurisdictions, it will also reduce duplication, red tape and compliance costs for business.
This bill also has the benefit of being ‘road-tested’ through a consultation process involving industry and consumer groups. The exposure drafts were released for public comment. The legislation was then reviewed and amended in light of the submissions received by the government.
The new national regime includes several components, which I will now outline.
National licensing regime
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill, together with the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill, and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill, will establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national licensing regime for people engaging in credit activities.
Lenders and providers of consumer credit broking services must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, then obtain an Australian credit licence.
Participants will need to be registered or licensed if they engage in any of the following activities:
The licensing process will start on 1 January 2010. Before that date, anyone engaging in credit activities will need to be registered with ASIC, and must apply for registration between 1 November 2009 and 31 December 2009.
They will then have the six-month period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010 to apply for an Australian credit licence.
Anyone who engages in credit activities for the first time on or after 1 January 2010 must apply for, and receive, an Australian credit licence before starting business.
The two-stage process has been adopted to facilitate a smooth transition to licensing. The registration procedure has been designed to be straightforward for industry and can be completed online. The two-stage process also gives industry adequate time to meet all the licensing requirements.
It is expected that ASIC will issue guidance on the procedures for becoming a licence holder including guidance for small businesses.
To qualify for an Australian credit licence, lenders and brokers must meet minimum training requirements and have adequate financial and human resources to meet their obligations.
Licensees must also meet enhanced standards of conduct, including the requirement to act honestly, efficiently and fairly. They must also adequately train and supervise people who act on their behalf.
Authorised deposit-taking institutions can be streamlined into a licence because we are confident that these institutions already satisfy the entry requirements.
We also propose to similarly streamline, by way of regulations, the application process for Western Australian brokers who hold an ‘A’ or ‘B’ class licence, because of the rigour of the licensing scheme in that state.
As well, consumers will be able to resolve consumer credit disputes outside the court system at no cost to them, as licensees must be members of an external dispute resolution scheme.
The new scheme enables ASIC to refuse an application if the person does not meet those standards.
ASIC will also be given the power to cancel or suspend a licence, or to ban people from engaging in credit activities, where this is necessary to protect consumers from the risk of financial harm and to maintain the integrity of the credit industry.
A national licensing scheme will mean that a person who is banned or loses their licence or registration will be unable to legally engage in credit activities anywhere in Australia. Currently, there is nothing to prevent a person banned in one state or territory from continuing to operate as a broker or lender simply by moving to a different jurisdiction.
Responsible lending obligations
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill will establish new responsible lending conduct requirements.
The requirement to meet the responsible lending obligations will be a key condition of holding an Australian credit licence.
When offering consumer credit, lenders and assistants such as finance brokers will be required to do two things. Firstly, they must assess that the loan is not unsuitable for the consumer.
And, secondly, they must assess that the consumer has the capacity to repay the loan. In making this assessment, they will need to make reasonable inquiries and verify the details provided to them. To assist consumers to make better informed borrowing decisions, or in the event of a dispute, consumers will be able to request a copy of this assessment.
All consumers applying for credit will be provided with a credit guide which will inform them of key information early in the process of a credit related transaction. It is important that the consumer knows who they are dealing with, that the credit provider is licensed—and has therefore met the stringent entry requirements of participating in the credit market—and has early advice of any fees and costs.
As part of the responsible lending requirements, licensees will also have to let consumers know, upfront, what fees and charges they will need to pay before the loan is suggested or entered into. As well, brokers will need to disclose any commissions if the suggested loan is secured, and credit providers will continue to disclose various commissions related to the matter.
Further, consumers will now be made aware of their right to request a variation in their credit contract in the event of financial hardship, rather than continue to suffer distress or seek to refinance their loan and exacerbate their debt levels.
Additional measures have been included to help protect consumers’ family homes by requiring more rigorous assessment of any credit offer that will require the consumer to sell their home in order to meet the obligations of the contract.
These provisions will help consumers to make better informed choices and use credit more effectively.
ASIC’s role during the transition to the new regime
To ease the transition for industry and allow the national credit regime to be implemented in a sensible and practical fashion, the government has made some key changes in light of the insights gained through the consultation process.
Firstly, we have simplified the way in which the proposed responsible lending arrangements will apply. We have removed the requirement for lenders to meet credit assistance conduct obligations when providing assistance in relation to their own credit products.
Secondly, we have delayed the commencement of the responsible lending obligations to 1 January 2011. This will give industry more time to implement the necessary changes to support responsible lending.
Thirdly, and importantly, the government has given ASIC greater flexibility to exempt or modify the licensing and registration requirements in the law. During the transition period, ASIC will play a key role in providing assistance to industry.
The government has given ASIC greater resources to ensure it will be proactive in assisting industry to comply with the law. ASIC will undertake intensive industry consultation to explain and clarify the licensing requirements, and will work closely and cooperatively with industry.
I am confident that, by working together closely during this process, industry and ASIC will achieve a seamless and successful transfer to the new credit regime.
Sanctions and remedies
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill will enhance ASIC’s enforcement powers. The relevant provisions are consistent with the Corporations Act 2001 and other Commonwealth consumer protection laws.
The regulatory framework is supported by a tiered approach to the sanctions regime, which includes:
Additionally, ASIC’s current regulatory powers under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 will be replicated in the credit bill.
New dispute resolution mechanism
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill will introduce a three-tier dispute resolution system for consumer credit issues. This will make it easier and less costly for consumers to have their disputes resolved.
The three-tier system will give consumers access to:
Consumers will also have access to an ‘opt-in’ streamlined court procedure for claims of compensation for loss or damage up to $40,000.
These streamlined procedures will also apply to several key consumer rights under the National Credit Code. For example, consumers will be able to utilise the streamlined processes for:
The ‘opt-in’ streamlined court procedure is designed to ensure consumers continue to receive the benefit of accessibility to dispute resolution in terms of location, procedural simplicity and minimised legal costs.
The procedure will provide consumers with informal court proceedings where legal forms and technicalities do not have to be observed and legal representation is not required.
National Credit Code
The new National Credit Code will also provide a consumer protection framework for consumer credit and related transactions. It largely replicates the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, enacted in the Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994 and in force in the states and territories since 1996.
The code will be enacted as a schedule to the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill.
The National Credit Code is as similar to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code as is practicable, except where the Commonwealth has specifically decided to enhance or extend its operation.
The code has been extended in the following ways:
The National Credit Code also includes amendments to enable the former Uniform Consumer Credit Code to operate effectively as Commonwealth legislation.
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill and the transitional bill contain power to exempt persons from some or all of the regulatory requirements. This means that the requirements in the bills can be ‘turned off’ or varied, enabling the application of the bills to be refined or calibrated to meet different practices across the credit industry; or to be applied in a sensible and practical way.
Point-of-sale retailers who provide credit assistance to consumers will be exempt from the requirements, with a review of the issue of regulatory oversight to occur within 12 months. However, the providers of credit and leases at point of sale will not be exempt.
In addition, debt collectors who hold a state or territory licence and are authorised by a lender to collect a debt will be exempt for a 12-month period, pending further consultation with state and territory governments and industry.
Conclusion
The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill introduces sweeping changes to our consumer credit laws. It establishes the foundations for a new robust regulatory framework, on which phase 2 of the COAG reforms will be built.
As well as making the consumer credit system fairer, more consistent and more workable, the new regime will significantly improve the effectiveness of protection for consumers. It will also address many of the regulatory gaps that have plagued the state regulatory system.
Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential) Provisions Bill sets out the transitional and consequential arrangements to support a smooth and comprehensive transition from the current state-based regulation of consumer credit to the new national scheme under the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill. This is crucial to ensure that, in the transition to the new regulatory framework, consumers’ rights are preserved and the disruption to business is minimised.
The key elements of the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill are that:
Both the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill and the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill provide for a broad regulation-making power, in recognition of the need for flexibility to deal with circumstances that may arise in the future.
Such a power ensures that any necessary consequential amendments can be made without the need for the enactment of another act.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill forms part of a reform package which will provide for one single, standard and uniform regime for consumer credit regulation and oversight.
The bill enacts provisions about the imposition of fees, for chargeable matters, collected by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
These chargeable matters include such things as the lodgement of a document with, or the inspection of a register kept, by ASIC.
Amongst other things, the National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill also provides for the imposition of differential fees in relation to a chargeable matter. For example, under the proposed regulations to this bill, different fees will be imposed on the lodgement of different documents, such as licence applications and annual compliance certificates.
The National Consumer Credit Protection (Fees) Bill is a separate bill in order to comply with the requirements of section 55 of the Constitution. That constitutional provision provides, in part, that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and that any other provisions dealing with any other matter must be dealt with separately.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill 2009 will amend the Corporations Act 2001 to provide for the national regulation of margin lending and trustee corporations, as agreed by COAG.
Consumers will also benefit from long-awaited improvements to the regulatory regime governing the issue of debentures.
The first of the three elements of the financial services modernisation bill is the introduction of national regulation of margin loans.
While the level of margin lending has dropped over the last 12 months due to the global recession, over the last decade the use of margin lending has increased dramatically. In June 1999, less than $5 billion had been borrowed through margin loans. But by December 2007 that figure had sky-rocketed to over $37 billion. That’s more than a 700 per cent increase.
Over the past 12 months, in the fall-out from several high-profile financial collapses, many investors lost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to margin loans. And in some cases, they even lost their family homes.
While properly-geared margin lending, backed by full disclosure, does have a place in our financial services landscape, we cannot tolerate ordinary Australians being misled into grossly inappropriate margin loans that can cost a family everything they own.
Margin lending has not been subject to the credit regime operated by the states. In fact, until now, margin loans have not been subject to any specific regulatory regime at all.
For the first time, margin loans will become subject to specific legislation designed to protect consumers from harmful lending practices.
As margin loans are generally used to finance investments in listed and unlisted securities, the decision has been made to regulate them as part of the financial services regime in chapter 7 of the Corporations Act.
This means that margin loan borrowers will benefit from the general investor protection regime contained in that legislation.
This includes a number of important measures. For example, lenders and advisers will have to be licensed and regulated by ASIC.
Consumers will have access to independent, free and fast dispute resolution services.
And importantly, advisers will be required to only provide advice that is appropriate to the client’s needs and circumstances.
Consumer protection in relation to margin loans will be further improved through two specific measures.
The first is a responsible lending requirement, which is designed to prevent lenders from giving unsuitable loans to consumers.
Before giving a margin loan, lenders will be required to consider whether the borrower could suffer substantial hardship as a result of taking out the loan. If that is the case, the law says that the loan must not be provided.
The regulations which will accompany the legislation will provide further detail of what lenders will need to consider. Among other things, a specific requirement will be included for lenders to consider whether consumers will be at risk of losing their homes as a consequence of taking out a margin loan.
The regulations will also require financial advisers to consider the same matters, including the possible loss of the borrower’s home, when providing advice on margin loans to consumers.
The second specific measure clarifies which party is responsible for notifying borrowers when a margin call occurs where both a lender and a financial adviser is involved. In the past, delays in margin call notifications due to disagreements between lenders and advisers have contributed to losses suffered by consumers.
The government has consulted extensively during the process of developing the policy underlying the legislation.
A margin loan consultation group was established consisting of industry associations, major lenders and other stakeholders such as lawyers and external dispute resolution schemes.
Regular meetings were held with this group while the policy was being developed. The group also had the opportunity to review draft legislation before it was exposed for public comment.
Some important changes were made in response to views expressed by stakeholders during consultation.
In particular, transitional periods have been extended to give industry stakeholders, especially lenders, more time to prepare for the introduction of the new regime.
The new margin lending regime will apply to margin lenders and advisers 12 months after the legislation comes into force. This transitional period will give industry sufficient time to prepare for the introduction of the new regime, in particular the new responsible lending requirements.
The government understands that appropriate preparations are needed for the implementation of the new regime, and has listened to industry views on how long the transitional period should be.
I am also confident that ASIC will be looking at ways to minimise the regulatory burden to business during and after the transitional period.
Ways to achieve this could include ASIC releasing guidance on the detailed implementation of the provisions in the law, and providing appropriate relief from unintended consequences of the law.
I would add that the new legislation, as well as the existing Corporations Act, gives ASIC a wide range of powers in this respect.
In addition to the measures I have just outlined, a new margin loan disclosure document is being designed. This document will inform potential borrowers in concise and clear language of the key factors they need to consider before they take out a margin loan.
This document is currently being designed in close cooperation with margin lenders and other stakeholders and will be separately introduced through regulations at a later date.
The new margin loan regime represents a major improvement in consumer protection in an area which, in the past, has been subject to, at best, loose and patchy regulatory coverage.
Turning now to the second area covered by the financial services modernisation bill, it will provide for Commonwealth regulation of the ‘traditional activities’ of trustee corporations.
The term ‘traditional services’ covers several personal trust and deceased estate administration services, such as acting as a trustee of a trust, applying for probate of a will or acting as executor of a deceased estate. Trustee corporations carrying out these tasks are generally currently regulated by the states and territories.
There are several reasons why the current state-based authorisation of trustee companies needs to be replaced. Trustee companies that wish to operate in more than one jurisdiction must comply with differing and often inconsistent authorisation and reporting requirements. The state system lacks transparency and, where an applicant has been refused or not accepted, the reasons for rejection have been unclear.
This framework imposes unjustifiable barriers to entry on trustee companies, as well as unnecessary compliance costs and burdens.
Under the Commonwealth system, there will be a single licensing regime administered by one single, well resourced regulator—ASIC.
These changes will lead to a national market for trustee company services and significant efficiencies and savings in terms of start-up costs.
The state-based system also creates inconsistent outcomes for ‘consumers’ of trustee company services.
As a starting point, consumers are entitled to know that their service provider is providing services that are efficient, honest and fair, that it has adequate resources to carry out its functions, that it provides cost-effective dispute resolution and that it has adequate compensation arrangements. While some state systems meet some of these criteria, others do not.
Under the financial services modernisation bill, the ‘traditional services’ of trustee corporations will be deemed to be ‘financial services’, and will be covered by the consumer protection and disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASIC Act 2001. This will ensure that, in providing those services, trustee corporations will be bound by the financial product disclosure, licensing, conduct, advice and dispute resolution provisions of those acts.
And overall consumer protection will be greatly enhanced.
The government is aware of the need to protect charitable trusts by regulating the fees they may be charged by trustee corporations. It is proposed to ‘grandfather’ the fees charged to existing charitable trusts and foundations. Thus, if the fees of the charitable trust would be increased due to the introduction of a new fee regime, the grandfathering provision would require that client to be charged as if they were still covered under the old rules.
It is proposed to maintain caps on the fees and commissions charged by trustee corporations to charitable trusts that are new clients, in line with the fee regime set out in the Victorian Trustee Companies Act 1984. These arrangements will be reviewed after two years. There will be full disclosure of the corporations’ current fees on the internet.
Due to the need for further consultation, the financial services disclosure regime for trustee corporations does not form part of this bill, but will be developed in regulations.
The bill also amends the regulatory framework in the Corporations Act governing the issue of debentures and promissory notes.
The amendments, which align the regulation of promissory notes with debentures, provide additional protection for investors by removing uncertainty in the law. This is a much-needed change following the collapse of Westpoint, which tried to use the issue of promissory notes with face values of at least $50,000 to avoid the operation of the law.
Under the amendments, all promissory notes issued to retail clients will be subject to the same regulatory regime as debentures, requiring the issue of a trust deed, the appointment of a trustee and the issue of a prospectus. Although thousands of investors incurred substantial losses through the Westpoint collapse, the previous government failed to act on this important issue.
The amendments also enhance transparency for debenture holders by creating a publicly available register of debenture trustees which will be established and maintained by ASIC.
The Ministerial Council for Corporations was consulted in relation to each of these amendments.
The amendments in the bill in relation to the regulation of trustee corporations were the subject of consultations with state and territory representatives. This consultation included consideration of the draft amendments by the Ministerial Council for Corporations.
During that process, some state and territory ministers raised some issues which the Commonwealth will consider further. However, the council has approved the amendments for introduction, as required under the Corporations Agreement.
Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this important bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Randall) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 implements a change to the research and development tax offset, that is, the R&D tax offset, which is part of the R&D tax concession. As announced in the budget, this is an interim measure ahead of the introduction of a new R&D tax incentive in 2010-11.
Currently, certain companies can choose to receive the tax concession in the form of a refundable tax offset, rather than a deduction. The R&D tax offset allows companies to ‘cash out’ the R&D tax concession, which means it is most attractive to companies that are in a tax loss position, who cannot immediately benefit from an additional tax deduction.
One of the requirements for the R&D tax offset is that the company has no more than $1 million of eligible R&D expenditure, subject to grouping rules. If the company’s expenditure exceeds $1 million, they are not eligible to claim the offset. The $1 million cap means that some companies keep their expenditure below this level in order to claim the R&D tax offset—a perverse outcome, given that the purpose of the tax concession is to encourage R&D.
This measure lifts the expenditure cap from $1 million to $2 million. This will provide a further boost to small pre-profit companies in research intensive industries, ahead of the introduction of the new R&D tax incentive in 2010-11. It also mitigates the incentive for firms to keep their R&D spending below the current expenditure cap.
In regard to schedule 2, the Treasurer announced in the 2008 budget that the government would legislate guidelines to improve the integrity of prescribed private funds and to provide the trustees of such funds with greater certainty as to their philanthropic obligations.
Following a thorough public consultation process, this measure amends the 1997 Income Tax Assessment Act, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 to improve the integrity of prescribed private funds.
Schedule 3 amends the income tax law to provide relief from capital gains tax to members and insured entities of friendly societies that have either a life insurance business or a private health insurance business, or both, and the society demutualises to a for-profit entity.
Depending on how the friendly society chooses to demutualise, these entities do not easily fit within the existing demutualisation regimes. These amendments will provide a broadly equivalent capital gains tax outcome for members and insured entities of these friendly societies relative to what members and policyholders of a stand-alone life insurer or private health insurer would receive if the insurer demutualised.
Schedule 4 amends the 1997 Income Tax Assessment Act to ensure that losses transferred to the head company of a consolidated group or a multiple entry consolidated group by a joining entity that is insolvent at the joining time, can be used by the head company in certain circumstances.
The amendments allow the transferred losses to be applied to reduce a net forgiven amount under the commercial debt forgiveness rules, reduce a capital allowance that is adjusted under the limited recourse debt rules, or reduce a capital gain that arises when the joining entity subsequently leaves the group.
As the amendments are beneficial to taxpayers, they apply from 1 July 2002—that is, from the commencement of the consolidation regime. In this regard, the amendments ensure that losses transferred to the head company of a consolidated group by a joining entity are not wasted.
Finally, the bill includes minor amendments to the tax laws.
The amendments ensure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies, and addressing unintended outcomes. The minor amendments are part of the government’s commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law.
Minor amendment packages now include addressing minor legislative issues raised by the public through the recently introduced Tax Issues Entry System, or TIES for short.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Randall) adjourned.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands from 12 April to 3 May 2009, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission delegation report, because it is one that I would commend to each and every member of this House. The basis of the report was to look at international experiences of, and trends in, serious and organised crime and also the legislative responses to it being taken by other countries. We examined the legislative responses to organised crime in the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, Canada and Italy, specifically its anti-Mafia response.
Perceptions count for a lot—they certainly do in politics. At the moment, people would not think that we have a significant issue with serious and organised crime in this country. Regrettably, sometimes perceptions are wrong and that can possibly lead to a lax response. One of the consistent things that we found during the course of the delegation was that, since the rise of global terrorism, the diversion of law enforcement resources into counterterrorism has been disproportionate to other areas, such as local policing. Local police agencies, aided by the requests of local political operatives, tend to want to concentrate on the immediate issues such as street and domestic based crimes. Without exception, every jurisdiction that we visited made the point that the difference between what proportion of resources is directed at domestic crime and what is directed at counterterrorism is significant. That void is there—but now it is being taken up as the incubator for serious and organised crime. When we came to power we were conscious of that. One of the electoral commitments that we made was for 500 extra policing positions in the AFP.
Where are they?
I will address the issue raised by the member for La Trobe, who made a significant contribution to the compilation of this report. We wanted to look at matters concerning the development of serious and organised crime, and now we are required to face them. With the ever-increasing challenge that that presents, the delegation sought to capture and learn from the experiences of overseas countries in their attempts to address crime.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the setting up of the delegation, particularly those who provided logistical support. I would also like to thank officers of the AFP, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Australian Crime Commission, the Attorney-General’s Department, the various parliamentary officers and particularly members of the committee secretariat. They include Dr Jacqueline Dewar, who heads the secretariat, Robyn Clough, Nina Boughey and Danielle Oldfield. I would also like to thank the leader of the delegation, Senator Steve Hutchins, the deputy leader, Senator Stephen Parry, and my parliamentary colleague the member for La Trobe, Mr Wood.
I think what we gained was probably more than what we expected from the outset. There were five main things that I would like to summarise, not so much recommendations but key findings, that followed from each of the discussions we had with law enforcement agencies. Firstly, there was following the money trail. Secondly, there was the need for information sharing and greater cooperation amongst law enforcement jurisdictions and other agencies within government and on an intergovernmental basis. Thirdly, there was the benefit of developing measures to prevent organised crime rather than simply reacting to it. Fourthly, there was the critical role that political will plays in combating serious and organised crime and, fifthly, there was the need for government to take a holistic approach in tackling the issue relating to not simply one piece of legislation but a suite of measures to address, on a community basis, serious and organised crime.
When we speak about the money trail I think it is best summarised by the head of the Italian National Police, Mr Raffaele Grassi, when he articulated his approach in respect to this. He said:
Criminal members are prepared to spend time in prison, but to take their assets is to really harm these individuals.
What he encapsulates there is addressing the business model that underpins crime. I know the member for La Trobe and I have had many conversations about this. One of the fallacies with criminal law at the moment is that we wait until a crime has been committed and then attempt to react to it and go through the normal legal and prosecutorial processes that follow.
One of the responsibilities we have to our communities—and this is what the overseas jurisdictions are now beginning to identify—is to disrupt crime and prevent it from occurring, and the way to do that is to address the business model that underpins criminal activity. That is what international jurisdictions are moving to do. Whilst our words are ‘following the money trail’, that is precisely what the jurisdictions are doing at the moment. In their opinion, it is not appropriate to simply concentrate law enforcement resources on the drug pushers on the streets and make arrests there—and they are the domestic element of organised criminal activity. Rather they address the business model that provides the criminals with their merchandise to peddle on our streets, to get to the importation of the drugs, to get to the massive syndicates, which across the country were described as being more ‘boardroom operations’ than our perception of a group of unshaven criminals sitting around plotting and scheming.
These are very, very sophisticated operations and, as a consequence, the money trail becomes very significant. What follows then is the issue of money-laundering. It is the basis of these illegal operations to ensure that whatever wealth has accumulated, however ill-gained, is then converted into legitimate means through various methods of money-laundering. These are the international experiences we found, that international jurisdictions are moving very solidly to attack the business model underpinning organised and serious crime in their respective countries.
Information sharing becomes very important. Fortunately we only have a very few jurisdictions—state and territory—as well as our federal AFP and the Australian Crime Commission. I think there are significant inroads being made to improve the levels of information sharing. I know this is something that the member for La Trobe has often commented on, having regard to his background with the Victorian police. I think that is something that we should take some solace from in terms of what we are doing and what we are doing well in that regard. From our experiences overseas, we know that we should not be taking our foot off the pedal. We should be not simply looking at the information sharing that emanates from our police or law enforcement jurisdictions but ensuring that we capture all the necessary information, particularly when it relates to the investing of moneys of criminals.
Whilst still talking about the issue of the money trail, one of the important pieces of legislative support is the looking at and addressing of unexplained wealth that is accumulated within the criminal community. It is something that was spearheaded in terms of the inter-Mafia policing operations in Italy and they certainly have an international aspect to reviewing the proceeds of crime.
The delegation were informed that, if we are to effectively dismantle the business models upon which these criminal operations are based, we need to look into unexplained wealth and take away the ability for reinvestment in further criminal activity. The delegation heard of the effectiveness of the UK’s approach reversing the onus of proof for civil assets forfeiture proceedings regarding those who have led a ‘criminal lifestyle’. This is designed to take away the incentive to invest in further criminal activity. It is about dismantling and disrupting criminal activity—not, as some of our colleagues in the legal profession have put to us as being the correct course of action, waiting until a crime has been committed and then proceeding to extract evidence with a view to mounting a prosecution. There is a responsibility, which has been acknowledged overseas, that we as legislators have to disrupt the commission of those crimes in the first place. That is what we need to do to protect society. That is probably not an approach that would sit very well with those in this House who have very strong views about civil liberties. It is not designed to placate others who are less so inclined.
Our findings were that activities overseas are very much based on doing what is necessary to address a situation which is now progressively getting worse. It has got worse since the increase in terrorism and it is getting worse with the sophistication and internationalisation of the criminal base. There is not one jurisdiction that we visited that said that they were on top of the issue. Each and every one of them is looking at suites of legislative and regulatory alternatives to position them to combat these developments. That is what we have attempted to focus on.
One further thing I would like to mention is the role of political will, something that has been referred to many times in this place and, believe it or not, something that was referred to in every jurisdiction we visited. The importance of political will was raised everywhere as being critical to driving both domestic and international responses to organised crime. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime both discussed with us the lack of political will as being a significant impediment to the success of international collaboration on organised crime and emphasised that it was probably the sole inhibitor of a coordinated approach to fighting organised crime. Both organisations were very clear in our meetings with them that we should be making recommendations to this parliament that emphasise the need to demonstrate the political will to do these things.
It is for that reason I will briefly mention how pleased I was to see the Attorney-General yesterday introduce into the parliament the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009, which will implement reforms to Commonwealth laws as part of a comprehensive national response to combat serious and organised crime. These reforms focus on confiscating the proceeds of crime while strengthening national law enforcement coordination and capability. The strategy is two-pronged: to remove the profitability of criminal activity and to increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. I cannot speak for all members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission—although I think I would have a reasonable sense of their views upon reading this legislation—but this bill would be very close to what we would be making recommendations about. It certainly sits well with the best legislative responses we found internationally in terms of combating crime. I compliment the Attorney-General on introducing that legislation.
Finally, while the delegation formed many lasting impressions of the problems and the solutions in respect of serious and organised crime, the way forward was best articulated by Mr Antonia Maria Costa, Executive Director, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
The political will of states is mightier than the greed and fire power of criminal groups. Working together does not mean surrendering sovereignty, it means defending it. So let us enforce the rule of law where uncivil society prevails.
I commend the report to the House. As I said, I do request that members take the time to read that report. I also compliment the contributions that have been made in the formulation of this report by my colleagues the member for La Trobe, Senator Parry and Senator Hutchins.
by leave—I also rise to speak on the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. First of all, I thank the member for Werriwa for his kind words. He and his Senate colleague Steve Hutchins, my Liberal Senate colleague Steve Parry and I were all in this delegation, and the Australian Crime Commission committee has been working very effectively together—and that is one of the great things about the ACC committee, how well the political parties are working together for the common cause in combating serious and organised crime. On that note, I also thank Senator Steve Fielding for his involvement. The report has been exceptionally well put together by the secretary, Dr Jacqueline Dewar; she has done a fantastic job.
I would say that the biggest thing which came out of this report—and I will get to it in more detail later on—is definitely the money trail. That is what serious and organised crime is about. It is really about two things: creating great wealth and power, but you cannot have the power unless you have got the great wealth. In every country we visited, there is the view now in law enforcement that you need to go after the money. As an ex-police officer, I can say that, in the old days, our goal used to be to lock up the guys. We put the proceeds of crime at the end of the tail, and if we got some money back that was great. But it does not actually bring down criminal organisations. That is why the unexplained wealth legislation which was introduced yesterday—and obviously it needs to go through our party room—is something that I have been fighting very hard for, with other colleagues on the Australian Crime Commission committee.
I also would like to pay great tribute to people for the assistance we had, in particular from the Australian Federal Police in Canberra. We had members assisting us such as the Assistant Commissioner of Border and International, Tim Morris; Commander Paul Osborne; and Miss Jodie Chapman. In particular, I would like to thank Miss Chapman for coordinating the delegation. If anyone looks at the agenda, they will realise it was very fast and furious.
Another great thing we got to see was how well our federal agents—in some respects, right across the world—are performing and what a magnificent job they are doing. We met with federal agent Gerry Morris in Ottawa and Washington; federal agent Mark Dokmanovic in Rome; federal agent Peter Bodel and federal agent Ray Imbriano in The Hague, in the Netherlands; and federal agent Chris Lines in London. The great news about our federal agents overseas is the amount of access that they have to the highest levels of law enforcement in the countries we visited. You can see that the Australian Federal Police are totally trusted with the most sensitive information. That is a great thing for Australia.
For example, you only need to look at the relationship between the Netherlands and the two federal agents over there—bearing in mind that, sadly, the serious crime groups in the Netherlands are some of the main exporters of ecstasy to Australia. Sadly, Australia is per capita the highest user of ecstasy. We have had some great success working with the police agencies over there, and that simply comes down to trust. They are happy to work with the Australian Federal Police because they know that they can be trusted. To mums, dads and Australians on the streets, that means that they are preventing serious drugs coming into this country. One example was a four-tonne seizure of drugs that they stopped coming into Australia.
We also had great assistance from our ambassadors and high commissioners: Amanda Vanstone in Italy; the Ambassador to Austria, Peter Shannon; Mr Tim Fischer in the Holy See; the High Commissioner to Canada, Justin Brown; John Dauth, the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; and Mr Stuart, the Deputy Chief of Mission in the United States of America.
I strongly suggest that people read the report but, if they do not read it, I note that in chapter 5 we had some key recommendations. It is quite obvious how important it is to follow the money trail. We went all around Italy speaking to the anti-mafia police. They brought down the mafia by simply going after the money. They have these amazingly strong powers, which hopefully Australia can get. It is similar to the unexplained wealth legislation. Every agency we went to in Italy that dealt with the mafia kept on naming Melbourne as one of the places that mafia figures in Italy transfer their money to. In Australia we are a key target for money laundering, particularly Melbourne. That surprised the delegation because we were not hearing it from just one agency—we were hearing it from agency after agency. That is something that our law enforcement agencies in Australia must seriously look at.
We need measures to actually prevent organised crime. That was another important aspect. Having unexplained wealth legislation is the type of thing that will take the incentive away. Taking away the incentive and stopping people getting involved in organised crime is something that it is vitally important that we achieve.
We heard the member for Werriwa talk about the Italian national police and Mr Rafael Grassi, who basically said that the mafia figures are prepared to spend a lot of time in jail if they can keep hold of the assets once they get out. In my experience in the Victorian Police Organised Crime Squad, a number of crooks would actually tell us, ‘As long you don’t take the money from me, I’m happy to plead guilty.’ The biggest thing they were always concerned about was the money trail and what it meant for them.
The way governments around the world are dealing with various issues is interesting. Like us, both the UK and Canada have a street gang problem. One of the issues they looked at is using diversion programs to get young people out of street gangs. One of the big problems they have is that, once you enter a street gang, it is actually very difficult to get out of that gang. I know that in the M-13 gang in America if you try to leave a contract is put out on you and you get murdered. One of the things they are looking at over there—and which has been working effectively—is putting some sort of diversionary program in place for those people who try to leave a gang so that they can say to other gang members: ‘I cannot actually go to the gang because I have got this order. If I go back before the courts, I get a harsher penalty.’
How did America deal with tackling serious and organised crime? Through the RICO law, which is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation law. I will go into that further shortly. In Italy, as the member for Werriwa mentioned, we heard about the importance of political will. What changed the turn of events in Italy was the murders of Judge Falcone and Judge Borsellino in 1992. That was when you had a huge public outcry. Finally they wanted something to happen, because the Mafia went on the front foot with bombings and mayhem. They really went out of their way to cause great harm.
How did things change in Canada? Sadly, the Hells Angels and Rock Machine were having a huge war in the late 1990s and an 11-year-old boy, Daniel Desrochers, died as a result of a car bomb outside a bikie club house. It was amazing how many people were killed during this war and how violent it got. I remember that in 1986 at the Copenhagen Airport the Hells Angels, using machine guns, ambushed the Bandidos. If you want, you can go to YouTube and look at the history documentary of the Quebec Hells Angels. Their present leader, ‘Mom’, basically said that he ran their state. He was in charge of the state and he was ordering hits on prison officers. They went to such an extent that finally the public called on the Canadian governments to do something about it. That is the political will which is required.
If we look at what has been happening in Australia recently with our outlaw motorcycle gangs we find that we need a national approach. It is vitally important. I know I have spoken many times about the cutbacks to the Australian Crime Commission. To me the obvious way to go forward and tackle this is with a national approach, through the Australian Crime Commission.
I must give credit to Senator David Johnston. When he was in the position of Minister for Justice and Customs he wanted this committee, under the previous government, to look at ways of dealing with organised and serious crime—in particular the outlaw motorcycle gangs. The committee heard that the Canadian model was definitely the way to go forward—that we should use the Canadian approach. The committee hearing revealed to us, through the Australian Crime Commission going overseas and meeting officials from Canada, that everything was going fine and dandy but a problem arose when they brought in a charter of human rights. It made things a lot more difficult for the simple reason that that charter guaranteed a freedom of association.
If you look at what is happening around Australia at the moment with these outlaw motorcycle gangs you find that one of the bases for being so effective is that as a criminal enterprise they are very well structured and they obviously associate with each other. I know that Canada has issues in dealing with this. I know it was never the intention of the charter rights to give the law enforcement agencies a hard time but that is precisely what has happened.
Overall, I would like to thank all the members of the delegation. I truly believe—especially with the unexplained wealth legislation—that this is a great step forward for law enforcement in this country in their fight against serious and organised crime.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. The report incorporates a report on agencies that have not complied with the requirements for the 2008 Parliamentary Papers Series. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report from the inquiry into RAAF F-111 deseal/reseal workers and their families entitled, Sealing a just outcome.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The sight of an F-111 with its afterburners blazing has provided excitement for a generation of Australians and an assurance that the highest priority of defending our nation was being met. However, those who worked to keep these aircraft in service for the defence of our nation were being exposed to health risks which, for some, were life-threatening. In testimony to the inquiry, Air Vice Marshal Brown noted:
… the Air Force hurt a large number of our people involved in F111 fuel tank maintenance between 1973 and 2000. We are grateful for this chance to look at what has been done to help them and we believe that more could and should be done.
The recommendations in this report are intended to produce a fair and just outcome to help many of those who the RAAF correctly note were hurt. In the very limited time that is available to me today it is not possible even to summarise the key points in this report, much less the thousands of pages of submissions, exhibits and transcripts received by it.
At the very core of most complaints were the policy flaws, inconsistencies and confusion embedded in the ex gratia scheme established in 2005 for some of those involved in F-111 fuel tank repairs. The exclusion from the scheme of about 2,000 personnel who undertook pick-and-patch work in squadrons, whilst providing benefits to those doing identical work in other units, caused understandable anger. In addition, the 2005 scheme provided payments to people who reported no ill-health effects at all, whilst denying the same benefits to workers whose health had suffered. That simply aggravated the anger.
In truth, there was no link at all between health problems and access to the scheme. The painfully slow and at times indifferent handling of concerns by the agencies responsible also produced despair. During one of the public hearings I commented that the scheme was born of a fuzzy logic, shrouded in misleading spin and then administered in confusion. Now at the conclusion of the process, I can confirm that is still very much my view.
The committee’s recommendations ensure that access to the ex gratia scheme is based on the work undertaken, not the unit in which the work was done, not the year in which an application was made and not the year in which a former worker died. Those former F111 personnel involved in civil legal actions will of course be required to meet the necessary legal tests based on the facts of their own case. The committee will, however, be seeking regular reports from Defence on progress in finalising these matters in the hope that they can be concluded in a reasonable time frame.
Increased counselling support for some families is also important in helping those affected to move on with their lives and is the subject of recommendation in this report. In particular, the report recommends an expansion of counselling services to include group counselling—something which the families have identified they need; something which Defence, DVA and governments of all persuasions in the past have recognised for others in similar situations.
The report also makes recommendations about the need for DVA to review its training. I want to refer to one example that was drawn to our attention in the public hearings in Brisbane, where a former defence personnel member and his wife came forward. This particular gentleman had sought access to the ex gratia scheme. He, along with others, had suffered both physical and mental health issues. He was in hospital on suicide watch when the Department of Veterans’ Affairs thought it would be opportune and appropriate to advise him that his application had been rejected. It astonishes all of us that the considered view of DVA could be to provide that quite shattering bad advice to a former RAAF officer when he was on suicide watch in a hospital. There is a need for DVA to review its training procedures and the committee makes recommendations accordingly.
During the course of our investigations, important system-wide problems were also identified and they require urgent attention. For example, eight years ago the F111 board of inquiry recommended that Defence should specify certain medical positions as requiring qualifications in occupational medicine, yet today, amazingly, Defence has only one person engaged full time on that vital task. How can that be when we hear so often that our men and women are our greatest asset—and indeed they are—yet eight years after the board of inquiry said Defence needed to improve the delivery of services in occupational health and safety and to have appropriately qualified medical officers, there is one full-time officer in the entire ADF?
The committee was encouraged to review the work of Professor Hopkins and some comments he made in a book on the problem of support for workers within the ADF. Professor Hopkins was also a member of the F111 board of inquiry, so he has very detailed knowledge of the circumstances that were under review by the committee. I want to refer to one part of the report, quoting Professor Hopkins. He said that, shortly after the board of inquiry, a striking example came to light of the way the priority of platforms over people had operated—in this case in the Australian Navy during the Vietnam War. The Navy’s ships needed to draw water from overboard for both drinking and use in the ship’s boilers. The water had to be distilled before use to remove the salt. Navy patrols spent considerable amounts of time in estuarine waters in Vietnam which were known to be contaminated with a range of substances. The Navy therefore chose to not use the distilled water from the estuaries for its boilers lest it damage the ship’s engines. The water for boilers was to be produced only from pristine water offshore. The distilled water from the estuaries could however be used as drinking water. It was not fit for the ships but it was fine for the sailors!
He went on to note that, in fact, the estuaries were contaminated with Agent Orange. Ironically the distillation process served only to concentrate these substances, and that is what the sailors were drinking. This, I have to say, is a serious, shocking problem. For me, as somebody who has participated in many Defence issues for many years in this parliament, this is deeply worrying. Professor Hopkins concluded:
Until the Air Force puts the same effort into securing expert safety advice as it does into securing expert advice on materials, until it applies the same level of quality control to ensuring the safety of maintenance workers as it applies to ensuring the adequacy of maintenance processes, it will remain vulnerable to the criticism that it puts platforms ahead of people.
This has to change and it has to change now. If it does not, we will see repeats of the tragic circumstances that were the subject of this inquiry. An essential step in that process is to expand the medical positions focused on occupational medicine.
The report also reviews a wide range of research on the possible health impacts of fuel tank work. It recommends further research with respect to the implications of working with aviation fuels. This is important and it has implications well beyond the F111 community—indeed, it has implications well beyond Defence—but it is important, given the evidence presented to the committee, that that research be undertaken to ensure that not just Defence personnel but those who are working with aviation turbine fuel are doing so in a safe manner that is acceptable in the 21st century.
I repeat in these comments my thanks to the Defence and DVA staff for their assistance throughout this inquiry. I especially want to thank the senior RAAF personnel, whose participation and support were invaluable. The willingness of Air Vice Marshal Brown to attend every inquiry did not go unnoticed and was appreciated. I also record my personal recognition of the work of the CDF, who instituted the board of inquiry as then Chief of Air Force. Given the fact that so much information had been around for many years, I think it took a degree of leadership—which he exhibited—to commence this process, without which we would not be standing here today reviewing these matters. I commend the CDF for the decisions he took as Chief of Air Force. Indeed, at the time he took those I was the shadow minister. I took the opportunity then to acknowledge the right and proper steps that he had taken, and I do so again.
I thank the members of my committee who participated in this inquiry in a constructive and bipartisan matter. I especially thank the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, who was with me at all of the hearings and whose advice I appreciated. I hope I have not given you the kiss of death, Stuie! I thank the staff of the secretariat—Dr Margot Kerley, Colonel Paul Nothard, who worked with the committee throughout last year, and Wing Commander David Ashworth, who joined the inquiry this year—for their contributions. The advice that we receive from all is greatly appreciated. The Defence subcommittee could not function nearly as well as it does were it not for the participation of the defence advisers. Over the many years I have been in this parliament we have been fortunate to have high-quality defence advisers. It is appreciated by the committee and should be acknowledged by this parliament.
Special thanks are due to the inquiry secretary, Mr Muz Ali. It fell to Muz to deal with many hundreds of phone calls, emails and approaches from a wide range of people, not always in the easiest of circumstances. He also had the daily task of getting on top of what was a very complex, detailed, difficult and in some cases quite technical area. He had to put up with me as a chairperson annoying the hell out of him on a regular basis. I am very grateful for the way in which Muz did his work and wish him well now that he has moved on to other, bigger and better things in this parliament.
Most importantly, I again record my thanks to the F111 fuel tank workers and their families. We all—especially all of us in this parliament but also all of us as Australians—firstly owe them our thanks for ensuring that one of the critical defence platforms available to Australia’s defence in the last generation was serviceable and was able to be deployed in the defence of our nation. Their work enabled that to occur. They are due our thanks for that especially. I also thank them for their patience. When this inquiry was commenced I rather optimistically thought that we could complete it within six or seven months. It became plain as we got into the details that that was an unrealistic time frame. I know that many of the people who were involved in the F111 community and who were very interested in this inquiry were concerned when they saw the time frame of this inquiry shifting out. I can assure them that the only reason that time frame shifted was to enable the committee to thoroughly and properly go through all of the details and information, to follow all the leads, to try to find the records and to look at all of the suggestions we had as to how there may be records in place. Sadly, none of those produced the necessary outcomes. One of the frustrations that we had to contend with, as has everybody else who has looked at this issue, was the total absence of records for most of the period in question—they simply do not exist. But I do want to record my thanks for the patience of those who were most closely involved in this work and who have followed the work of this inquiry. I thank them for their willingness to allow us to get on with the task on an extended time frame.
My overriding concern in this inquiry has been to ensure that the health care and the support needs of those adversely affected by their service on F111s are properly met. I believe that the recommendations in this report do much to achieve that outcome. I very strongly commend the report to the House and to the government.
by leave—I rise to lend support to the bipartisan report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Sealing a just outcome: report from the inquiry into RAAF F111 deseal/reseal workers and their families. It is important that the coalition puts on record its tremendous thanks to the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis, for his leadership in delivering what I think is an outstanding report to bring closure to what has been a very difficult issue that has gone on for over 35 years. I also thank my colleagues who were part of the committee, the secretariat—Dr Margot Kerley and Muz Ali, the inquiry secretary—and our defence advisers, Colonel Nothard and Wing Commander Ashworth. I extend a special thanks to the Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Geoff Brown, for his attendance at all committee meetings and his tremendous honesty.
The people of our nation may not realise that the F111 is one of the great unique aircraft of the world. First delivered to Australia in 1973, it has an enormous range of many thousands of kilometres, but to achieve that range it literally shoves fuel into every nook and cranny that you could possibly imagine on an aircraft. Modern aircraft have purpose-built fuel tanks and bladders—not the F111. If there was a space into which anything could go, fuel would be shoved there to give the aircraft its incredibly long range. Unfortunately, when the aircraft was delivered in 1973, having sat in hangars for a number of years, the sealant inside these nooks and crannies had begun to fall apart and the aircraft literally leaked fuel. It was not as simple as a hole in a balloon with water coming out. The leak could run along a line where metal joined and, where the sealant had broken down, the leak might come out one or two metres further downstream on the aircraft.
Thus, from the very first year of delivery, 1973, RAAF men were sent inside the smallest nooks and crannies imaginable in F111 aircraft. In 1973 out on the tarmac there were no sheds, no covers. In scorching heat, in an Amberley summer, these men would crawl in, many of them in shorts and T-shirts with no personal protective equipment, to carefully pick off the sealant, trace where the hole was and then reseal it. Prior to that activity, they would drain all the fuel from the fuel tanks, but these men would still be sitting in fuel for many, many hours at a time to trace these leaks and to reseal the fuel tanks so that our forward strike bomber could continue its role and continue to provide both a deterrent and a strike capacity. For over 25 years, men were sent into fuel tanks, first of all to pick and patch and then, as part of four formal programs, to fully deseal and reseal fuel tanks. Whilst in the latter part of those 25 years personal protective equipment and oxygen were used, in the early years none of that existed. The photographs in the report and the evidence we received are testimony to that.
Over time it became evident that men were getting sick and were suffering from a whole range of ubiquitous and unknown illnesses. It came to a point where one doctor on base who was there for an extended period of time pulled all the threads together and realised: ‘Houston, we have a significant problem.’ To the current CDF, who was then the Chief of Air Force, must go immense credit. A board of inquiry was instituted to look at the issues regarding the F111 desealing and resealing. This was followed by an interim healthcare scheme and a study of the health outcomes in aircraft maintenance personnel called the SHOAMP study. In August 2005 the former government moved to provide an ex gratia payment to those who had been involved in the four formal programs only.
Then this inquiry was born. I was immensely impressed when, at the very start of the inquiry, the Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Geoff Brown, stood up and said, ‘We are here because the Air Force has damaged its personnel.’ There was no move by the Air Force to run and hide. They sent in the Deputy Chief of Air Force, their No. 2 man, to stand there at a public inquiry and to admit that the Air Force had damaged its men and, as a consequence, had damaged Air Force families. I put on the record my great pride in the Defence Force for standing up and admitting that there was a problem and that they indeed had got it wrong.
It is with some pleasure that I join the member for Brisbane, and all members of the committee, to table the report and to point out its significant recommendations. They include widening the ex gratia payments to those involved in the pick and patch operation to recognise that it was not just under the four formal programs that men went inside the nooks and crannies of the aircraft. Many, many men, from 1973 until when the four formal programs began, squeezed themselves into the narrowest of holes in the sides of aircraft to spend many, many hours at a time, sometimes using delicate dental equipment, to carefully pick the sealant off the frames of the aircraft. As part of the inquiry we went down to Amberley. I managed to squeeze inside one of the nooks and crannies of these F111s. I can tell you that, after spending only a few minutes in there, I would dread the thought of spending hours and, in cumulative terms, days carefully picking off sealant—and, in the early days, doing it in a pair of shorts and a shirt, covered in aviation fuel.
Other recommendations include widening the healthcare support to those members of the pick and patch operation and removing any cut-off dates that may restrict access to this healthcare support. The committee also recommended allowing statutory declarations to be used in order to prove entitlements, cognisant that records going back some 35 years in many cases do not exist. We recommended providing counselling services and significant respite care to families who are dealing with very, very sick former Air Force men. Seeking a review of all cases where DVA has knocked back claims because of inadequate statutory declarations is, I think, another important recommendation.
Part of the important information the hearing took had to do with health care. Substantial studies have been conducted. Looking at the third health study, it was shown that the cancer rates in those men who were involved in this work, going back to 1973, were 44 per cent higher than the control group or the average population in the nation. Unfortunately, in medical terms this was deemed to be statistically insignificant—a phrase I have come to despise. I understand why the medical fraternity call it statistically insignificant when they are only dealing with fewer than 900 cases. But what I found disappointing was that it would have been statistically significant if two more cancers had been recognised! If two more RAAF men had contracted cancer, bringing the number higher than 44 per cent, it would have been statistically significant. I think we can all assume that a 44 per cent higher cancer rate in men who went into fuel tanks to deseal and reseal is significant. The significance is such that this report is being tabled today.
One of the causes of the cancers was assumed to be a product called SR51 that has a dreadful odour and was used to deseal inside the fuel tanks. It was surprising to me and other members of the committee that no medical evidence was found to support the claim that SR51 was indeed involved. The evidence would seem to point more to a combination of environmental, chemical, heat and other substance factors all working together. Further health studies have been strongly recommended in the report, especially into the impact of aviation turbine fuels on the health of individuals.
I think the report is significant. It significantly widens access to the ex gratia payments and, more importantly, to health support for those who were involved in all areas of crawling into tanks to keep our operational aircraft online. It is fitting that I conclude my remarks by thanking our F111 community in its entirety. Since 1973, men, women and their families have worked hard to keep our operational bomber strike aircraft online. Sometimes in the most dreadful of conditions and the most terrible of circumstances, they have sacrificed much to ensure the safety and security of our nation. We owe a lot to heroes like these who sacrifice their time to serve us, the wider Australian community. So I thank the F111 community. I thank those who sacrificed so much to ensure that a strike capability and a great deterrent was operational in the skies above our land.
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.
by leave—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 Intelligence and Security I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Re-listing of Hizballah’s External Security Organisation (ESO) as a terrorist organisation.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—This particular inquiry, as others, was advertised and we received submissions from three organisations other than the normal agencies that provide reports to the committee. In its submission to the inquiry, the Federation of Community Legal Centres of Victoria put forward a detailed criticism of the proscription regime and stated that in the case of Hezbollah’s ESO it is unclear whether the statutory criteria had been made out.
The committee also received a submission from Dr Patrick Emerton of Monash University. That submission also put forward a criticism of the proscription regime and some brief comments in respect of Hezbollah. The third submission was from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council that stated that, whilst it supported the relisting of Hezbollah’s ESO, it drew no distinction between the ESO and Hezbollah as a whole and requested that the committee recommend to the Attorney-General that the entire Hezbollah organisation should be listed as a terrorist organisation rather than only its External Security Organisation.
The committee is not persuaded at this time to make that recommendation proposed by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. The committee heard evidence that Hezbollah’s ESO continues to engage in, and offer support for, terrorist acts, and I will take this opportunity to provide some brief comment about the group’s organisation and activities. The ESO constitutes a distinct terrorist wing within Hezbollah’s structure. ASIO informed the committee that since Hezbollah has become a legitimate political party within Lebanese politics—and indeed they contested the most recent elections—the ESO has had to operate more independently.
Following the 2006 military confrontation with Israel, it has been reported to the committee that ESO engagement in terrorist activities has been sustained, with a significant rocket and anti-aircraft capability which can reach deep into Israel. There is no reason to believe that the ESO has relinquished this capability. The committee therefore supports the listing and will not be recommending to the parliament that the regulation be disallowed.
I would like to take this opportunity to make some broader comments about the role of the committee. I think that the parliament is particularly well served by the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. By necessity, the committee conducts most of its business in closed session and, unlike most other committees, it does not seek or obtain media coverage of its activities. That is as it should be and that is as it must be. But I think that it is important when reports of this kind are presented to the parliament to remind members of the parliament and through it, the public of Australia, that the processes by which organisations are listed have a number of fail-safe counterbalancing checks. One of those is that an all-party committee—this committee—reviews listings that are made on its own determination. In doing that behind closed doors it is able to access advice of the relevant security agencies and, indeed, invites and receives views and comments from anybody in Australia who wishes to place those views before us.
The process of course is, of necessity, truncated because of the period available for disallowance and the rules of this place. Sometimes when a listing occurs at the commencement of a sitting period that can require us to conduct fairly speedy reviews. But even in those circumstances the committee gives detailed consideration to the evidence that it receives and does inquire of the agencies to satisfy itself that the information available supports the listing.
In this parliament I have been a shadow minister with responsibilities in these areas and a long time ago in government, in Defence, though not directly in respect of these matters but nonetheless in the security environment. The committee over the years has been well served by a range of people whose experiences in other roles have been important, and of course in the current circumstances to have a former Attorney-General as deputy chair of the committee is a very valuable asset for the committee as well.
Whilst the deliberations are in private and the evidence is basically taken in private with very few exceptions, the committee does—as I am doing now—always table a report with its findings. That is an essential part of the accountability that we have to this parliament. But I think it also informs the public debate. We did in our most recent report prior to this, make recommendations about changes in the formatting of statement of reasons and the giving of evidence to the committee. The relevant agencies are in the process of giving effect to those matters that were the subject of the committee’s most recent report.
All of these things are important additions to the process. I take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the committee—on both sides of the chamber—who I think perform their task with a great degree of professionalism and the sort of serious application to issues that the public would expect in the review of these important matters under consideration. The listing of an organisation as a terrorist organisation does impose restrictions on people who may wish to be involved in that organisation. They are not the sorts of restrictions we usually impose on folk in a democratic society such as ours. They should not be imposed lightly. The processes are in place to ensure that when they are imposed it is done so for all of the right reasons, for the security of the Australian population and our territorial interest. I am very pleased and proud to have the opportunity to chair this committee. I commend the report to the House.
I thank the member for Brisbane for his personal comments about me. He does deal with these issues very professionally and appropriately as befits his experience as a parliamentarian of long standing. In support of his remarks about the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, if members were to look at some of the reported comments of a former member of the committee, former senator Robert Ray, outlining the important need for checks and balances in relation to very sensitive laws that deal with our counterterrorism efforts, the importance of the committee in that overarching set of arrangements, which do include very significant checks and balances, was emphasised.
I turn my remarks to our committee secretariat, whom I thank on behalf of the chairman and members of the committee. We have been well served by very experienced and professional committee staff. That is reflected in the way in which these particular reports are prepared.
In this case we are dealing with the report, Review of the re-listing of Hizballah’s External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation. It was initially listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code in 2003 following its listing by the United Nations Security Council. Hezbollah’s ESO came up for review under the current prescription regime again in 2005 and in 2007. So this was the third review. If you go through the report under the legal criteria and guidelines under which these matters are considered, there follows an extensive discussion of the External Security Organisation of Hezbollah and the Attorney-General’s statement of reasons. It is a secretive organisation. Little is known about it. It is covert in the way in which it operates and it is successful in restricting information about its organisation, structure and membership. In that context, while it has a record of regular terrorist attacks against many Israeli and US targets up until the early 1990s and it has established an insurgent capability in Iraq engaging in assassinations, kidnappings and bombings with units set up with the encouragement and resources of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, about whom we hear a great deal at this time, and given the clandestine nature of the group and that the ESO’s activities do not have a high profile nor does it claim responsibility for its terrorist attacks, there is no indication that the intent of the ESO has changed or its capability diminished.
On the basis of the evidence the committee heard questioning aspects of the committee’s role, which it has heard before from community legal services and from an academic who writes in these matters who was suggesting other forms of review—they do not bring into question the substantive issue as to whether the ESO should be a proscribed organisation—it turned its mind to their observations and the committee commented on those a week or two ago when it tabled another report they had also submitted to in relation to that matter.
In this case the important issue really relates to the views raised by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. It goes to the question of whether proscription has been sufficiently extended to the operations of Hezbollah in limiting it to the ESO. The report does turn its attention to where the ESO fits within the broader Hezbollah organisation. It is an organisation that does receive very considerable funding support, some of it raised in Australia. The amounts of money it receives are very large. The way in which those funds that are for its charitable and beneficial programs might well be siphoned off for the activities of the ESO ought not be a matter that we ignore. Of course, Hezbollah’s recent engagement in the Lebanese elections was also part of the discussion in the committee report and I draw the attention of members to that. This is an organisation as part of Hezbollah where, although direct links and threats to Australia cannot be shown, as the report itself says:
Whilst the statement of reasons contains no information on this matter, it can be inferred that, through ESO’s links with Shia elements involved in the insurgency in Iraq, Australian citizens, including ADF personnel and Australian interests may be threatened.
I would read the committee’s recommendations slightly differently to the chair. It is only a question of emphasis. The committee came to the view, following the discussion that was raised by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council that it was:
… not persuaded, at this time—
not persuaded, at this time—
to make the recommendation proposed by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.
I put that emphasis because I think there is an issue which has been raised and it is a proper issue to have been raised. We have made a decision at this time that we are not persuaded that we should recommend to the Attorney that consideration be given to extending the proscription. But I think the emphasis, if it is put in the way in which I did, suggests that if there is further evidence that people believe could be usefully advanced on this question they should bring it to the attention of the government. I thank the chair for his work, his efforts and his leadership. The committee does work well and this is a very sensitive area and I am delighted to have the opportunity of sharing with my colleagues this responsibility.
As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 27 March 2009 and 24 June 2009.
Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is a distinct change from recent legislation brought before this House by the Minister for Health and Ageing. Several measures brought before this House in recent weeks will have the effect of driving people out of private health insurance in this country. Measures such as the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 will be a detriment to private health insurance and will cause further harm to the already stressed public health system in our country. They were desperately created by this government to pay for its reckless cash splashes and the mountain of debt that it is now saddling the nation with for many years to come. On the other hand, this legislation actually seeks to encourage people to take out and keep private health insurance with all the attendant benefits that it brings to the nation’s health system.
The bill will add a new category to the insured groups to which private health insurance can offer insurance policies. Currently the Private Health Insurance Act requires that insurers only be allowed to offer policies to particular insured groups, namely singles, couples and families with dependent children. Since late 2007 the rules have been changed to include another extended family category, ‘dependent children non-student’. At this point I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of former Health Minister Tony Abbott and the way in which he was able to work with the private health insurers and also recognise the private health insurers for their efforts in maintaining a situation where more people could potentially come into the privately insured pool in this country. This category allowed family policies to cover people between the ages of 18 and 24 who were single and not in full-time education. The category was developed by health insurers to encourage young adults to maintain health insurance cover into adulthood. The arrangements, however, have been temporary. This bill proposes amendments to insert the category ‘dependent child non-student’ in the Private Health Insurance Act and will enable insurers to offer policies to this group on a permanent basis. Health insurers will be able to charge a higher premium for these extended family policies than for others. But that premium is expected to be less than that charged to a young single individual.
With the percentage of people in the 20- to 24-year age group covered by private health insurance in decline, down to 3.9 per cent in 2008, this measure will hopefully make insurance under a family policy umbrella more attractive and see younger people remain covered by insurance. We will have to wait and see though because the government’s other actions will make the price of insurance that much more expensive for many Australians. Insurance premiums will rise for 2.3 million people by between 14.3 per cent and a staggering 66.7 per cent as a direct result of the Rudd government’s decision to make changes to the health insurance rebates put in place by the coalition to actually boost private health membership. I remind the House that the government promised over and over again it would not make those changes—just one of the many broken promises as to health. I think that shows that this government does not have a proper direction as to the way in which it is taking health in this country. Pressure for premiums to rise even further will flow from the rebate changes which the government now admits could see 40,000 people drop out of insurance altogether. That is the Treasury’s conservative estimate, I might add. Others, including the respected firm Access Economics, estimate the rebate changes could force 100,000 people out of private health insurance. That is on top of the 492,000 that the government still expects to quit insurance over last year’s decision to change the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds.
So we have a series of measures that are sure to have substantial negative impacts on private health insurance. Those impacts will flow on to all Australians including those who rely on the public hospital system. Fewer people with insurance means more people waiting for treatment in hospitals, longer queues and, under the Rudd government, longer waiting times. That from a government that promised to fix those very same hospitals by the end of this month! That is only a matter of days away. Clearly, the Rudd government cannot claim that it has fixed Australia’s 750 public hospitals. No doubt the Prime Minister and the minister for health are already drawing up their spin to tell Australians they have fixed Australia’s public hospitals when every piece of evidence is to the contrary—and every Australian knows that. The coalition in government worked hard to reverse declines in health insurance membership. Under the Keating Labor government insurance membership had plunged to just 30 per cent of the population. Through the rebates and other measures it took, the Howard government reversed that trend and more than 44 per cent of Australians are covered. But now we have another Labor government and the message is clear: private health insurance is under attack once again. We will hold this government to account for its claim that it will fix public hospitals by the middle of this year. Its blatant attack on private health insurance over the last 18 months has been quite remarkable, almost without precedent. You would have to look back to the Hawke-Keating years to recognise a similar attack on people with private health insurance.
We should be holding up people in this country who have private health insurance as heroes of our nation who share some of the burden of the health system. People who insure for themselves—who have a capacity to do so—relieve some of the pressure on the public hospitals in the services that they, quite rightly, provide to people who are more needy and do not have the capacity to provide support or insurance for themselves. This country should always maintain a health system that protects those who are most vulnerable, but we should also put in place incentives—a system that provides benefits to those who are able to self-insure and defray some of the costs that otherwise would have to be met by the Australian taxpayer. We should recognise and start a debate in this country to recognise that these people should be embraced and should not be excluded from holding private health insurance, because, ultimately, under a Labor government or a Liberal government, regardless of what colour of government you have in this country, there will always be a system that provides for those Australians who cannot provide for themselves; there will always be universality, and that should always be the case.
But if you have a case, such as we have with this government at the moment, where they seem completely determined to drive private health insurance into the ground yet again, then the pressures on the public system will again become unbearable. I know that the member for Herbert, who is in the chamber today, has been a great champion for health services in Townsville and the surrounding region in his electorate and he would be horrified to hear a suggestion by the Rudd government that they had fixed public hospitals, not just in Queensland but around the country. It is a remarkable claim that they have made and of course they have said nothing about it in the intervening period. We are approaching the 30 June deadline for the Rudd government to meet their obligation—their election commitment to fix public hospitals—and yet they still have not detailed one criterion or suggested one benchmark that will be the benchmark against which they are determining whether or not they have fixed public hospitals. It is a remarkable situation and all Australians would know that Mr Rudd cannot claim that he has fixed public hospitals. He cannot suggest that there is no more work to be done. He made a commitment: he said to people that he would fix public hospitals, he would end the blame game and he would somehow—somehow!—fix public hospitals by 30 June. He has only a week to go and there is nothing on the table from this government that would suggest that they are even serious about meeting this obligation. With their claims that they have fixed public hospitals, Australians must really wonder, in the face of all of the evidence, what is going on with this government, particularly in the area of health policy.
We hope that measures in this bill will make it somewhat easier for families with young adults to keep the young adults covered by private insurance. That is why when we were in government we put in place this framework—we allowed this framework to take place—to work with the private health insurers to encourage young people to take up private health insurance and to stay on their parents’ cover as an incentive for them to remain in private health insurance when they go onto their own policy and relieve some of the pressure, and this is incredibly important, particularly when you look at waiting lists around the country. People in this country would be amazed to hear that if they lived in Townsville, as the member for Herbert does, there is now in Townsville Hospital a waiting list to get on a waiting list; it is quite amazing—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been quite indulgent in not standing up before and bringing the member back to the debate—
What is the point of order?
The member is not speaking to the legislation before the House.
I remind the speaker that the legislation is the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill and I would ask the speaker to be relevant to the legislation.
My old sparring partner, the honourable member who interjected, always engages in these debates. Her contributions are always worthy. I always enjoy reading Hansard as it is a much clearer way of understanding the argument that she puts than being here at the time!
There is a reason I raised this very important waiting list issue. If we return to the basics, the reason we have private health insurance in this country—for the benefit of the member who interjects—is that if we stop private health insurance, if we push those 10 or 11 million Australians out of private health insurance into the public system, then we would have no capacity whatsoever—
I raise the same point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have made it clear to the speaker that I wish him to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill and the speaker was mentioning private health insurance in his comments. But I am listening very carefully to make sure that he returns to it.
As I said, for the benefit of the member who interjects trying to comprehend the correlation between hospitals, waiting lists and public policy in relation to health and private health insurance, I will slow the message down.
Mr Deputy Speaker—
Both members will resume their seats. The member is speaking about the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill. He is mentioning private health insurance—
It has got nothing to do—
Thank you, I am speaking. I will ask the member, as the shadow minister in charge of this area of legislation for his side, to return to the legislation.
As I was saying, in relation to this bill, and for the benefit of the member, the reason that we have private health insurance in this country is that if we force people out of private health insurance by not bringing measures like this into the parliament then our public system would collapse. The difficulty is that this government seems wont to crash the private health insurance market in this country. If the government puts these bills up as a genuine attempt to try to help people stay in private health insurance, then they provide ways in which we can manage our health system into the future for this country.
If the honourable member opposite seriously believes that we should not be supporting the 11 million Australians in private health insurance—if the Labor Party believes that we should be crashing the private health insurance market—that would be a devastating day for the health system in this country. The previous government was able to increase coverage of people with health insurance and therefore relieve some of that pressure experienced by our public hospitals. This is a concept that clearly escapes the honourable member opposite, as she flees the chamber to get an additional briefing before she speaks so that she can at least give some semblance of a contribution to this debate.
The important point is that waiting lists are crushing older Australians in particular around this country. If we force people out of private health insurance and into the public system, it will only make for a more devastating situation. People who are now waiting years for treatment in the public system will wait years longer if people are not taking out private health insurance and sharing some of the burden into the future. It would be an amazing situation to see this Rudd Labor government return to the devastating days in the private health insurance market that we saw in the Hawke-Keating years, when Labor really was determined to crush private health insurance in this country.
About one million Australians on incomes of $26,000 a year or less have private health insurance in this country. They will be impacted directly by the Rudd government’s decision. The government projects that the changes it has made to private health insurance will raise about $1.9 billion over four years, which will make private health insurance premiums higher for all Australians. I mentioned earlier in my speech on this debate that the government, on its own figures, projects that about 40,000 people will drop out of private health insurance, but at the same time the government claims that it will raise about $1.9 billion in revenue over four years, or about $500 million per annum. How is it that $500 million is going to be obtained from 40,000 people dropping out of private health insurance? It is a nonsense. Hundreds of thousands of Australians will grin and bear the extra premiums, but they will remain in private health insurance. They might be older Australians, and pensioners in particular, who are concerned about the deterioration of their health and the conditions and complications that might approach as they age. They might be people who are planning to start a family and want to have cover. It may be that many families around the country, regardless of their financial status, are scared about the situation in our hospitals and that is the reason they maintain their private health insurance. Whatever the reason, we should be encouraging people into private health insurance because it offsets the debt that would otherwise be ultimately incurred by the taxpayer.
That is why I say, particularly for the benefit of the member for Shortland, that it is good to have people offsetting some of their own costs in relation to health. If people pulled out of private health insurance today and went into the public health system, it would collapse overnight. This government’s intention to wreck the system is unsustainable and it is un-Australian. We need to make sure that we take the fight up to the government.
I say to those 11 million Australians who are going to face higher health insurance premiums into the future: write to your local member of parliament and make sure your voice is heard. It is very difficult indeed for young families, for older Australians and for people on low and middle incomes to maintain private health insurance cover at a time of economic difficulty, not just in this country but in other parts of the world, even without the additional burden of extra and higher insurance premiums. This will make it more difficult for people to balance their budgets, and ultimately a crunch point will come. When that crunch point comes, if people drop out of private health insurance, with the Prime Minister not having lived up to his promise to fix public hospitals, that will put even greater strain on those wonderful people—the doctors and nurses and other allied health professionals—who on a daily basis perform in an environment which for many of them remains completely intolerable. Many of the doctors and nurses that I have spoken to around the country are devastated by the conditions in which they are expected to work.
This is a country which should be providing better health outcomes to the Australian public. The government should acknowledge that it would be much preferable if we had better hospital environments in particular for people to work in. On that basis, the coalition supports the bill.
My contribution to this debate will be very brief. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is a very narrow piece of legislation that relates to one very small aspect of private health insurance. It does not relate to the $1 billion that the previous government ripped out of public hospitals. It does not relate to the private health insurance rebate. Rather this bill allows insurers to offer extended family policies that cover adult children aged between 18 and 24 inclusively who do not have a partner, are not receiving full-time education at school, college or university and are included in the insurer’s fund rules. The premium rate offered for policies covering these adult children may be higher than ordinary premiums charged for dependent children for that product, but it is expected to be lower than the premium charged for separate policies covering young adults.
This legislation shows that we on this side of the House are friends of the private health insurance industry. It shows that we support private health insurance. It shows that we want to encourage as many young people as possible to take out health insurance. The bill provides that adult children who do not live at home and are not students can be covered by their families’ health insurance premiums, which demonstrates to the parliament how committed the government is to ensuring the ongoing viability of private health insurance. The bill is not about any of the issues that the previous speaker mentioned. The contribution of the shadow minister for health and ageing demonstrated to this House that he is incapable of speaking to a piece of legislation. He uses every opportunity to go off on a tangent and try to frighten the people of Australia.
I commend the bill to the House and I have great delight in supporting it.
I wish to take the opportunity in the debate on this Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 to speak to two issues: the first is private health insurance, and hospital care in particular; the second is to discuss issues in relation to deafness in newborns and infants in particular. The editor of the Medical Journal of Australia, Martin Van Der Weyden, introduced his early-December 2008 editorial with the following anecdote to illustrate the circumstances that we face in Australia in relation to health care, and hospital care in particular. The anecdote in many ways reflects the paradox for many Australians, which is the delivery of health care in this country. It went like this: two patients present to two clinics in Australia on the same day. Both have a limp. The first is seen the day that he seeks to have an appointment. He is X-rayed that same day and is booked in for a hip replacement the following week. The second patient waits three weeks to get an appointment to see his GP. He consults the GP and waits a week for the X-ray of the hip to be reported. He waits eight weeks to see an orthopaedic surgeon and then waits another month to have a hip replacement. The editor asked: what is the difference between the two patients? The answer is that the first is a golden retriever; the second is his aged owner. While there is some flippant humour in the paradox that is presented, that is the paradox of modern health care in this country.
We live in a country where almost every day, in any newspaper, television bulletin or radio report about health care, in the space of the one bulletin we will be presented with the latest technological advance in medicine. Only last week, for example, we had one television news report which reported the successful insertion of a cardiovascular pacemaker into a premature baby. The same news bulletin reported a woman suffering because of the lack of something as basic as a cardiac monitor. And so, too, every day we see examples on the one hand of extraordinary advances in medicine, but on the other a New South Wales hospital not being able to provide meat for its patients because the butchers’ bills have not been paid for six months.
One of the things that is constantly put in the debate about hospitals is lack of money. It is understandable that many Australians would think that to be the case. The truth of it is that in real terms on a per capita basis since 1960 healthcare funding in Australia by government has increased by 1,150 per cent—11½ times in real terms per capita. That is after adjusting for inflation. In fact, since 1995 it has increased 50 per cent in real terms. Public hospital expenditure similarly has also increased in real terms over that period of time. In fact, as a proportion of GDP, public hospital expenditure in 1960 was 1.3 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product; it has increased now to 2½ per cent of Australia’s GDP. By any standard, Australia’s investment, both public and private, and in fact from all sources in health care and hospital care in particular, has increased.
Yet, at the same time, over the last 20 years there has been a 67 per cent reduction in the capacity of Australia’s public hospitals according to the audit conducted and released by the Australian Medical Association late in 2008. In fact, the AMA estimates the deficit of public hospital beds to be in the order of 3,750. Whatever figure one chooses to accept, by any standard for everyday Australians there is undoubtedly a shortage of public hospital beds. Public hospitals at the moment are running in excess of 85 per cent occupancy, which is cited as the ceiling of safety by the Australian College for Emergency Medicine. Even more disturbing is that our major teaching hospitals—for example, the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide, the Austin in Melbourne, Westmead and the Royal North Shore in Sydney—are running at an occupancy rate in excess of 95 per cent.
One of the initiatives undertaken by the current government purportedly to deal with this is to establish GP superclinics. The purported or stated intention is to reduce the load on our emergency departments and so on. It is worth noting for the purpose of considering this debate that the Australian College for Emergency Medicine estimates that only one in 10 presentations to emergency departments and public hospitals are cases that could be handled by a general practitioner and that only one per cent of emergency department resources are actually consumed by such presentations. In other words: whatever the motives for building GP superclinics and whatever the benefits of them may be, it should not include substantially reducing the demand on overstretched public hospitals.
There are three reasons why health care costs in Australia are increasing in spite of major increases through successive governments—Labor governments and coalition governments—in funding and the fact that there is still clearly unmet demand and certainly serious mismanagement of public hospitals. The first is the ageing of the population. The Productivity Commission, in its 2005 report on the impacts of technology on health costs, estimated that the per capita annual increase attributed to ageing is in the order of 15 per cent. And we know from the Intergenerational reportfirst initiated by the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, in 2002 with a second report in 2007—which forecasts economic and demographic impacts 40 years out, that the proportion of the population of a working age that supports those who are not will decline over the next 40 years from five people to 2.4 people.
The second impact of those costs is the increasing affluence of the Australian population, to which the Productivity Commission attributes 37 per cent per capita costs annually. But the largest contributor to increased costs is technology, at 47 per cent. In my view, our country faces some quite significant challenges in health care. The first is that there is going to have to be a significant recalibration of the expectations of Australians about what the healthcare system is going to deliver. As I said in my earlier remarks, we are presented each day with evidence of the latest technology which is available or which may become available or that Australians expect to become available to them. At the same time there is hot bedding of patients, ramping of ambulances, people being put into storerooms and cupboards in waiting rooms because there is nowhere else to put them, the emotional agony and indignity of a woman having a miscarriage at 14 weeks gestation in the toilet of the waiting room of a public hospital and an elderly women being put into a storeroom because there was nowhere else to put her while she was waiting for a bed to be found somewhere in the hospital.
Then there are elective waiting lists, which, as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reminded us in their most recent report, have further increased again in terms of average days that Australians are waiting. Something is going to have to give. I noticed recently that the New South Wales Director-General of Health foreshadowed—on behalf, presumably, of the New South Wales state Labor government—that Australians could no longer expect to see universally free health care being provided. She expected that it would not last more than another five years.
The second thing that is required in my view is serious reform to the entire dysfunctional nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. That is obviously needed. The biggest constitutional issue and question which faces this country is not whether we are a republic or not, as important as that question may be to many Australians; it is instead how we best manage the relationship of a federation in a country which is vastly different to that of Henry Parkes. You need to look no further than the administration and funding of Australia’s health care, and hospitals in particular, to appreciate why we need reform.
I am very strongly of the view that handing over responsibility for Australia’s public hospitals to the Commonwealth would create far more problems than it would ever solve. Anyone who thinks that we will get public hospital services from having Canberra control their administration is frankly delusional. However, I strongly believe that, as long as we continue to have states, the Commonwealth should be the sole funder of almost all of Australia’s healthcare system, leaving aside the contribution made by people at a private level. The Commonwealth should be the single funder which sets and mandates, in consultation with healthcare professionals, the standards that we expect. The states should then be responsible for delivery. I would encourage the government very much to move in that direction.
It is 25 years since I worked in a major public hospital, a teaching hospital. But it has been extraordinary to see the changes that have happened and the demoralisation of Australia’s professional medical workforce in its teaching hospitals. Imagine working in an institution where the people who purportedly run the institution have no responsibility for the decisions that are made within it and cannot be advocates for the institution without the risk of losing their jobs. My very strong view is that the management of the hospitals—of which there are around 750—needs to return to a local management model and perhaps even in many cases management via boards.
There was a time when a board ran a hospital. The board then asked of its medical and nursing staff what was required to deliver services to the community for which it had responsibility. It would test that information and then it would be the advocate for the institution in seeing that the necessary resources were available to deliver those clinical outcomes. While you would not in the 21st century necessarily return entirely to that particular model, we are now in an environment where we have a clipboard-carrying bureaucrat who turns up at a hospital and tells the hospital what will be delivered within a particular budget and then if anyone does not like that they can go and look for alternative employment—which, sadly, is what most of Australia’s professional healthcare workers, particularly specialists, have done. It is completely demoralising to work within a system which you no longer believe in.
As far as Australia’s future funding of health care is concerned, in my view it is about the money, the management model and the model for funding that ultimately delivers the services to the system. That is what this debate about private health insurance is really about. We are now in a situation where about 46 per cent of the population has private health insurance. That is up from 34 per cent in 1995 because the previous government introduced this 30 per cent rebate, which was not means tested. It introduced Lifetime Health Cover to provide a penalty for those who did not join private health insurance at a young age. It also provided very strong political support to private health insurance.
In 1995, we had a Prime Minister, Mr Keating, who, rather memorably, from the Royal Adelaide Hospital said: ‘Australians don’t need private health insurance. They can rely on Medicare.’ If I had been worth $5 million at the time, I might have been tempted to say that sort of thing. But all members here need to be reminded that there are one million Australians living on less than $26,000 a year who have private health insurance. That is less than the electorate allowance that we get, and these people are living on that and they have private health insurance. A wonderful woman, Ethel Guy—she was President of the Tasmanian Pensioners Union—once said to me in the early 1990s: ‘Brendan, a lot of my members go without food to pay for it.’ That is the situation that we are in.
There is a view deeply rooted in the Labor Party that is hostile to the basic concept of private health care. There is now a view that the private health rebate can be means tested and that that will not make any difference. It is not said publicly, but they think that the so-called rich people should pay more for their private health insurance. The people who will suffer from that the most are actually the most vulnerable people, the low-income people, who have private health insurance. There are 202,000 people over the age of 65 living on less than $20,000 a year who have private health insurance; there are another 160,000 earning between $20,000 and $30,000 a year over the age of 65 who have private health insurance. These are people who think that they are going to need it. They are not just financially unfit; they are also people who think that they are going to need their private health insurance. The fewer people you have in it who are financially fit and also physically fit, the higher the risk that you have in the pool. That turbocharges premiums.
So we will go through the charade again of the minister at some point having to agonise over claims for private health insurance premium increases from the private health insurance sector to fund and support services in the private hospital system. When that time inevitably comes it should be remembered that in its first two successive budgets the government has done two things which are hostile to the interests of keeping deflationary pressure on private health insurance premiums. I also remind the House that in the decade to 2006 there were 1.2 million separations from private hospitals—a 47 per cent increase in separations. I just ask the House to think what would have happened if all of those had had to go through the public hospital system.
In concluding, there is just one other issue that I would like to raise and that is the issue of newborn deafness. A great friend and mentor of mine, Dr Bruce Shepherd, has given me a lot of advice throughout my life—most of which, fortunately, I have not taken. In 1962 he took his newborn first child, Penny, to get the best medical advice he could get in Great Ormond Street Hospital in London because he suspected she was deaf, and he was told, ‘I don’t know whether your daughter is deaf but she is definitely mentally retarded.’ That is the way that many parents encountered deafness in their children in the 1960s. We are living in a country today—because Bruce Shepherd did not listen to a lot of people who told him he could not do it—where, if we could screen every child at birth for and detect deafness and get them into an effective program with a cochlear implant where it is medically indicated before 12 months of age and get them into an auditory-visual therapy program, as it is called—run by the Cora Barclay Centre in Adelaide, the Shepherd centres in New South Wales and Canberra, Hear and Say in Queensland and Murdoch in Western Australia—which is relatively inexpensive, by the age of five you would not know they were deaf. They could be fully integrated not only into school but into society. In Western Australia we still do not have 100 per cent coverage for screening—it is 46 per cent. Despite stated intentions of state-wide screening by next year, in Victoria we are still running at only 55 per cent. The Northern Territory is a basket case. The Royal Darwin Hospital screens just over half of its newborns; and as a consequence of the intervention we are now screening many—but certainly not all—Aboriginal children.
We could live in a country where we could proudly boast that every child will be screened at birth for deafness. There are about 500 children born in Australia each year who are profoundly deaf and most of them will require a cochlear implant. It is a relatively small sum of money. An implant could be demand funded and provided to those children. We could then get them into an auditory-visual program and by the age of five we would not know they had even been deaf. The evidence emerging from the National Acoustic Laboratories is that by the age of 3½ these children have receptive and expressive language that is only six months behind normal children. It is not an issue of partisan politics. It is something that we can actually achieve with a relatively small amount of money and political will. I commend the House and the government to do whatever they can to see that the states get up to speed with this. I am ashamed that in the state of Western Australia there are only six publicly funded cochlear implants for children who are born profoundly deaf in that state. I urge and encourage Colin Barnett and the Western Australian government to damn well do something about it.
The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is another important piece of legislation that will strengthen the opportunity for 18- to 24-year-olds to be able to access private health insurance via their families. This is significantly important, particularly because many people in that age bracket are putting themselves through education and training with the costs associated with that. Extending the private health insurance coverage of their families to this generation is a very significant reform. It speaks volumes about the commitment of the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, to having a very strong public healthcare system that is supported by a strong and viable private healthcare system. I commend the work of the minister and recommend that the parliament support the bill.
The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 breaks an emphatic promise which was made at the time of the election but which was shattered in the budget—the plan to dismantle the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums. There are 43,170 people in the Parkes electorate who are covered by private health insurance. The government’s move away from private health insurance to encouraging more people into Medicare and onto the public hospital lists will have a negative effect on the people in my electorate. It is five days now until the date on which the Prime Minister promised that he would have fixed up the health system in Australia. He said on the issue of health, ‘The buck stops with me.’ The people in my electorate are waiting to see what is going to happen in the next five days to change that.
The health system in western New South Wales is at a very critical level. The issues with Dubbo Base Hospital have been well documented over the last 12 months. To be honest, it is the dedication of the medical staff and the medical professions in western New South Wales who are keeping it all together. As a nation we need to look at how we are going to manage and fund health in the future because, quite frankly, it is the largest issue that my electorate is dealing with at the moment. I find it quite amazing that none of the money in the stimulus package went into the health system to overcome a lot of the service problems that we have at the moment. I will not dwell on this today, but in conclusion I would like to say that the health service and the people in western New South Wales, including in the Parkes electorate, are waiting for a change in the health service. They are looking for some leadership in this.
On indulgence, I would like to highlight something that has happened this week. I do not intend to make a political point but I would like to seek indulgence to mention this in the House. On Monday afternoon, a Sri Lankan born paediatric registrar Dr Ruban Arumugam was tragically killed on the Castlereagh Highway near Mudgee in New South Wales. Ruban, as he was known to his colleagues, came to Australia in the early nineties, was educated at the University of New South Wales and has been working in Dubbo, in western New South Wales as a paediatric registrar. He had had a very busy weekend. He was actively involved in saving the life of a child that was born 13 weeks premature. It was particularly difficult because, due to the inclement weather, the aerial retrieval services that normally provide backup could not go to Dubbo. Dr Arumugam had a very torrid time saving that child. Also, on the weekend he dealt with a young child that had been diagnosed as having leukaemia.
After a busy week of shifts at Dubbo Base Hospital Ruban was heading home to his wife who lives in Western Sydney when he was, unfortunately, killed in a car accident. I would like to place on record here my condolences to Ruban’s family, to his colleagues at Dubbo Base Hospital—I know they are mourning at the moment—and to his mother and father, who at the moment are working through Immigration to try and get temporary visas to be here for his funeral. We are having a few problems with that but I am assured that Senator Evans’s office is working very hard to overcome them.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that Dr Arumugam made to the people of western New South Wales. I would like to acknowledge my sadness for his wife and his parents, and his brother who lives, I think, in America. His death highlights the dedication and the extreme pressure that people who work in health in western New South Wales are under. I know he will be sadly missed.
On indulgence, I would like to join the previous member in expressing the government’s condolences to the family of the doctor that he spoke of. We know that medical professionals all around the country do extraordinary work and often work very long hours, drive long distances and put themselves in danger in helping others maintain their health and wellbeing.
I thank members for their contributions to this debate. Though I note the opposition’s support for this bill I also note that the member for Dickson continued to exhibit an incapacity to stay on the topic. The fact is that the industry are great advocates of this measure and it is important that all members of the House are very clear about that fact. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004. The amendments will permanently allow private health insurers to offer extended family policies that cover people aged 18 to 24 inclusive; who do not have a partner; are not studying full time at a school, college or university; and where the fund rules of the private health insurer provide for this group.
Private health insurers developed extended family policies to encourage 18- to 24-year-olds to continue their health cover into adulthood. Under the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules 2008 No. 3, transitional arrangements were made to allow these extended family policies to continue until the end of this year—31 December 2009. The bill will allow the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to allow insurers to permanently offer extended family insurance policies. In essence, this measure will enable private health insurers to continue to provide a type of product which will encourage younger people and their families to maintain private health coverage.
This government has consulted health funds, and I would like to thank all of those who have offered their input. I note that in its submissions the Health Insurance Restricted Membership Association of Australia has been constructive and supportive in moving this proposal to fruition. I note in particular that that association has stated that it welcomed the proposed amendments. HIRMAA’s support is particularly important due to its unique historical and contemporary links to various professions, trades, industries, unions, employers and geographic regions, and I thank the association and its members for its valuable input.
The Australian Health Insurance Association has also expressed its open support for the proposal, which only goes to show that, while we may disagree from time to time, we do continue to work together where we can. I am pleased that the AHIA:
… endorses the proposed legislation and congratulates the Australian Government on the policy initiative.
It goes on to say:
This important policy change will allow funds to continue to support the health care needs of younger Australians.
I welcome the broad support of the insurance sector and anticipate that this measure will assist in providing downward pressures in premiums, which is especially important in times of economic uncertainty like these.
The bill also amends the Age Discrimination Act 2004 to provide an exemption from any unlawful age discrimination under that act which may arise from allowing a higher premium to be set for extended family policies. The bill also includes consequential amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 consistent with the introduction of the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Bill 2009, which imposes a levy upon sponsors of joint replacement prostheses in order to recover the costs of maintaining the National Joint Replacement Registry.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Before I call the member for Cowan, can I say to the House that I was due to speak in continuance of my contribution yesterday. I am unable to do so, obviously, because I cannot be in two seats at the one time, so I will be seeking leave to speak at a later date.
If I might on that point, Mr Deputy Speaker, confirm the understanding that of course leave will be given by this side of the House when your turn to speak on the bill comes.
I thank the parliamentary secretary.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. If members were expecting me to stand up and support this bill then they would certainly be sadly mistaken. I have no intention of speaking on behalf of a measure that I believe weakens the borders of this country and the integrity of the immigration system. I do, however, stand by the decisions and actions of the Howard government in the strengthening of not only our borders but also the integrity of the immigration system. That was a hallmark of that coalition government. There is no doubt that the coalition has always taken a strong stand on border protection and a strong stand against people smuggling and those that attempt to work around the policies of the government of the day with regard to the numbers of refugees and where they come from. I appreciate that on occasion those decisions were not popular, but those decisions by a strong government were important to ensure that it was the government that made those decisions about who came to this country and of course the circumstances under which they came.
In the context of 2009, we currently see Labor’s weak and equivocal border and immigration policies, which have resulted in additional boat traffic coming to Australia. I see this bill, which seeks to remove the possibility of immigration debt, as being from the same policy playbook that took away temporary protection visas and granted legal representation to those in detention. I see these sweeping gestures as recklessly sending the message that we are not hard on illegal immigration as we once were.
To emphasise this point, let us consider the boats that come from Afghanistan. I mean by that those that walk or ride out of Afghanistan, move through a neighbouring country and hop on a plane to fly to Malaysia or Indonesia before travelling on a boat to where they can take another boat from an Indonesian island to Australia. A number of things worry me about that whole business. Firstly, here is a group of men that leave their families behind when they leave their country. They are also a group of men who have decided not to join the fight themselves against the Taliban, choosing instead to leave the fighting to others, including Australian servicemen. They have decided instead to move through a different country, not stopping in Pakistan or elsewhere but buying a ticket for a plane to fly them out. They decide to move on, not settle in that country or even apply for refugee status from that country. They make those decisions in every country they move through and in my view, and many of my constituents’ views, this greatly undermines their claim for legitimacy as refugees.
It is worth contrasting the circumstances of those that travel so far by multiple transport options with the circumstances of those that do not have the money to fly and motor by boat and to pay the smugglers. If you do not have that capacity, you are like the people who languish in the refugee camps on the Thailand border with Burma. Those that languish in those camps are the ones that wait patiently for their opportunity. They are the real thing: they are exactly the sort of people that we should have in this country as refugees. They are the sort of people who are legitimate refugees, such as the Karen people.
The point is that the immigration system must be managed in an orderly manner. The immigration and humanitarian programs must always be controlled, uninfluenced by factors beyond the control of the government of the day. Australia has a proud record of humanitarian resettlement, but the coalition has worked hard to discourage the abuse of the migration program and also to discourage the smugglers of people.
To ensure the ongoing integrity of the immigration system and to make sure that those that languish in refugee camps are resettled promptly, the Liberal and National parties have a history of initiating and managing policies that safeguard the immigration system. The coalition will stand by detention debt. It is part of the stand we make to ensure that the people smugglers do not have any more evidence that the attitude of the Australian government has changed.
It is important to comment upon the outcomes that are to be achieved. As I have stated, we want to be able to maintain complete control over the number of people that come to Australia and to determine where they come from. On this point, I would also say that there are a number of groups that have fitted into Australia very well. This, after all, is a country with Judaeo-Christian values and institutions. Consequently, the measure of success and participation revolves around such principles. I include among those principles democracy, the equality of genders, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Religions or peoples that do not agree with such principles are not going to fit in. This is a point worth making, as governments need to plan to have a harmonious society where new arrivals can fit in, not where those who have lived here for longer have to adapt or go out of their way not to offend minority groups.
I hold up the Vietnamese as an example of successful immigration. Fleeing an oppressive regime, the Vietnamese, who are Buddhists and Roman Catholics, came to this country and have been successful. They have worked hard and taken the opportunities that this country has held out to them. Existing Australians did not have to modify our rules or the institutions of our society. Instead, the Vietnamese embraced the opportunities and revelled in the political, social and economic benefits that Australia held out to them—that is one point. On another point, it is vital to discourage people from risking their lives and the lives of their children—from the risk of drowning—by coming here on boats. If they do not believe that jumping the queue will be successful, then they will not take the chance. This will reduce the chances of loss of life.
On another occasion I have stood in this chamber and been heckled by some of those opposite for my views on these matters. I of course have no interest in saying what they want me to say or what others think I should say; I take these opportunities to say what needs to be said. The reality is that this chamber is dominated by the populous states of the eastern seaboard—it is dominated by members representing electorates in states like New South Wales and Victoria. As representatives of inner city seats in particular, they reflect the views of their constituents, who will never see a boat landing on the shores of their state. Hobby issues abound in these places among people who are sufficiently comfortable in their secure existences and who will never have to confront the realities of what is happening in the bigger states.
That being said, there is some support for this bill across the political spectrum and across the nation, but I utterly refute the suggestion that the bill has comprehensive support amongst the Australian people. Indeed, if the many people of the Cowan electorate who have approached me over recent months are representative of the nation, I am not only comfortable with but completely confident in standing against this bill. There is no doubt that the subject of queue-jumping people—boat people—is raised with me regularly, but, consistent with the issue concerning this bill, the other great concern in my electorate is accountability. By that I mean, for example, that, when my constituents speak to me of the outcomes stemming from crime, they want offenders to be accountable for their actions. Consistent with that theme, the same level of accountability is also required of the people in the boats, who jump the queues. If you do the wrong thing, you should expect a consequence. The ability to impose a debt for and in conjunction with detention is an important tool in deterring illegal immigrants. The removal of that capacity is nothing more than a further encouragement to those who wish to sidestep our rules and policies, stepping into the queue in front of those who are in circumstances of desperation in refugee camps.
Those who say that our position is all about punishing refugees and loading them with debt are incorrect in such an assertion. There is no proposal to impose a debt on those found to be genuine refugees. As all members are aware, the bills for genuine refugees are waived. My personal view is that more could be done to recover the costs of detention, particularly through recovery plans. Therefore, it is my contention that the teeth need to be sharpened on the existing arrangements regarding detention debt.
For those who have been listening to what I have said and for those who might choose in the future to check out what I said, I am certainly very keen that it be understood how clear I am on this matter. It is my view that detention debt needs to be maintained and that the arrangements for border control and immigration integrity need to be restored to what existed under the last coalition government. In those days, everyone knew where they stood. The smugglers and their clients knew the risks, they knew the costs and they knew that the government of Australia under John Howard did have tough borders and controls in place.
To further make clear my position on matters related to this: I am not against refugees being resettled in Australia. We should do our bit. We know that there have been success stories in the past and that there will be more in the future. I see that immigration has been at its most successful when those that have come as individuals or groups have fitted into our society. The values and institutions of our society are consistent with Christianity, with Buddhism and with those religions and faiths that recognise democracy, equality of the genders and freedom of religion.
I make this emphasis: this is a great country that has always stood up for the weak, the defenceless and the besieged. The strength of our country is in our traditions, our institutions and our values. The will of our country to act when the hard decisions need to be made comes from what I believe is a collective faith in the great Australian culture. It is a majority culture that is always grounded in a belief that the democratic tradition is supreme. I believe that this majority culture will forever be guided only by our secular laws. It is a majority culture that supports those who aspire to improve themselves while also being there to support those who need it and cannot provide for themselves. It is a majority culture that has a strong belief in the principle of personal responsibility and that all citizens and residents have rights but never without responsibilities. This country has a majority culture of Judaeo-Christian values. There is nothing wrong with this and nothing to be apologised for.
Given my views, it is my belief that refugees from Burma, including its ethnic minorities, are likely to fit and have already fitted into this country very well. In the electorate of Cowan, there are many Burmese, including Karen and other ethnic minorities from Burma, who have adapted to life in Australia and are doing well. As I said previously, the Vietnamese have also prospered. They came out from under the yoke of an oppressive regime, came to live under the freedom offered by this country and have prospered through the opportunities made available. I have travelled to Vietnam and I therefore appreciate the difference between what the Vietnamese characteristic of hard work can achieve in Australia and how the potential of the Vietnamese people is being held back in their homeland.
I would now like to turn my attention to the closely related matter of citizenship. The former Prime Minister was much maligned for the citizenship test, yet as members of parliament we know what happens at citizenship ceremonies. When some people take the oath or affirmation, sometimes they do not speak the words and sometimes, by the look on their faces, we cannot be sure that they actually comprehend the commitment they are making. I think that by having such a test and training we can ensure that new citizens understand that they not only have the rights that come with being an Australian citizen but also have the responsibilities.
By responsibilities I include the need to follow the laws of this country. That is very important. Members of this parliament would be aware that noncitizens, if they commit crimes with certain penalties, can be deported after serving their sentence. I personally favour an extension of that capacity. This is my personal opinion. Those who have dual citizenship, taking our citizenship as their second nation, should also be exposed to the removal of our citizenship if they commit such crimes. True accountability would therefore be achieved and it would be a powerful incentive for those with dual citizenship to act lawfully at all times. I emphasise that this is a personal view, at the risk of being attacked by the government and the Labor Party, who are the party of conformity and the crushing of dissent and, by consequence, free thought.
I have ranged somewhat widely in this debate; however, I have been very clear on my views on this bill and the damage that I believe it will cause to the integrity of the immigration system. I do not believe that further weakening of the immigration laws will have any more effect than sending a message of having a softer border to those who seek to benefit. I believe in stronger borders but I also believe in the acceptance of refugees. I believe in powerful deterrents but as a means to preserve our borders, to maintain control of our immigration and to ensure that people who think of jumping the queue believe that the risks, including that of drowning, are too great and therefore decide not to take that course of action. Above all, I believe in maintaining detention debt and the raft of features of the former coalition government’s immigration measures to ensure that we will forever decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come.
I am opposed very strongly to the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 which send this message to the world: ‘Come over here. We are, in fact, lowering our border protection policy. Anyone who wants to come here can come here.’ By abolishing the debts of former detainees, the taxpayer of Australia is saying to these people, who broke our law in coming to Australia, that it was, in a retrospective sense, the right thing to do.
We must have border policies with integrity; we must have border policies with compassion. The former Howard Liberal-National Party government was a government that said to the world that the only people who were going to be allowed to come to Australia were those who the people of Australia wanted to come here. We had a policy with a very strong deterrent. In fact, the number of boats arriving diminished to zero. The current government has sent the message to the world that Australia is open to the world and the message to people smugglers: ‘Bring the boats over here.’ Since that message has got out to people who trade in people, people smugglers, 22 boats have arrived. The election of the Rudd government was good news for people smugglers, good news for people who want to jump the queue and good news for people who want to circumvent the immigration system.
During the height of the controversy over our detention policies when we were in government, I was privileged to visit the detention centre at Baxter in South Australia. I spoke to some detainees. One particular family was quite outraged over the fact that they were in detention. They apparently flew from Jordan to Jakarta using their passports; they threw away their passports when they got to Jakarta and negotiated a package. For them it was a commercial transaction. They had paid US$20,000 to people smugglers to come to Australia and they were outraged. They felt that their contractual rights had been broken because they ended up in the Baxter detention centre—because they had broken the laws of Australia. I do not know what ultimately happened to that particular family. They certainly seemed to be nice people and it was good to sit down and talk with them. You can understand that they paid US$20,000 to come to Australia and ended up in detention.
Having said that, should we be watering down our policies? Should we be making it easier for people to evade their financial obligations to the Australian people? Under the former Howard Liberal-National Party government the reason we had such effective border protection policies was that we told the world: ‘Come over here illegally and we’ll lock you up. We’ll lock you up while your matter is being processed.’ When people are in detention it is a very expensive process. Why on earth should the taxpayers of Australia, through the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, take on the financial cost of those people who, in fact, ended up in detention only because they broke the laws of Australia?
The government is totally out of touch on this issue. I challenge the government to consult with the Australian people on this issue. I would encourage government members to walk down the main street of any town or city in Australia and ask people: do you believe that the people who were in detention, people who jumped the queue, people who broke Australia’s laws, people who arrived on boats, should have their detention debt waived? Already this government has built up a huge debt for future generations of Australians—a government debt of more than $315 billion. They are mortgaging the future of young Australians; they are mortgaging the future of children and Australians not yet born, through their typical borrow-and-spend policies that we have seen during their so-called spending packages, which have been outlined.
But they are going further now. They are saying to people who were illegally in Australia, people who broke our immigration laws and ended up in detention as a result of their breaching the laws of Australia, that the taxpayers of Australia should add further to the debt that each of us has—and it is now close to $10,000 for every man woman and child in Australia as a result of the spending policy of this government. They are actually adding more to that debt as a result of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009.
We have more than a million people knocking on the door of Australia to come here every year. We are a country that has freedom, stability and a way of life that makes us the envy of people throughout the world. We are a country which has the rule of law. We are a young country, and yet I am told that we are possibly the sixth oldest democracy in the world. The reason for that is that we have since day one had a system of evolving constitutional development. People have always had democratic rights in Australia. We have the right to choose the government that we want at state or federal level, and whether or not we argue with the outcome, we certainly cannot argue with the process. It is no wonder that people seek to come from around the world to join our Australian family. We are a nation of immigrants, along with our Indigenous people. Together we have very successfully forged a society where people come from around the world to help create an Australian that is, as I said, a country which is the envy of people throughout the world. So I am not surprised that a million people seek to come to join us.
We ought to have an immigration policy which has integrity. Under the former Howard Liberal-National government that is exactly what we had. We said to the world that we are a welcoming and compassionate society. People can apply to come and we have a range of categories under which we accept people. I think we also took a higher number of refugees per capita than any country in the world other than Canada. So we did have in place a policy which brought in the people we needed. Our birth rate was lower than it should be and we actually had to top-up the population by inviting people from around the world. But you need a migration system with integrity.
You also need a migration system with compassion. The people who got locked up in the various detention centres, by and large, were people who broke the law. They were overstayers or they were people who arrived on boats or people who were queue jumpers—people who certainly did not deserve any extra consideration from the Australian people. Certainly, they are not people who deserve to have their detention debts taken up by the Australian people. They certainly do not deserve to have their detention debts waived in a way that the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 seeks to do.
When you look at what this country has achieved and the wonderful contribution that migrants have made you can see how really important it is for us to gain people from around the world. We have had many migrants who have been leading Australians. Some have been Australians of the Year. They have contributed to building this country and making it even better than it was. But we are concerned about the integrity of our border protection policies when the government is effectively saying to people who owe the taxpayers of Australia a lot of money, because they were necessarily detained, that somehow the Australian taxpayer is going to pick up the cost of that. That is a policy which, I believe, the people of Australia would very strongly reject. It is important that we have sensible processes in place and for those people who do claim to be refugees it is vital that their claims be processed as quickly as possible.
When I was visiting a detention centre I spoke to the administration. I discovered that there were people who claimed to be Afghans but who actually had Pakistani nationality. They might have been ethnic Afghans but they held Pakistani passports and were Pakistani citizens. It was only when a former Pakistani High Commissioner went to this particular detention centre that these people admitted to being Pakistani and not Afghans, and then they were repatriated voluntarily to their home country.
The reason that a substantial number of people spent as long as they did in detention was because they would not tell the immigration authorities where they were from or what their history was. They had thrown away their papers and, effectively, they challenged the department to find out all of the necessary details about them. They would not cooperate, and that was why they continued in custody. This is exactly where they should be, and where most Australians should say they should be until their case is able to be appropriately dealt with. Overwhelmingly, the cases of those people who were in detention who did cooperate were expeditiously dealt with so that we were able to determine whether they were in fact genuine refugees or not.
We have a situation at the moment where the government is sending, as a result of this bill, a message of encouragement to those people who organise leaky and rotten boats, those people who solicit for desperate clients, those people who schedule the dodgy voyages across treacherous seas, those people who are people smugglers, who traffic in people—one of the most iniquitous and evil occupations anywhere in the world—that this is yet another encouragement for them to go out there and con even more people into seeking to come to Australia. This bill is absolutely appalling. It indicates how completely this government is out of touch. The sad thing about this particular bill is that it will further encourage people to come. We will have more boats arriving off the Australian coastline and it means that Australia is seen around the world as a country which is a soft touch.
I think that the government ought to reconsider this strongly. The government tells us that most of the money being waived would not have been recovered in any event, but the fact that it remains a debt on the books, I think, sends a powerful and compelling message to people smugglers and their clients around the world. Australia has very strong border protection policies, but the passage of this bill, along with other policies of the current government, indicates that the strong border protection policies we once had are in fact dissolving.
The abolition of the detention debt system is like taking away one of the arrows in the quiver of our border protection system, thereby weakening the whole system and in fact tearing up the integrity of the system. The Liberal-National opposition is committed to the protection of Australia’s borders, the protection of our way of life and the protection of what we are as a country. The detention debt system sends a very clear message to those planning unauthorised arrivals into Australia that there is much more to consider before attempting such a venture.
I oppose any legislation which will weaken our border protection, any legislation which encourages people smugglers, any change in the law which undermines the very effective policy which was inherited by this government but which is now being torn up by it. I think it is an absolute tragedy that, given the success of a number of immigration ministers in the Liberal-National government in reducing and eliminating the number of boats arriving, the government is in effect saying to people around the world, ‘Come to any harbour in Australia. We’ll only lock you up for a little while.’ And then, with the abolition of detention debt, you will find that people ultimately will not be out of pocket for breaking the law of Australia. This bill is a despicable bill. It is a bill which is completely out of touch with the thinking of ordinary, decent Australians. This bill is one of the reasons why I think this government will be in diabolical trouble at the next election, as indeed it deserves to be.
I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 for good and sensible reasons which have caused the opposition to say that we will be voting against the bill. If you look at the analysis that the Bills Digest has done of the amount of debt that is incurred by people who are locked up for breaking migration laws and you look at the amount of money that is actually recovered, you will find that, by and large, the majority of the amounts of money that are incurred by way of detention expenses or charges are either written off or waived. So the argument concerning this bill is not about whether or not people who are found subsequently to be legitimate refugees are penalised; the argument is about the signal that is being sent to the people smugglers.
If you look at the way in which the people-smuggling business ramped up in the nineties and became of almost epidemic proportions, you will find that the action that the Howard government took sent a very strong message. We said very firmly that we would have strong border protection laws and that we would use offshore screening of people who claim to be refugees so as not to see the rorting of our court system that went on previously, where people would destroy their documents of identification and claim to be different nationalities from the ones that they were. There was no way of proving it one way or the other and they continued to churn through and clog up our legal system. We sent out a very strong message that Australia was very serious about saying, ‘If you want to come to this country then you have to come in the proper, legitimate ways.’ Where people were found to be refugees, they gained that status and then came to Australia to live. In addition to that, we have the refugee quota, which makes us a very generous nation in terms of the number of refugees we take. When you look at the per capita analysis, we are perhaps the most generous country in the world.
It is important that we do protect our borders and also protect the people who become the cargo of people smugglers—those people who conduct that horrendous trade in people. In 2001, we took that very strong stand and it became an election issue. If you look at the 1990s, you will see that thousands of illegal immigrants came by boat to this country. After we won the election in 2001 the number of boats and people that arrived by that method in 2002-03 was nil. It stopped. For the next years they were very small numbers. In 2003-04 three boats came, with 82 people. In 2004-05: nil. Again, we won that election and said that we were strong, that we would continue to protect our borders. In 2005-06 eight boats came, 61 people. In 2007-08 three boats came. But, in August 2008, the current government abolished temporary protection visas and sent a signal that said Australia was again to become a soft touch. Straight away the boats started to come. The unscrupulous people who trade in human lives were again setting up their trade. They saw the signal and said, ‘Australia’s a soft touch.’ Temporary protection visas were gone. So, since August 2008, we have had 22 boats, bringing 839 people—an enormous increase in trafficking.
By allowing this legislation to pass, or if the legislation is passed, it sends another signal: that we are again taking away from the strong stance that we have had. In practical terms it makes very little difference at all. Only 3.3 per cent of all the debts that are incurred are actually recovered. The biggest proportion of them are written off. Being written off does not mean to say that they disappear. If circumstances arose where it was shown that the people who have incurred those debts could indeed pay them, then they can be revived. The only way they totally cannot be revived is if they are waived by the finance minister pursuant to the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
The Bills Digest, which has done a very good analysis of the bill, points out:
Departmental policy is that consideration should be given to writing off debts if the debtor:
resides overseas and cannot be traced or
is known to be destitute and there is no prospect of their financial situation improving in the near future.
The debt is waived by the minister on moral grounds rather than on financial grounds where it is seen that there is an obligation that it should be waived:
… where it has been found that person was lawfully in Australia and should not have been detained, or when it is considered that repayment of a person’s debt would cause them undue financial hardship …
In those circumstances the debt can be and very often is waived.
So the central analysis of this bill is the signal that it sends to people smugglers to again bring their boats, putting at risk the lives of people who are willing to pay them large sums of money to enable them to make those dangerous crossings. So the opposition, in choosing to oppose this bill, has done so in the national interest. It is not a decision that has been taken for any other reason. Australia believes that, by having strong border protection laws and by having a strong message that is sent out and known by people who would be traders in human cargo, the likelihood of their being successful is not very great and they are less likely to trade in that way. So it is very important from an opposition’s point of view that we continue to argue very strongly that it is in the national interest to have strong border protection laws, and it is in the interests of the people who would have their lives placed at risk by being the cargo of the people smugglers that we are opposing the bill and will be voting against it.
I know that there are some who think that leaving in place the provisions that allow the fees to be collected—and they are in the vicinity of about $124 a day—is somehow a harsh or unusual thing to do. I do not believe it is. I think it is a fair and reasonable system, one that was first put in place by the Labor government in 1992 and continued by us. But the most important issue is that it would be sending a signal to the people smugglers if we do not oppose this bill and say that, when we are back in government, this would be our policy. So I simply say that, in opposing the bill and giving my support to the opposition’s position that we are opposing the legislation, I do so because I believe it is in the national interest.
Before I begin my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 I would like to send my best wishes to Dr Mal Washer, who is in a Canberra hospital today after emergency surgery on his appendix. So we send him all the best. I know he would be sitting here beside us right now if he could be.
I thank the member for McMillan for that kind thought. I am sure that all members in this House wish Dr Mal Washer all the best for a speedy recovery.
I know he will be listening now and will have just heard the contribution from the member for Mackellar. People who are listening to and watching this broadcast would know her better as Bronwyn Bishop. I stand in total opposition to the presentation that the member for Mackellar has just given. There would be many who would ask, ‘ Why would it be that Russell Broadbent and Bronwyn Bishop are at odds when the member for Mackellar is a friend, a parliamentary colleague and, more than that, a warrior in marginal seats who proudly boasts that the only time he wins his electorate is when she has been involved in the campaign?’ It is because I find that this legislation was wrongheaded when it was introduced by Gerry Hand as the then minister in the Keating government, not the Hawke government—let us not blame Mr Hawke for things that he did not do. I find the repeal of these laws by this legislation right, just and the right thing for this parliament to do.
It is very difficult to oppose your own side. I did that once before, hoping never to have to do it again. There is a process that I have to undertake with regard to doing this. I have to go to my leader and say, ‘Leader, I cannot support you on this bill.’ I have to tell my leader that I think this bill is merciless, unfair, unjust and ineffectual. As the member for Mackellar has just stated, the figures do not add up. I am from a business background and I know that when it costs you more to collect the debt than the price of the debt you do not pursue it. This parliament should not be pursuing these debts. This legislation has come out of a process of this parliament, but I will speak to that in a few moments.
Then, after I have been to the leader, I have to go to my whip and explain that I will not be supporting this legislation. Then—the hardest thing of all—I have to go to my party room and stand before my friends and colleagues, who, along with the rest of the people of this nation, I have the highest respect for, and tell every one of them that I cannot support them on the position of the leadership. In the great Menzies tradition, I can do that. In the process of speaking to my whip, the member for Fairfax, Alex Somlyay, said to me: ‘Russell, you passed this legislation. You voted for this legislation in 1992.’ What do I know of 1992? A lot. I remember 1992 very, very well. All I would have heard of that legislation when it was introduced by Gerry Hand, the minister, would have been the motion ‘that this legislation be moved for a third time’ and it going through on the voices.
God forgive me that I was part of the parliament that did that, which caused so much distress to so many families over such a long period of time. It was wrong in the Hawke years and it was wrong in the Howard years, and the wrong will be righted today. The debts against some of our most vulnerable people will be removed, will be waived. It is the Australian thing to do. It is about fairness, justice and rightness.
In 1992, Victoria was a basket case. Australia had just removed its most popular Prime Minister ever in Bob Hawke. I stood on the other side of this parliament with a senior minister, a friend of mine, who was in tears that his Prime Minister was being replaced. It was a time of high drama, very similar to now, except that, in my electorate of Corinella, 30 per cent of the kids could not get a job, 20 per cent of the population could not hold on to their job, mortgage rates had soared to 18 per cent and interest rates for small business were 22 per cent. Yes, I remember 1992 very, very well. We were in the midst of a war in the Middle East—does this sound familiar?—we were in a major recession and there were major issues.
Is this a big issue for this nation? No. Compared with what is happening today in this House and what has happened and is happening around the world, it is nothing. But what is it to the people that it affects? It is everything. It is their wellbeing and, to many, it is their honour—after all they have been through and all the detention, we give them a bill! Goodness gracious!
I remember 1992 very, very well. In remembering my time in this place before, I remember that I also stood up in my party room around that time and suggested to John Hewson some thoughts on the politics of Fightback! and where we might end up. That was then reported by Laurie Oakes in the Bulletin, and I was called to account for those remarks. I was called to 104 Exhibition Street in Victoria, to the state director’s office, where for one hour I was thrown around that office. What he was talking to me about was party unity, sticking behind the leader and doing the right thing. Do you know who that state director was—do you have any idea? That state director was Petro Georgiou.
This is very hard for us to do. It should never be misunderstood—when we stand in a place like this to oppose our own party, we do it with great regret and great grief. But when there is a bigger issue that the nation needs to address, an issue that the soul of the nation needs repealed—the something that was that should not be—then it is time to state your case, as I have.
If you want a forensic analysis of this issue, go to the member for Kooyong’s speech. It is all there. If you want a heartfelt analysis of the issue, go to Judi Moylan’s address of last night. If you want to know how this came about, go to the speech of the member for Hughes, Danna Vale, of last night, and look at the forensic work of both committees but especially the most recent committee. Look at the evidence of the people that addressed that committee, and remember that committee proceedings are equal to the proceedings of this House. You cannot go into a parliamentary committee and mislead that committee. Important issues are raised, and issues are worked through methodically, usually with a brief from a minister.
I said before I have high regard for the members of this House, and all of the Australian people also have my respect. That is why, when I stand in this House and talk about these issues, I know that my colleagues on both sides of the House and in the Senate have closely looked at this issue, and they came up with a recommendation on the part of the parliament.
Bipartisan.
It was a bipartisan statement, and that bipartisan statement said, ‘This should be removed; this part of the legislation should be repealed.’ They did not do it lightly. Last night, the member for Hughes listed all of the people that the migration committee spoke to and she acknowledged the interests and exchanges that she had as a member of parliament on that committee in coming to the position that she came to—out of the experience of speaking to the people that this either directly or indirectly affected.
It is a process of the parliament that that committee report was picked up by this government and brought into this House for legislative change. Members of this House, I feel like I am standing on solid ground because I am standing on that committee report. My personal feelings on this issue are probably well known by all, but this legislation has come out of sincere hard work and deliberation by a committee of this House, and it decided on all reasonable terms that this is the right way to go on this issue—Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning.
I do not have to go through the arguments, because I sat here when Peter Costello stood in this House just the other week and, to the applause of the chamber, told us just how important it is to be a parliamentarian, each individual; the responsibilities we have to the nation; and how this parliamentary process is important. We have been reminded recently that we are one of the oldest democracies and we have been reminded that, among all of the blessings of this nation, we have stable government. We saw the government change in this nation without one shot being fired and with hardly a word in anger. This is where we have our word in anger; this is where we confront the issues of the day.
That is why I stand today to support the government on this issue. I do not expect all of my colleagues to agree with me on any issue that comes up. But, on this issue, I have form; I will admit that. I have form, and I have never been more proud of that form or of those who walk with me on that road. There have to be some that will stand up for the most vulnerable in our community and consider their position, whoever they are, and the fact that they are Australians, however they have come to contribute to this House. So there is a reason why I remember everything that has happened to me in this place and who I have walked with and where we will go together. But most of all I am here today to see this legislation go through. I will watch it go through the Senate. And I will see people, Australians, relieved of a burden that should never, in the history of this nation, have been placed on them in the first place.
The salient point that I was making yesterday in my speech on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 is this: the government and some coalition dissenters think it appropriate to waive debt and extend outrageous privileges to people who have bypassed the orderly refugee process and have entered Australia illegally but that makes it extremely difficult for the people who do the right thing in their attempts to join family members who have become outstanding, proud Australian citizens. Interestingly, when the critics in our community complained to me about the Howard government’s treatment of illegal entrants into our country, not one of them took up my suggestion that they practise the courage of their convictions by filling out the appropriate forms and putting up their own money to sponsor these law-breakers.
The previous speaker, the member for McMillan, made a very significant contribution. Whilst I respect my parliamentary colleagues’ right to exercise their individual choice of support or dissent, which may be opposite to the majority view of our great democratic party, I do not necessarily agree with him. But I am also mindful of the right to do so, which is the strength of the Liberal Party of which we are part. I commend the previous speaker, my parliamentary colleague, for his strong stand on the basis of the principles and integrity that he has practised throughout his whole political career. Whilst, as I said, I do not necessarily agree with some of his views from time to time, I respect his right to not only stand up for what he believes in but do so in the manner in which he did. I thank the parliament for allowing me to conclude the contribution I started yesterday.
I begin my contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 by making two points which shape my view. The first is that this is an amendment to the Migration Act 1958 to remove the requirement that certain persons held in detention are liable for their cost of detention. Importantly, this excludes people smugglers and illegal fishers, who will still be liable for costs of detention and removal. So the minister may determine the amount people smugglers and illegal fishers will be charged and it cannot be more than the actual cost. I start with that point because I have listened closely to the debate and there have been references to people smugglers and illegal fishers. This amendment very much excludes those involved in those illegal acts and therefore any reference to people smugglers or illegal fishers is misleading and is being used to mislead and send incorrect messages.
The second point that shapes my view is in relation to debt collection. Any family or business in Australia when seeking to collect debts does their best to do so. But a strike rate of failure to collect debts of 97.5 per cent would send a message, I think, to every family and every business in this country that this policy is failing. It is a policy that is not hard in the paradigm that I have been hearing of hard versus soft; it is a policy that is failing within a paradigm of successful, considered policy versus ill-thought-through and failing policy.
It is that paradigm shift that I want people in this place to consider when they decide how they will vote in this debate. I have heard plenty of references to the messages of a softening of policy. I do not consider it hard policy that has seen a 97.5 per cent failure rate of debt collection. What I see is a stupid policy; a policy that is failing and that has been failing since it was introduced. If we are to have messages that are clear not only to the Australian nation but also to the potential people smugglers and illegal fishers, then I would hope the hard message is a policy that works, that is sensible and that has the unity of the nation in delivering a really clear strategic set of principles on how we deliver migration policy in this land.
What I see as those general underlying principles are, hopefully, a point of unity for everyone in this chamber. I see a migration policy that has places where we deal with people who arrive here legally or illegally—by whatever means they get here—swiftly, and sort out as quickly and as compassionately as we can, with as much justice as possible for all involved, who is in and who is out. Those who are in we try to get in as quickly as possible and provide a range of welcoming services to encourage them into being good, wholesome Australian citizens building a better country. Those who are out we deal with as compassionately and swiftly as possible and hopefully return them safely to the place they came from.
The story of migration policy over at least the last decade is a sordid one—and this is not a reference to one side of politics only. I think there are many lessons for all with regard to migration policy. There is a difference between real and sensible policy and flag-waving and sloganeering in migration policy—and the latter has got to stop. What we get is a worse Australia. In many cases we get broken Australians who have gone through an extraordinary process to legally qualify as Australians. We have people and politicians behaving badly, at times using sloganeering in migration policy to send messages of fear and messages that are simply incorrect as to how migration policy and migration processes work within this land.
I do not agree with what I have heard as being the concerns with this policy. I think it is a sensible step forward. I do not see it as sending the wrong message—that it is in some way a softening of migration policy in this land. We had a debt collection scheme that had a 97.5 per cent failure rate. I think it is a cleaning up of what is an unsuccessful, ill-considered policy. It is actually a step forward in putting in place a strategy and an overall policy that deals with people quickly, compassionately and in the interests of building a better Australia.
I challenge some of those paradigms that we have heard in debate today. The sloganeering that this is somehow a softening of a hard policy is wrong. If this is a paradigm that says rural Australians in particular have a hardline opinion on this, I think that is wrong as well. I represent a rural and regional electorate and I think the prevailing view when you get into a sensible discussion with people on this issue is that people want common sense, pragmatic policy to be produced by this place. They do not want the sloganeering. They do not want policy being used for political measures at the expense of good policy. I think we all have a role in this place to oblige that view and to do what we can to deliver the best policy outcomes. Then if there is a need for them to be explained within communities that is our role as local members of parliament—not to cash in on the political fear messages that can at times be used quite successfully in this very vexed area of migration policy.
I support the legislation. I hope it is part of a further reform package in which we start to see not only compassion and justice but also swift action in dealing with people no matter whether they are right or wrong or in or out with regard to being a future citizen of Australia. I hope this legislation is part of a suite of reforms whereby we start to see not just the hard messages from government. I do not think that is the problem as long as the hard messages of government are strategic, compassionate and just for all Australians—from the individuals who are involved in detention centres right through to people who have a very limited understanding of migration policy generally. I do not see a disconnect between those two if the government is delivering good sensible policy outcomes.
There are dangers in migration policy and one that we have seen exhibited again today is by all but four members of the opposition. It is to the credit of those four members for holding the line on this issue. I think we are seeing once again the unfortunate side of parliamentary process, which is that the lesser policy outcome that is being argued for is what is perceived to be the greater priority. That is political sloganeering, positioning or however you want to define it; it is the ugly side of the political process.
Our job in this place is to deliver the best policy outcome. This legislation is a sensible policy change, because what has been in place since 1992 has been failing. I would ask those who are trying to argue differently to explain how a 95 per cent failure rate is somehow a hard, sensible policy for the future.
I will speak briefly to the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009, and I will be supporting it. I believe that many of the things that the member for Lyne just mentioned need to be considered, particularly in relation to the failed nature of the current policy, not only in economic terms but also in social terms. It has essentially failed. It has delivered wrong and quite inappropriate messages about what Australia is attempting to do with people who have come here from other nations and who have been placed in very adverse circumstances. So I will be supporting the legislation on those grounds.
I congratulate the members for Kooyong, Pearce, McMillan and Hughes for the position that they are taking. It is very important that our parliaments allow people with strong convictions to state those convictions and stand up for them. I understand all the ramifications for them within the parties and the party arrangements. I can see the logic that is built into those systems in a perverse sense, but I think there are times when members of the parties need to stand up for the principles and views that they actually believe in. I know that government will probably use this situation as some sort of wedge and say that the Leader of the Opposition has lost control of his people. I would suggest to the government that this is not an issue on which they should do that; this is an issue on which these people should feel support for what they believe in. If the government runs the line that this is all about Malcolm Turnbull losing control of his people, in the community’s eyes it will be to the detriment of the government. It is probably a shame that from time to time people within the government do not stand up for some of the principles that they believe in and that are tested in this parliament.
I heard the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, speaking on this legislation. Although I did not hear the first part of his speech, I do not think Alby will be voting in support of the amendment. I was pleased to hear him speak of the member for McMillan in the way in which he did. He actually recognised that we can have differences in this building and that those differences are quite valid and part of our democratic processes. We can respect one another even though we do not agree with one another on particular issues. I appreciate the point that he was making.
I see days like these as being quite special. I think one of the great failings of our Westminster system is that it is based on right and wrong, black and white, yes or no. That is a failing. We all get criticised about our voting patterns. In terms of the people within the parties, there should be a capacity for them to abstain if they do not agree with either side, or if they do not agree with some particular nonsense that is going on—as went on yesterday and has been going on all week from both sides—or if they want to cross the floor and vote for something they believe in.
I had a good friend in the state parliament who was within the National Party at the time and who left parliament because he felt that he was voting for things that he did not agree with. In the end, that became too much for him. It is a tribute to him that his principles overruled his political career. As I said, I congratulate the four members, who are in the chamber, on their position. I know that Petro is not standing again. I have admired his contributions. I have not always agreed with him and no doubt he has not agreed with me. But I know that he and the members for Hughes, Pearce and McMillan actually believe in what they say they believe in. It is not cast in some sort of party guernsey—the propaganda that comes out from time to time from all the major political parties.
On a slightly different note, I will make some comments about why people are coming here. Why are we debating a bill such as this? Why have we had to put in place some of the previous legislation that has failed? Some of the very obvious reasons are that, in the countries the people come from, there may well have been persecution, abject poverty or starvation. There could be a whole range of things that are driving people to leave their homes and, in a lot of cases, their families. During Refugee Week last week I went to a very nice luncheon in Armidale where there were people from a whole range of different backgrounds.
One of the issues that I would like to raise, and I raised it in Main Committee only last week, is in relation to the situation occurring in Zimbabwe. As we all know, there has been a despot running Zimbabwe for quite some time. There have been changes within the governmental structure in the last 12 months and there has been an incredible, economic catastrophe occurring within that nation.
Most of the developed countries are, in essence, penalising Zimbabwe because of the Mugabe factor. I have spoken to people who live in Zimbabwe or who have been in Zimbabwe in recent months, and they have been talking to people mainly from the Tsvangirai faction of the new government—the national unity government I think they call it. The plea being made is that we really should not ignore Zimbabwe in an economic or financial sense because, long term, Mugabe will use the fact that the economy maintains a collapsing shape as an instrument against the, what I call, ‘good forces’ in that particular country. There is a plea that Australia and other parts of the developed world should look to assist Zimbabwe. The plea from the Tsvangirai group in the national government is that if at all possible we should assist those people, otherwise this tragedy will just perpetuate itself, and what is a magnificent country in terms of people, scenery and agricultural production will continue to spiral downward.
The Sudan is another example of where there have been historical differences over many, many centuries between various tribes and religious groups. But one of the things that I have mentioned in this place before is that the Sudan has very, very fertile soils. I raise this issue because we are moving to a carbon economy, and I do not think anybody has taken into account what a carbon economy overlaid on our normal economy, particularly in terms of food production, will actually mean to people who are in dire circumstances in poor countries. I think we really need to examine some of those issues. The Sudan, for instance, has 100 million acres of very rich, black soils. It does not have a lot of rainfall but has similar rainfall to that around Narrabri in New South Wales, which is a little bit north of my electorate. The Sudan has similar soils to Australia and with Australian technologies, for instance, the country of Sudan could produce six times what Australia produces.
Many of us would think that countries in many parts of Africa are struggling with food production. The Sudan, irrespective of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique and other countries that are considered by others in the world to be dry land environments, has massive potential to produce food for itself. We tend, more often than not, to respond to a famine or a tragedy in a country by just sending over a boatload of food, which then collapses any domestic markets that may be operating within those particular countries. If you overlay a carbon economy on that as well, particularly in Australia’s sense where we are so far from these countries and include the carbon footprint costs of transporting food around the world, we really need to go back and have a close look at things.
Even the starch content of wheat, as the member for Pearce would know, is carbon. Who pays for that and at what price? Which economy does it work within? I do not know the answers to these sorts of things but I think we should at least have a close look at them. In conclusion—and I have spoken for longer than I intended to—I, again, announce my support for the amendment bill, and thank the government and recognise those in the opposition who are standing up for the principles that they believe in on this particular issue.
in reply—I thank the members for their contributions in this debate. I will take up the admonishment of the member for New England. I do not want to belabour the point of divisions in the coalition. I just want to recognise the particular contributions of the members for Kooyong, Pearce, Hughes and McMillan.
Only yesterday, I spoke to two visiting schools from my electorate, Auburn West Public School and Granville South Public School. I gave them the same message that I give to every school that comes to this parliament, which is that parliament is not just about question time and the rancour of the day, the exhibitionism and the attempts to get on top of one another. Parliament is based on a large degree of cooperation. People work through committee processes. The government of the day does not usually exercise its majority position. Both sides seek compromise and seek accommodation to get a majority report which has an effect on the government. That is an important part of the debate. It is a point that those four speakers clearly stressed.
The Joint Committee on Migration gave serious consideration to these matters. It heard witnesses, listened to individuals and examined the realities. They did not come to the debate with rhetoric, scare tactics and a lack of information. So I want to very much recognise the contributions of those four members. Often in parliamentary life we do not agree with our party. If anyone says that they agree all the time, they are liars. But very rarely do we see people who have the courage to take that to its ultimate limit. I recognise their role in these matters.
I will not reiterate the nature of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. We have been through that. Essentially, the bill seeks to clearly drive home that a fair and effective immigration detention policy and strong border security are not incompatible with fairness. I note, as I did a moment ago, that in introducing this legislation the government has accepted and acted upon the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Committee on Migration report of last December, the first of three reports from its current inquiry, Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning.
This resolution was unanimous—and I stress that it was unanimous. People who are now trying to disassociate themselves from it, run into the corner, hide away and say that they were not part of it could have—as done in this other report by that committee, Immigration detention in Australia: community based alternativesput in minority reports or put in dissenting comments. That did not happen. For people to come in here many months later and say that somehow they were not watching the game, they missed out on being part of it all or they have had second thoughts because new realities have emerged is absolutely ridiculous.
In making its unanimous recommendation, the committee commented on the administrative inefficiencies of the policy, noting that less than three per cent of the detention debt invoiced since 2004-05 has been collected. This was during the period of the previous government. The level of waivers and written-off debts has nothing to do with whether the Labor Party or the Liberal Party have been in government. It has been a reality throughout the time that this system has operated. Less than three per cent has been recovered. The reality is that the policy is ineffective. It is all right to say, ‘We’re going to look tough; we’re going to hold the line; we’re going to talk a lot of rhetoric on these issues.’ But the policy is ineffective—everyone knows that.
That committee—and I say again that it was unanimous—said:
The practice of applying detention charges would not appear to provide any substantial revenue or contribute in any way to offsetting the costs of the detention policy. Further, it is likely that the administrative costs outweigh or are approximately equal to debts recovered.
This conclusion is further supported by recent information. We note that in regard to the 2008-09 year the cost to the department of administering detention debts will be approximately $709,000. I heard one of the opposition members saying, ‘Oh, we’ll have some system that will not cost anything to collect money.’ That is preposterous. Realistically, people do not walk up and give you the money. We have to pursue it, and it costs money; it costs taxpayers money. This year, the cost for this year will be $709,000, and $477,000 has been recovered.
The joint committee also focused on the adverse impact of detention debt on those who either remained in Australia or who had connections to the country, citing concerns about:
… the burden on mental wellbeing, the ability to repay the debt, and the restrictions a debt could place on options for returning to Australia on a substantive visa.
The following concerns were raised with the committee:
… detention debts are a source of substantial anxiety to ex-detainees, and may impede the capacity of the ex-detainees to establish a productive life …
The committee made particular reference to the adverse impact detention debt often had on the mental health of former detainees, noting that the imposition of a significant debt often prolonged or exacerbated mental health problems. The committee referred to the limited earning capacity of many people on their release from detention, and the financial hardship that substantial debts caused.
I particularly note, as I did when introducing this bill last week, that unanimous recommendation 18 to repeal the liability for immigration detention costs had the support of all coalition members on the committee—most notably, the opposition immigration spokesperson, Dr Sharman Stone. I note that there was some suggestion from the members opposite that the member for Murray had not in fact endorsed the committee report. I think that I dealt with that earlier. I also wonder about the member for Murray’s interview on Sky News on 2 December 2008. When asked if she welcomed the report’s recommendations, the member for Murray said, ‘I do.’ That sounds like an endorsement as far as I am concerned. In the context of the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the committee, it is extremely disappointing that the opposition has decided to oppose the bill.
Much has been made of the fact that the detention debt was introduced by Labor in 1992. That is correct. But we are happy to acknowledge and act when a policy is not working. On any estimation, this policy has failed. The opposition may be content to stick with failed and punitive policies like detention debt and temporary protection visas, but this government is interested in good public policy, not the politics of scare mongering.
The opposition’s stated rationale for opposing the bill is simply not supported by fact. The bill does not represent a softening of Australia’s border security. Firstly, let us make it clear that the broader argument that there is any cause and effect relationship between the movement of asylum seekers and our domestic immigration policies is false. Dr Rosalind Richardson of Charles Sturt University has studied the issue—she has actually done some work on it. She interviewed asylum seekers and asked about these matters in a systemic way. She found that none of the people interviewed arrived in Australia with any detailed understanding of Australia’s immigration policies.
Secondly, while the opposition may prefer denial and obfuscation, the facts demonstrate that push factors are driving irregular movement to Australia. The majority—
Dr Stone interjecting
I know a bit about what is going on, my friend, when we turn to this argument by the opposition that the world is beautiful, there are no push factors and people are coming here simply because they understand our policy. Those of us who take some interest in world events know that in Sadr City 100 people were murdered in a bomb attack. We know that this week the Speaker of the Somali parliament has called for foreign intervention to protect them from foreign extremists. We appreciate, as I said last week, that the conclusion of the civil war in Sri Lanka means that there are enormous pressures for Tamil movement to this country. Only today, I received correspondence from the Tamil Federation of Australia appealing for help for three doctors who have been detained by the Sri Lankan government.
I notice that there was another bombing in Taza near Kirkuk the other week. There are estimates of 67 dead and 200 wounded. We are looking at Iran today. Surely the struggle over democracy in that country is going to have some impact in the long term. And that is not to deny the suppression of human rights over the last three decades there. Another speaker spoke about Morgan Tsvangirai. What happened in the last fortnight? He went to London and was booed down by expatriates there because of the failures of the coalition government. I do not lessen his effort, but that is the reality.
I had the opportunity last weekend during Refugee Week to go to Adelaide to hear an impressive young woman from Sierra Leone talk about not only why she came to this country but more importantly the continued suffering of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea. I also had the opportunity on the weekend to go to a Karen function. There are no push factors according to the opposition; it is all to do with Australian law. The reality is that there has been a tax imposed on the Karen people over the last fortnight and hundreds of thousands are being forced to move. According to the opposition, there was nothing happening in the Swat Valley in the last few months. It has all been peaceful. There have been no attacks; there have been no people relocated. Quite frankly, if the lead spokesman over there says that we are unaware of the world’s realities, I say that there is a clear push factor in the number of boats coming to this country.
Another important point is that the irregular movements of people are not isolated to Australia. If it is about Australian laws, one would see a correlation between Australian demand and our laws. In actual fact, by world standards, despite the fact that one-third of those people who are refugee humanitarian claimants are in our part of the world, the numbers we are receiving are minimal. I refer to figures overseas: Europe had 330,000 claimants in the year 2008; 36,000 people arrived in Italy alone—and that is why Italy is negotiating with Libya and why Gaddafi was there the other week being welcomed and back-slapped by Prime Minister Berlusconi; 15,000 refugees arrived in Greece; and 13,000 arrived in Spain. Even Malta, under huge pressure on this matter, had 2,700 arrivals. You have heard those figures. The figure for Australia was 161 claimants in the same period.
The UNHCR report 2008 global trends: refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons shows there were 42 million people forcibly displaced around the world in 2008, including 15.2 million refugees. The UNHCR report shows that asylum claims increased worldwide by 28 per cent last year. There is supposedly no push factor; it is all about Australian law! They are the international figures. The United States received nearly 50,000 claimants, Canada received 35,000 and South Africa received 207,000. The UNHCR’s report demonstrates not only that 4,750 people seeking asylum in Australia in 2008 was relatively small in global terms but also that the increase in people seeking asylum in Australia is part of a worldwide trend driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict.
Australia is not immune from these trends. On the narrow argument put forward by the opposition, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the existence of detention debts is any sort of deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals. This is in fact a totally illogical argument, soundly dismissed by the member for Hughes in the course of this debate. It has been a longstanding departmental policy, under both the former government and this government, that if a person is granted a protection visa or humanitarian visa, in keeping with the spirit of the UN convention the debt is written off and no further action is taken to recover the detention debt. In accordance with that policy, any detention debt raised by unauthorised boat arrivals who are subsequently granted a protection or humanitarian visa is not pursued—as I say, a policy decades long under both governments. Around 90 per cent of unauthorised boat arrivals whose claims were considered were granted protection visas. It is very difficult to see how a policy that does not apply to the vast majority of unauthorised boat people can act as any deterrent whatsoever.
I turn now to some of the points raised during the debate. It was very disappointing to listen to the member for Murray trying to justify a backflip on this issue. As has been mentioned numerous times in debate, as a member of the committee she endorsed the call for the abolition of detention debt. Now, without any proof or logic, she claims that the changes she supported are encouraging people smugglers. I would have thought she might have found that conclusion at the time. As I have just outlined, this is an argument defective in every respect. Yesterday the member claimed ‘the department should get its act together’ on administering detention debt. I am curious about this argument. Any private company acting in accordance with prudent financial management principles faced with this rate of recovery would have abandoned this program years ago. The member argued that the image of former detainees laden with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt being unable to move on with their lives was a furphy. The member obviously did not pay attention to evidence before the committee. The committee’s first report refers to two cases. The Refugee Action Committee reported the case of the accumulated debt for a family held in detention:
After six years in a detention centre and another three years living as a refugee in Melbourne, Hossein … an Iranian refugee, has been advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that he owes an amount of $200,000 which represents the cost of keeping his wife, daughter and son locked up in the Curtin Detention Centre in Western Australia for three years.
The committee report also referred to a case highlighted by the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, which described a family who had been advised in the year ended June 2007 that their debt was more than $340,000. But that is apparently easy for them to manage—no problems. That does not sound like a furphy to me. We do not expect much from the member for Murray these days. The opposition spokesperson on immigration and citizenship has been eager to play politics with the immigration issue. The member infamously laid blame for the five deaths on the SIEV 36 within hours of the explosion on the government. I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition was not impressed with that argument and did not associate himself with it.
Not only does the member play politics but she continually gets facts wrong. It is hard to determine whether this is through incompetence or by design. The member has repeatedly made false claims about Labor cutting resources for border protection when in fact the Rudd Labor government has increased border security resources. The government announced a massive $1.3 billion package in this year’s budget to further strengthen Australia’s border protection and national security regime. The member for Murray will also explain to us why Christmas Island was being built in the first place if the then government’s policies were going to lead to nobody coming here and why that public money was expended when she knew that the policy was going to end because of their actions.
Of this $1.3 billion, $654 million is specifically dedicated to a whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling. The federal budget provides $654 million of funding to (1) increase and extend our sea and aerial surveillance capacity, including two additional surveillance aircraft, and (2) strengthen Australia’s engagement with our regional partners and international organisations so we can work together to address this global problem. I note there the recent announcement of the extradition of a major people smuggler, who was hanging around having coffees in restaurants and cafes in Indonesia for who knows how many years under the previous government and who has now been brought back here. That is the result of the policy of cooperation with the Indonesian and other regional governments. Finally, that amount of money will go to strengthen our legal and prosecution capacity and enhance regional cooperation on people-smuggling laws.
But that is not all that the member for Murray gets wrong. She comments on the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s exercise of ministerial discretion, a thing close to the heart of the member for Berowra, a long-term campaigner for ministerial discretion. One day she is claiming the minister is ambivalent about exercising the powers; the next day she suggests he exercises the powers too often. Like most of what she has said today, it is very confused indeed. I am not sure where the member for Murray is getting her figures from but for the record in 2006-07, the last financial year of the previous government, the rate of approvals was 31 per cent. She might be surprised to know that for December 2007 to May 2009 there is a very interesting figure—31 per cent still. The member for Murray should aim for a bit of consistency. Yesterday the member was critical of the government’s announced changes to the 45-day rule, yet only a few months ago, when again sitting on that joint committee, the shadow immigration minister and another coalition member expressed concerns about a lack of access to work rights and Medicare. The member for Murray expressed concerns that we were not being liberal enough. She said:
I also share Danna’s concern about the employment situation, because a lot of the people on bridging visas who have health costs, in particular, are in a great deal of strife when it comes to being able to manage their own affairs. What are you doing about access to Medicare for health costs for people on bridging visas?
Later she said:
Evidence has been from both the NGOs and from the people on bridging visas themselves, and of course we do not have any ability to work out what numbers we are talking about …
Dr Stone interjecting
I think you have been ridiculed by a number of speakers in regard to your repudiation of your own report.
As I said earlier, it is difficult to determine whether the member’s inconsistency is symptomatic of incompetence or by design. Perhaps one or two backflips could be described as purely incompetent. Simple incompetence can generally be forgiven but not tolerated. However, the litany of misrepresentations, unexplained backflips and inflammatory statements outlined here, which have become the hallmark of the member, signal something far more troublesome. They signal three things. Firstly, it is a coalition without principles determined to use immigration policy for its own nefarious political purposes—nothing particularly new there. Secondly, it is a coalition without direction—nothing you couldn’t have read in every press report this week. Thirdly and most worryingly for the Australian public, they signal it is a coalition without any immigration policy other than the policy of division, a topic that those opposite are well versed in.
I want to briefly turn to one person who had the courage to stand totally behind the previous government. Firstly, I note the shadow spokesperson equivocates. She disassociates herself from some policies and then she crawls back, having put them forward. But the member for Mitchell was more courageous in this debate. He defended rigorously all the policies of the previous government. He justified, by implication and sometimes categorically, the detention of Cornelia Rau and that of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez Solon and that of Tony Tran, the husband of an Australian citizen wrongfully detained for five years and assaulted while in detention. The Commonwealth Ombudsman identified, during this glorious decade-long policy position, 247 cases where people were detained who were ‘not unlawful’. The Rudd government are currently going through the process of compensating those people. We know that $311 million-plus was spent on the offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and on Manus Island. Despite the rhetoric of ‘we are going to decide who goes where’, we know that essentially in total 60 per cent of those people came to this country afterwards. I support the bill before the House. (Time expired)
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.
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Mr Speaker has received messages from the Senate informing the House that Senator Marshall has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas has been appointed a member of the committee; Senator Bishop has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and Senator the Hon. Jan McLucas has been appointed a member of the committee; and Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and Senator Ryan has been appointed a member of the committee.
Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to continue my speech on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and our renewable energy target for 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply to come from renewable sources by 2020 will drive the creation of low-pollution industries and low-pollution jobs. I am pleased to emphasise that the provisions in that scheme and in the particular bill before the Senate this week will extend the economic benefits of our climate change policies to regional Australia. The provisions of that bill, designed to promote carbon plant sequestration, follow the opening of the first geosequestration project in the Southern Hemisphere by the Minister for Resources and Energy just over a year ago. These projects are fundamentally important to the development of a low-carbon and low-pollution economy which will help Australia address the challenge of climate change.
There is a cross-section of support throughout the community for the proposed scheme. Environmental and industry groups are expressing a firm desire for the legislation to be passed prior to the Copenhagen talks in December. For instance, the President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Professor Ian Lowe, said of the government’s scheme:
It puts Australia in a leadership position along with the EU in relation to developed countries targets which will be crucial for a sound Copenhagen outcome.
Furthermore, I refer the House to comments by the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, who has called on this scheme to be passed by the parliament this year. Following the announcement by the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change and Water, she said:
AI Group has consistently called for the legislation to be passed this year. This is critical to establish the degree of certainty business requires in assessing medium and longer-term investment decisions.
The AiG is not alone in its support for the proposed scheme. They are joined by the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Business Council of Australia, the Climate Institute, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Council of Social Services. Given the diverse interests represented by these groups, it speaks volumes that they are all united in their support for the government’s emissions trading scheme. Moreover, this demonstrates the widespread support across the nation for the government’s action to seriously address climate change.
Obviously, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme needs to be passed prior to the Copenhagen summit for Australia to play a leadership role. I encourage opposition members to remember this when the time comes to vote on the legislation in the Senate. Their vote could very well determine the role Australia plays during the December talks. As a nation so vulnerable to the devastating effects of climate change, it is in our interests to play a significant role in Copenhagen. It is therefore incredible that the Liberal Party would have Australians believe that they are the party that promotes the interests of businesses. However, if they vote to defer the passage of the CPRS until the Copenhagen summit in December of this year they are merely creating business uncertainty, which is the last thing Australia needs in the midst of a global recession.
To defer the passage of the CPRS legislation would delay the passage of the most important piece of environmental legislation in Australian history. Such a move by the opposition will delay the urgent action needed to develop a green economy characterised by low-carbon and low-polluting industries which promote green jobs. Consequently, the actions of the opposition in delaying the passage of this bill cannot be justified as pro business.
In recent months we have heard members of the opposition talk about the impact of debt on future generations. I ask those same members to consider the impact of climate change on future generations. I challenge the opposition to consider the impact of rising temperatures, the effects of more extreme droughts, cyclones and floods and the consequences of a barren Murray-Darling Basin. If members of the opposition were so concerned about the prosperity of future generations they would not have delayed the passage of the CPRS legislation with their antics in the Senate this week. They would not vote to delay government action designed to tackle the most serious economic, social and environmental issue facing our young people in the future.
At the last federal election Australians rightly believed that they were voting for an end to this inaction. Many constituents told me that they would vote Labor precisely because they wanted a government that would act on climate change by ratifying the Kyoto protocol and implementing an emissions trading scheme. This bill and the related bills demonstrate that the government is still determined to take the urgent action for which Australians are loudly calling. The public’s strong support for action has not changed either and it is a pity the Liberal Party is yet to realise this.
In a recent interview on the 7.30 Report, British climate change economist Sir Nicholas Stern issued a clear message to the members and senators who serve the Australian people in this place. He said:
… people will be looking very hard at Australia and they’ll say, ‘Given their high emissions, given the technologies that Australians have and given the ingenuity of the Australian people and industry and academic life and in government and elsewhere … . If they can’t do it,’ others will say, ‘How can anybody expect us to do it?’ So I think that the actions in Australia are highly significant.
We would do well to consider Sir Nicholas’s words. He has issued a message that we cannot ignore. The international community is looking to Australia for leadership and the Rudd government are determined to show this leadership. We are determined to address the issue of climate change and prevent its potentially devastating effects. The decision we make as members of parliament in 2009 to either support or reject climate change legislation will have a significant bearing on future generations, who stand to lose the most as a result of climate change if governments throughout the world do not act today.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 is extremely important given the context of its implementation. The bill is one of the measures to improve public disclosure and provide reliable data on the level of greenhouse gas emissions from corporations. The importance of such reports from corporations cannot be stressed enough. Australia’s national energy statistics provide the basis of efficient and effective energy policy. Based on those statistics, governments can plan, implement and monitor greenhouse gas reduction levels and the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs. The reports can also assist in economic and trade forecasting and preparation. The data also ensures Australia meets its international reporting obligations under the International Energy Agency energy agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To ensure the reliability of data, a clearly defined legislative framework to which corporations can refer and to which they can comply is vital. Hence, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill has made changes to clarify definitions and requires auditors to register with the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer. This will undoubtedly instil further confidence in the integrity of the reporting process.
Other amendments were made to clarify the meaning of important terms in the act, such as ‘external auditor’. The definition of ‘external auditor’ will be replaced by the new terms, ‘audit team leader’ and ‘greenhouse and energy auditor’, due partly to stakeholder confusion about the term ‘external auditor’. Section 75A will provide greater detail on the requirements for auditors, including qualifications, expertise and, importantly, independence. All of these changes highlight the purpose of providing stakeholders with a stronger framework from which to refer, while simultaneously improving the quality of the data collected.
It is noteworthy that the proposed amendments and related bills are being introduced after extensive consultation with business, governments and the public to ensure the legislation is practical and meets the needs of all stakeholders. The extensive consultation process conducted for this bill and related bills is another example of the Rudd government’s desire to establish an inclusive, transparent and accountable approach to all aspects of governance. Coupled with the desire to provide transparent and reliable data on the energy usage of corporations, the government is also aware of the sensitivity of auditing and the need to provide proper protection for commercially sensitive information. These twin challenges will be better addressed with the introduction of these proposed amendments. The bill ensures that the secrecy provisions under the act extend to the information gathered while conducting audits and will apply to all audit team members, as the government recognises the importance of such a balance.
It is estimated that, by the 2010-11 reporting period, the legislation will cover more than double the number of corporations currently reporting, and the Department of Climate Change estimates that the reporting system will improve the data coverage to over 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the applicable sectors. Given the importance of such data in laying the foundation for future policy, I cannot stress enough the importance of these amendments. Those of us on this side of the House would like to continue our work with initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those of us on this side of the House are not afraid to look at the facts, as frightening as they may be, and show the courage needed to address the immense challenge which exists.
I conclude by commending the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, for the action she has taken on such a complicated and, indeed, serious challenge. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
In rising to address the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, I note that it is another example of what was achieved by the Howard government in doing practical things, as distinct from just talking about them, to lower Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This bill makes minor amendments to the coalition’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. It aims to improve the functions of the act and to strengthen the audit framework of the act. Most importantly, it allows corporations to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if they disagree with Commonwealth determinations.
As I said, the legislation in its original form was introduced by the coalition government. Yesterday at that dispatch box, the Prime Minister finally admitted that, in fact, the coalition had spent $3 billion lowering Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions—not talk; not setting up new institutes to duplicate old institutes; not strutting the world stage with new ideas but doing nothing at home. The coalition actually put in place structures and mechanisms to lower greenhouse gas emissions. By structures, I mean physical structures. We set up a process whereby Australia is well placed to meet its Kyoto target. There are those who sit opposite who repeatedly are loose with the truth and say that, for 11½ years, we did nothing. If $3 billion is nothing, perhaps I have now gained an insight into how $315 billion worth of national debt is not a concern to this government.
The previous government were very committed in a practical way to lowering greenhouse gas emissions and to ensuring that Australia led the world with a range of technologies. In the solar industry, we provided $75 million to build the world’s largest photovoltaic solar power station. We provided funds to coal-fired power stations to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. We assisted the gas industry. We actually set up the mechanism and the legislation around the mandatory renewable energy target. We built the wind industry in Australia that we now have. None of that happened by accident; it all happened as a direct result of what the Howard government did during their 11½ years. The legislation, which is being amended in a positive sense today, is part of that process. It is part of the commitment that Australia’s government under John Howard gave to both Australia and the world that we would do our share.
The original act also provided for public disclosure of a company’s level of greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and use. That was the first time we had a process in Australia where companies were required to report their emissions. With that, we began a process of benchmarking and best practice. That saw companies lower their energy use and therefore their emissions and do so in a way which allowed them to recoup the cost of those efficiencies. In fact, it was the leading edge of driving energy efficiencies. Probably the world’s leaders in energy efficiency are the Japanese. We have much to learn from them. There are a whole range of ways that you can drive energy efficiency, and this legislation, as I say, was just part of it. We put it in place after extensive consultation with states and territories as well as with industry and other stakeholders. A streamlined National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System was developed, aimed at minimising costs and red tape.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008 provides methods and criteria to calculate greenhouse gas emissions as outlined by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting, or NGER, Regulations 2008. The coalition will support this bill in both houses. As I say, it simply builds and probably improves on the legislation that we introduced—but the goal is the same: to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reported.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 aims to better facilitate the administration of the act and also better reflects its original policy intentions. It focuses on establishing an audit framework under the act for the CPRS and is a response to consultants’ feedback. The bill imposes no burdens on industry beyond those originally intended by the act. Wouldn’t it be great if we could say that of all bills related to lowering greenhouse gas emissions that this government has introduced?
We are, of course, confronting a situation where this government introduced legislation—it is now in the Senate, having already passed through this House—with a much truncated debate, I must admit. I found no satisfaction in being allowed to speak for only 10 minutes during the debate on that legislation. I would have thought that legislation, which represents the biggest fundamental reform in Australia’s economy, would be allowed full debate in this House. Luckily, in the Senate we are going to see that. Senators are not as easily bludgeoned by this government. They are insisting that full investigation of the legislation, combined with a full debate, take place. The economic and social consequences of the CPRS legislation will be examined.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that examination will be crucial because we are seeing that the effects of the CPRS—legislation which will rely on this legislation that we are debating—will have an enormous impact on Australia’s energy industry and energy consumers. We will see an impact on the electricity producers, starting with power stations in the Parliamentary Secretary for Health’s own state. Power stations in Australia are facing closure under the CPRS. That closure may not take place in the first five years. There will be an enormous increase in the cost of electricity, and I will explain that in a moment, but in terms of power stations, the first brown coal power station may close as early as 2015. I hope not. Where do you generate 1,000 megawatts of baseload electricity in Victoria when you will have a requirement in Australia for 1,000 megawatts a year to be added to our generation grid between now and 2020? How do you replace 1,000 megawatts of generation if it does close in 2015?
For a completely different reason, four years ago, when I was the minister, I suggested that if we did not continue to invest in electricity generation and distribution in Australia, we would see the lights go out in Melbourne during the Commonwealth Games. We did not know until afterwards just how close we got to that, but that was with all power stations functioning at full capacity. If we start taking power stations out of the grid as a result of an ill-thought-through CPRS then we are putting at risk not only the economic development of Australia, but also the very safety of Australia’s communities in both a physical and an economic sense.
If I go onto the LNG industry, which again will be affected by this legislation that we are debating today, and consider the impact of the CPRS on that industry, we see a situation of sheer lunacy. The liquefied natural gas industry exports gas primarily to Asia. When it exports a tonne of LNG to China, it saves between 4½ and nine tonnes of CO2. So what does this government do? It taxes the LNG industry under the CPRS. I say ‘tax’ because even though they say it is a carbon price, when you are using the world’s best technology you cannot lower your emissions any further. And Australia’s LNG plants use the world’s best technology, so they have nowhere to go but to effectively pay a tax. So we are taxing, we are disadvantaging, the competitiveness of Australia’s industries by introducing a CPRS which will actually save global emissions. We are taxing the industries that can lower greenhouse gas emissions globally. Australia’s emissions will go down, but not by the factor that the world’s emissions will go up. The world’s emissions will go up more as a result of ours going down. Of course the same argument applies with aluminium and other energy-intensive industries. The aluminium smelters in Australia are among the most efficient in the world. They are in that part of the cost curve that denotes the fact that they use electricity in a highly efficient way. And as well as that, they have introduced technologies to lower other emissions such as chlorine and fluorine. There is no future for those industries in Australia—certainly no future for expansion—under the CPRS.
I could go on and on, but before I leave the issue of the CPRS, I draw to the House’s attention a couple of issues that need to be dealt with that have come to light this week. As a result of reporting their emissions through the legislation that we are debating today, and then complying with the CPRS, not only will the aluminium industry be affected, not only the LNG industry, not only the cement industry, not only the copper smelting industry and not only the refining industry, but as a result of some work done by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry small businesses will be affected as well. The very engine room of employment in Australia, where people go out and have a go and mostly make money but sometimes lose it, and maybe their house with it, but mostly make money and then employ people, the very heart of employment in our economic community is going to be attacked by the CPRS. It is going to be attacked in a way that means the small business community, if it is to survive, will have to lower its employment.
We are in a global situation, in a global financial crisis, where Australia and its best economists are predicting that we may go into a recession; we may in fact see unemployment double over the next 18 months. The government’s response to that, through the reporting process of this bill we have in front of us, is to introduce legislation which will increase unemployment—not just in the aluminium industry, not just in potential new industries that will no longer come to Australia, but in the industries that are at the very heart of Australia’s employment growth. Reading from the ACCI release:
As a consequence—
of the CPRS—
trade-exposed SMEs—
small and medium enterprises—
have limited opportunities to pass the costs on to their customers, but are not eligible for assistance under the proposed CPRS transition package.
Increases in energy and transport costs will impact directly on SME employment and profitability.
So the very heart of the economy will be attacked to the core. The release goes on:
The study finds that the CPRS in its current form will generate additional costs that would erode firm profitability by between 4 and 7 per cent on average. In order to compensate for the erosion in profitability, the study shows that firms would … need to reduce labour costs …
That means lay people off; that means let them work fewer hours. It says SMEs would need to reduce labour costs by between 4.4 per cent and 8.1 per cent for the food processing industry and between 7.4 per cent and 12.9 per cent for the plastic manufacturers. The Parliamentary Secretary for Health, sitting opposite, should be very interested in that and the member for Wills should be very interested as well, because in Victoria we have—
I’m from South Australia.
Well, you will be even more interested if you are from South Australia. My apologies, you are from Port Adelaide. Both in South Australia and in Victoria we have a substantial industry called the car industry, highly reliant on plastics. Having been the minister for industry for six years, can I say that car manufacturers go to their component suppliers and say, ‘We want a cost down this year.’ And, of course, the component suppliers, who have this pressure every year, say, ‘Look, we just cannot do it anymore.’ What happens then is that those car companies, without any compunction, go to China and buy that plastic component—that door handle, that armrest, that piece of trim in the car.
So if we see a 7.4 per cent to 12.9 per cent cut in the average ability of these companies to pay wages, in terms of what they will have to reduce labour cost by, then we are going to see more of these component companies go under. This is at a time when we hear the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research in the other house speak about how important the car industry is and how much pressure it is under. I agree with every word he says because, as I say, six years of assisting that industry has taught me just how lineball it is. But at a time when that industry and, more importantly, the component industry that supports it are reliant on support from government, it is going to introduce legislation that affects their core component suppliers. The ACCI release goes on to say that its study shows the cuts in labour costs for chemicals manufacturing SMEs will need to be between 1.8 per cent and 3.2 per cent; and for machinery and equipment manufacturing, between 1.8 per cent and three per cent.
While the legislation we are discussing now is very sound legislation, legislation that needs to be amended and needs support in both houses and will get support in both houses from the opposition, it is legislation which enables the CPRS to decimate Australian industry and jobs. And when that debate starts in earnest in the Senate, the Senate will not bow down to the bludgeoning that we got on this side of the House, when the time that we could speak on that bill was cut in half.
This bill is not perfect. It does not provide certainty and flexibility for the mining industry, especially with regard to contract miners. There need to be better provisions to allow flexibility on who actually has to report the emissions—that is, the mine owner or the contractor operating the mine. The former parliamentary secretary, now Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, who was negotiating with the coal industry should know how that industry works. He has got plenty of it in his own electorate. The industry has asked the government to amend this legislation so that the default position in the case of emissions reporting lies with the owner of the mine. Here he comes—welcome, Minister—just in time to hear this. He is trying hard—
I remind the member he is speaking through the chair, and I have not changed my gender recently!
Madam Deputy Speaker—and you are not a ‘he’ either—we have asked the government to address these industries’ concerns as a matter of urgency, but as yet that has not happened. On that basis we will seek to move amendments in the other place to ensure that this bill operates in an even better way. No-one is trying to avoid the responsibilities in the instance of coalmines in reporting emissions, but there needs to be a system that allows industry and commerce to be flexible so that, in a default situation, someone has the onus. In that situation it makes sense that the people who are exporting coal—that is, the owners of the mine—have the reporting responsibility. As I said, the coalition will be supporting the amendments in this legislation in both houses and, with the support of the Senate, moving the amendments to which I have referred to ensure that common sense prevails.
Courtesy of a cold, I have a voice somewhat like the member for Groom, but that is about where the similarity ends. Unlike him, I believe that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is extremely important to the future of this country and I believe that Australia has not done anywhere near enough during the course of the last decade to tackle global warming. The member for Groom said that the Carbon Pollution Production Scheme would damage Australia’s competitive position. I point out to the House that, as Lenore Taylor wrote recently, right around the world countries are locked in domestic debates similar to the one underway in Australia. For example, the European Union has promised to cut emissions by at least 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 and that it will cut to 30 per cent if other advanced economies follow suit. New Zealand is reviewing its emissions trading laws and aims to align them with the scheme that emerges in Australia. Canada has committed to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, but has put its emissions trading laws on hold until the rapidly evolving United States scheme is finalised. Lenore Taylor also reports that China has promised to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent below 2005 levels by next year and that Indonesia has pledged to reduce emissions from its energy sector to 17 per cent less than they were projected to be in 2025. So this debate is going on around the world. But if the views of the member for Groom were to prevail in these various countries, that would be a recipe for disaster—for floods, for bushfires, for refugees around the world and for us to completely fail to tackle climate change.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Wills will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In asking this question I stress that I am seeking information; I am not making an accusation. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in 2002 Mr John Grant and other members of the 51 Club attended an event to raise funds to repay significant legal costs personally incurred by the Prime Minister?
Curiously, this question is raised in this honest spirit of inquiry by the opposition when they have been hawking this around the press gallery for several days. That is point 1. So the honesty with which the honourable member puts this question is itself under some scrutiny and he knows it only to be true. Secondly, I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that on 1 August 2003 you have a statement from me to the pecuniary interests register, which says ‘The payment of $28,000 to the Brisbane Airport Corporation by community group Ban Aircraft over Residential Brisbane on 13 June 2003 for a bill received by me by order of the Federal Court for legal costs’ and associated details. It is on the pecuniary interests register and has been there for some time.
Thirdly, I say to the honourable member in response to his question that he should understand the following, as I am best advised. A community group called Ban Aircraft over Residential Brisbane ran a community fundraiser in 2003 to help pay for the legal costs I incurred in my legal battle with the Brisbane Airport Corporation. Furthermore, as I have just indicated, I declared this assistance on the pecuniary interests register at the time, as is appropriate. I also spoke about it in the House. Furthermore, Mr John Grant, a resident of Brisbane’s Southside and who also lives under the flight path, attended that community fundraiser. I say further to the honourable member that tickets for the fundraiser, I understand, were $85.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order relating to standing order 104: I asked about an event in 2002.
Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order. This week we have now had more than 90 points of order. My point of order is under disruptive conduct.
Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question and is in order.
Furthermore, my understanding is that the tickets to the said dinner, which was attended by, I think, several hundred members of the local community who were affected by the plan of the Brisbane Airport Corporation to put a flight path over Brisbane’s Southside, were in the vicinity of $85. Furthermore, there is some suggestion that Mr Grant would have bought an auction item. I do not know whether he did or whether he did not because the fundraiser was run by the community group in question.
Therefore, I say to the honourable member to first of all consult the pecuniary interests register. That contribution to me is there from the community group called Ban Aircraft over Residential Brisbane, which I have been associated with for a long time acting as a local member to take a case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, subsequently, to the Federal Court on behalf of my community in an attempt to stop a challenge by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to put a new parallel runway which would have had a direct impact on my community. Furthermore, when I subsequently lost that court case this community organisation—Ban Aircraft over Residential Brisbane—got together and decided to help raise some funds, about which I not only was transparent in this pecuniary interest declaration but also, as I am advised, made a statement to the parliament around that time about what had been done.
Let us go to the absolute core of this continued campaign of political smear. All of this is based on a proposition that I have made a representation on behalf of Mr Grant. That rests in turn on the existence of an email which is now established to be beyond reasonable doubt a forgery, a fake and a false document. Despite that fact, and despite the fact we have been here all week, he stands up here again on the last day of the sitting of this parliament and asks a further question attempting to somehow establish that something improper has occurred here. Let us go to the absolute core of it. The forged document upon which this attack has been based to smear my own reputation and that of the Treasurer has been, shall I say, the subject of some significant engagement on the part of various of those opposite—that is, on how the contents of that email were in fact disseminated—and I notice it is the subject of further commentary in today’s newspapers.
Yet the core proposition in this politics of smear in which the honourable member has just engaged is that, by virtue of this individual being a participant in a community fundraising event for a declared activity on my part to support my community in a fight against the Brisbane Airport Corporation, is of itself somehow improper, he himself being a local resident. Secondly, it is based on a proposition, I assume that they are still arguing, that there is an improper connection between the individual and me, after having established all week, I thought, that the email which underpins this proposition is itself a forgery.
I note further that the Leader of the Opposition, who has run this campaign against me and the Treasurer for some time now, did not have the courage to stand up and ask this question himself. We now have the delegation of a campaign of personal smear against me and others in this place. This local person, Mr Grant, is a member of the local community and runs a business out in Ipswich. I understand the former member for Blair, Mr Cameron Thompson, today said some positive things about him. I am not sure whether that is the case. I do not know exactly what his involvement in the Ipswich business community is. That is not an area in which I am personally resident. I do know, however, that as a local resident in my area he has been concerned about aircraft noise, like others, and therefore chose to come along to that event to support it.
I just suggest to those opposite, as they continue to engage in the politics of smear of this individual—as well as the politics of smear in terms of a purported relationship which is improper between that individual and me—which in turn hangs on the existence of this document, that the honourable member should reflect on the fact that the document on which this entire campaign of personal smear has been based in the course of the last week or so is a forgery, a fake, a false document. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has many, many questions to answer. He has many questions to answer concerning this matter, some of which have been canvassed in today’s newspapers and many of which have not.
I say also to the honourable member the following: it is important at a time like this, when the nation is under grave economic challenge, that those opposite seem to regard the nature of the global recession as somehow irrelevant to their concerns and the concerns of working families across Australia. This government is engaged, with every ounce of effort and every ounce of energy it has, in dedicating its time to implementing our nation building for recovery plan. It seems that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing instead is wasting the nation’s time in campaigns of continued personal smear and fear. In the case of both those campaigns, they are based on absolute falsehood.
Before giving the call to the member for Solomon I inform members that we have in the galleries today mayors and shire presidents from around Australia who are here today as part of the Australian Council of Local Government. On behalf of members I extend to them a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recently released reports on the Australian economy? Will the Prime Minister compare the performance of the Australian economy through the global recession relative to other countries?
I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question, because the Northern Territory and Darwin, being export oriented, are directly affected by the impacts of the global recession on growth and on jobs—therefore his community, like those across the entire nation, is deeply concerned by what actions can be taken to reduce the impact of this recession.
The current global economic recession is the worst set of economic circumstances Australia has faced in three-quarters of a century. And Australia, despite this challenge, is doing better than most other economies. Last night two key international economic reports were released—firstly, the latest Economic Outlook from the OECD and, secondly, the IMF’s Australia 2009 Article IV Consultation Concluding Statement. These reports indicate that the Australian government’s early and decisive action concerning the economy helped cushion the Australian economy from the worst impacts of this global recession.
Furthermore, what these reports and other data underpin are the following four propositions. We currently, among the major advanced economies, have the fastest growth. We also have the second lowest unemployment. We have the lowest debt. We also have the lowest deficit.
That is where we stand—on the basis of this most recently released data—against the major advanced economies. On the fastest growth, the OECD still projects that Australia’s economy will contract by 0.4 per cent in 2009. This is the mildest contraction of any of the 30 OECD economies and compares with contractions of 2.8 per cent in the US, 6.8 per cent in Japan and 4.8 per cent in the euro area. This confirms the information from Australia’s own national accounts that Australia is the fastest growing economy in the OECD.
We also have the second lowest unemployment. The OECD forecasts that unemployment in Australia will rise to 7.9 per cent by the end of 2010. This is substantially lower than the 9.9 per cent predicted for the OECD as a whole. This is the second lowest of any of the major advanced economies. I would say again that any job lost is one lost job too many. This government will continue to inject every effort into supporting employment at a time of grave global economic difficulty.
In terms of the state of deficit across the major advanced economies, the OECD forecasts Australia’s budget deficit for all levels of government to reach five per cent of GDP in 2010. This is nearly 60 per cent lower than the 8.8 per cent of GDP deficit for the OECD as a whole. Again, it is the lowest of all the major advanced economies. Also, we know from other data that Australia’s debt is the lowest of all the major advanced economies. The OECD itself says:
The infrastructure development program announced in the 2009-10 budget is welcome and should strengthen fiscal policy impact.
The OECD report also notes that we are by no means out of the woods yet. The OECD warns that the ensuing recovery is likely to be both weak and fragile for some time and that the negative economic and social consequences of the crisis will be long lasting. Furthermore, it has stressed the importance of governments implementing stimulus measures promptly and fully. It says:
Because of the weakness of the expected recovery, the OECD argues that governments need to implement announced stimulus measures promptly and fully. These tax breaks or spending measures should not be withdrawn at a pace which jeopardizes the recovery. Similarly, better regulation of financial markets to guard against future crises is now urgent.
This is the government’s strategy. It is nation-building for recovery. It has been shown by the data which has come in from the OECD, the IMF and, most recently, our national accounts that it is having an effect—that is, we have managed so far to avoid a technical recession. We are not out of the woods yet. We also have the fastest growth of the major advanced economies—and the fastest growth of all the advanced economies, as released most recently in other documents.
Part of the reason this has been possible is that we the government, in partnership with state and local governments, believe that it is important for us all to act together, because we are all in this together. That is why I particularly welcome the representatives of most of our 565 councils and shires who are here in Canberra today for the second Australian Council of Local Government meeting.
The reason I say this is that the councils represented here today have been in the business of nation building for recovery. Through initiatives announced by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government we have had an $800 million investment in community infrastructure projects. And I am advised that some 3,300 of these projects are rolling out across the country. More than 100 community projects have already been completed, thanks to the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. I am advised that this includes such projects as the new spectator facilities and change rooms at the Renmark oval in South Australia, which received investment of $374,000; the new kitchen that has been installed at the Conargo Memorial Hall, in regional New South Wales, with $40,000 from the government; and the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, in Western Australia, using part of its funding to upgrade the war memorial. These are just a few of the projects from the many thousands of projects in which 500 or so local governments are now participating with the Australian government in supporting across the nation.
I formally today as Prime Minister of the country publicly salute the critical role of local government in being partners in Australia’s nation building for recovery plan. Local government, together with other levels of government, are doing their bit to pitch in to make a difference. That is what is important here. They believe that governments should be in the business of performing a positive role, they should be in the business of performing a constructive role, they should be in the business of building the nation up, not talking it down. Whatever our politics may be, in each of the elected councils attending this conference here in Canberra today the unifying mission is this: what difference can we make to build this economy up when the global economic recession is seeking to tear it down? We are all in this together, and I salute the role of Australian local governments here in this building today.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, again I stress that I am not making an accusation; I am simply seeking information.
Order! The member will get to his question.
Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he provided any support or assistance while in China to Aussie Rent, a company that was co-owned by Mr John Grant?
I have no idea what period of time the gentleman is referring to. I will check my records. I have no such recollection. I say to the honourable member that, when it comes to the continued politics of smear in this place, those opposite—
What have you guys been doing all week?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister has the call.
I just say to those opposite: at a time when the nation, its families and its governments are wanting all people in this place to focus positively on how we lift the economy up, how we build up local communities and how we support local jobs, this government, in partnership with others, is in the business of implementing nation building for recovery. I say to those opposite who continue to engage in activities of this nature: we are using our time, our efforts and our energy as a government to support the economy, jobs and small business. What they are doing is wasting the nation’s time and engaging in the activities of fear and smear, with one single objective: to talk the economy down, to try and bring a government down. On top of that, both these campaigns are based on an absolute falsehood in relation to the false, fake and forged email on which basis the Leader of the Opposition has so many, many questions to answer.
The member for Warringah, on a point of order?
I take it that the Prime Minister will report to the House—
Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat—and he is warned.
Mr Hockey interjecting
Is there a problem, Member for North Sydney? The member for Warringah knows that he should approach the dispatch box on a point of order, not to make a debating point.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on assessments from key global economic institutions of the government’s economic stimulus?
I thank the member for Page for her question. Last night two very important and very significant reports were released on global economic conditions and the relationship between those global economic conditions and the Australian economy. Of course, both these reports provide further evidence that the government’s efforts to stimulate the economy are working to position Australia as one of the strongest performing economies in the advanced world, and that is something that we on this side of the House celebrate. We certainly know that we have some very big challenges ahead, but what we also know is that if we all pull together, if we work together with the local governments of this country, with the state governments, with local communities, with the business community, we can do our best to cushion the Australian economy from the very savage impacts of this global recession.
Last night the IMF had a few things to say. I think those opposite might be a little embarrassed when they hear what the IMF had to say, because the IMF commended the government on its three-stage stimulus strategy. You will recall that those opposite have been in this House, day in and day out, running down the stimulus strategy. This is what the IMF had to say in their report released overnight:
We welcome the quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus.
We certainly do, Mr Speaker! They go on:
The stimulus provides a sizable boost to domestic demand in 2009 and 2010 that will cushion the impact of the global recession.
But, get this statement:
The transfers to households had an immediate impact on activity that helped underpin confidence.
This is a complete repudiation of the position taken by the opposition in this House as well as in the Senate. The IMF went on to say that they recognised the important role our bank guarantee has played in bolstering confidence and in securing the flow of credit. Who opposed that? The opposition did. They opposed the bank guarantee all the way and they opposed economic stimulus all the way. The IMF went on to say more. They said:
Timely and appropriate policy intervention also helped the Australian financial sector. Wholesale funding guarantees allowed for continued access to international capital markets.
The IMF made the very obvious point that the impact of our stimulus is the reason that Australia’s downturn has been milder than those of most other advanced economies. They also highlighted the importance of infrastructure investment. These reports demonstrate why the government’s strategy of investing in infrastructure that leaves a lasting legacy is so important to employment. They are positive assessments. We have a long way to go, but these reports and the outcomes that have come to this country stand in stark contrast to the negative approach of those opposite, who have opposed us every step of the way.
I inform the House that we have in the gallery today Mr John Trainor, a former speaker of the South Australian parliament. On behalf of members, I extend to him a warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his interview on ABC radio this morning about the OzCar scandal, when he was asked three times how many—
Government members interjecting—
Order! The member for North Sydney has the call.
I thought the Prime Minister was asking the question there, Mr Speaker! I will start again. I refer the Treasurer to his interview on ABC radio this morning about the OzCar scandal, when he was asked three times how many car dealers he had spoken to on the phone. The Treasurer answered three times:
Well it’s a matter of public record that I spoke to Mr Grant.
Doesn’t this interview simply confirm that of 240 car dealers in need of assistance, the Treasurer personally spoke to only one—John Grant, from John Grant Motors?
It is pretty clear they are going to get right down in the gutter today—again. Yesterday they ran out of questions in the House. It was so embarrassing. They tried to shut themselves up four times. It was so embarrassing—they ran out of questions.
I made it very clear that I have spoken to Mr Grant. I spoke to him for about two minutes. It is very clear from all of the evidence that other car dealers received treatment the same as, if not better than, him. That is the story. But every time the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer gets up in this House and asks those sorts of gutter questions with the intent of smearing the Prime Minister and me, it absolutely shows that the opposition has no credible leadership, no plan for the economy and no plan for jobs in our community.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What new initiatives has the government taken to build a partnership with local government through the second plenary meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question and note that he was with the mayors from his local community last night. He had a better evening later on than I did, so we will get that out of the way early—as a Queenslander, he had a better end of the evening than I did.
Everyone last night at the Australian Council of Local Government dinner and today at the forum had a very productive second plenary meeting. This is the next step in the new partnership that we are forging between the national government and local government. Local communities rely increasingly upon local government to deliver the services that they need. Every one of the ministers along the front bench participated in the ACLG forums that we held and the subgroups that were held today and yesterday. We heard that increasingly local government is providing much more than rates and rubbish. They are increasingly providing a great number of services critical to the quality of life in local communities.
They are rolling out the $800 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, which is so important in supporting jobs in local communities and stimulating local economies. It will provide a long-term legacy for these communities. The Prime Minister announced a measure today, included in our budget, of an additional $220 million for local government through this program. This brings our investment since last November to over $1 billion.
We know that at a time when the government is committed to cushioning the impact of the global economic recession, local capital works that can be got going quickly—which are shovel ready—are ideal as a measure to support jobs in communities. Indeed, every single local government area—regardless of political leadership, city or country or state, big or small—has benefited from this important program. Some 3,300 projects have been funded already, with many of those projects already completed. Work is progressing. I am advised that some 88 per cent of projects around the country have work underway right now.
I conclude by paying particular tribute to the two national awards for excellence that were presented by the Prime Minister at the Australian local government awards dinner last night. The large council award went to Newcastle City Council for their ClimateCam International Test Laboratory, a world-leading program which has now been copied around the world. The great city of Newcastle is represented by my colleague the member for Newcastle. It takes that regional city to the globe and shows once again that it is, as it is in so many areas, an innovative world leader as a regional city.
I want to pay particular tribute to the Carpentaria Shire Council, which is in the electorate of Kennedy. They received the small council award. Their program was entitled ‘Domestic violence—it’s not our game’. What has occurred there is that the local NRL football team has received sponsorship and support through the local council—this was certainly supported, I am sure, by the member for Kennedy—under the theme ‘Domestic violence—it’s not our game’. It was found that this community had the worst rates of domestic violence in Queensland and that a very effective way of getting that message out to the community is with this sponsorship. The key outcomes include a 55 per cent drop in domestic violence incidents, a 64 per cent drop in breaches of domestic violence orders and a cultural shift whereby domestic violence is unacceptable. That is a critical example.
The young Indigenous men who play for this NRL team were so proud to receive this award from the Prime Minister. These proud Indigenous men will be on The Footy Show tonight. That is a great thing—getting that message about domestic violence out there to communities. Local government has played a critical role in this and so many other community activities. I pay tribute to them. I thank the local government mayors and shire presidents for the way that they participated in what was a very successful second meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to last night’s interview where the ABC’s Tony Jones asked the finance minister whether it was ‘odd’ to plead the case of John Grant at a meeting where Ford Credit was seeking financial support from the Commonwealth. The minister replied: ‘I don’t think necessarily it was, Tony.’ Treasurer, at what point does it become odd to hand over the mobile phone number of the Prime Minister’s benefactor and friend in a $500 million facility negotiation?
At a time like this, Australians expect us to be working our butts off to support jobs and to support families and not be wasting our time with juvenile misrepresentations of propositions like they have been doing all week. All week they have been doing that. The shadow Treasurer is a world champion at it, but he is very sloppy, our Joe, because he misrepresents what is said all of the time. I think it is the case that Australians are fed up with the behaviour of the opposition in this House and up in the Senate. They are fed up with it. I can see today from the doorstops that so are some of the backbench over there. This is what the member for Bowman had to say on the doors today. He said: ‘It’s been a bit disappointing that the entire week has been consumed by an affair that isn’t making a great deal of difference around the kitchen table.’ I will tell you who is focused on the kitchen table: everybody on this side of the House. That is what we were doing back in February: supporting car dealers right around the country, trying to address the situation that had been brought about by the global recession. We were concerned about problems in the auto supply chain. That is what we were concerned about and genuine about.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. I really hope he will answer just one question.
The Treasurer will relate his material to the question.
There is more than one, because we also had the member for Canning on the doors:
They—
constituents—
are more interested in what’s happening to them on a daily basis—what’s happening to, you know, their jobs, what’s happening to their mortgages. They’re more interested in that than this, what I consider somewhat of a sideshow.’
What have his leader and the shadow Treasurer been doing all week? It is a sideshow! We are in the middle of a global recession. This economy is performing the best—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, again going to relevance.
The Treasurer will relate his material to the question.
This economy is performing the best of any advanced economy in the OECD, but there are big challenges ahead. The biggest roadblock to recovery in this country is the focus of the opposition on fear campaigns on debt and smear campaigns against me and the Prime Minister.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister outline the importance of productivity for long-term sustainable growth? Why is investment in nation-building infrastructure critical for strong productivity growth?
I thank the member for Fowler for her question. While much public commentary has been focused on the global recession and the financial crisis that triggered it and the Liberal Party remains obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories that are swirling around their feet and minds, the government is focused firmly on the longer term, particularly the longer term economic challenges facing Australia. At the heart of those challenges lies one word, a simple concept, and that is productivity. That is at the centre of the economic challenge facing Australia in the longer term.
If you look at the mechanisms through which the global financial crisis has been transmitted into Australia and how it has impacted on the Australian economy and how the global recession is impacting on the Australian economy, at the core of that lies poor export performance, a very large current account deficit—it was over six per cent of GDP when we took office—and long-term dependence on foreign borrowing by our banking system. All of those are factors which ultimately are symptoms of inadequate productivity performance. We have to improve our productivity performance in Australia.
If you look at the long-term trend, in the mid-nineties productivity was tracking over a five-year average at about 3.3 per cent. That has deteriorated to a point where in mid-2000 that average had gone down to 1.1 per cent. That is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for a modern nation like Australia that aspires to high living standards and to security for its people.
The government does have a comprehensive strategy for a long-term approach to dealing with the productivity problems facing Australia. That strategy consists of, first, investing in long-term infrastructure, in economic infrastructure through the Building Australia Fund, and of course Infrastructure Australia. Examples that were announced in the budget include the Oakajee Port project in Western Australia, the Hunter Expressway in New South Wales, the regional rail project in Victoria and of course the big equity injection for the Australian Rail Track Corporation.
Second, there is the National Broadband Network, which is transforming our economy and our productive capacity. Once it is implemented, it will completely alter the business environment with opportunities for innovation, the creation of new applications and new business models in the Australian economy. Third, there is investment in the development of skills all the way from early childhood through to university and beyond, investment both in capital and buildings, whether for schools or universities, through the education infrastructure fund, or indeed in more university places.
Fourth, we have investment in renewable energy with investment in the transition that our economy has to make from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon economy through things like the Renewables Institute and Solar Institute. Fifth, we are reforming the structure of assistance for research and development in the Australian economy, particularly the transformation of the old R&D tax concession into a R&D tax credit which will make for much greater opportunities for smaller, newer companies to access the effective assistance that that credit will provide. And sixth—and certainly by no means least—there will be regulatory reform, developing a seamless national economy for Australia so that antiquated state boundaries and state and territory regulatory regimes can be harmonised across the country and we have a single national economic framework within which business can function.
The Liberal Party display little interest in these issues. When they do display some interest, their sole involvement is to snipe, to attack, to undermine. Sadly, that lack of interest has been a characteristic of their behaviour and not just recently in their opposition mode of opportunistically talking down the economy; it has also been characteristic of their role in government. Australia has endured a lost decade in productivity, a lost decade in export performance, a lost decade in investment in infrastructure, a lost decade in investment in skills and a lost decade in regulatory reform—all at the hands of the previous government. There is no interest in the hard yards that need to be done to lift Australia’s productivity performance. They inherited a strong productivity economy from the previous Labor government and they handed over to this Labor government a low-productivity economy. It turns to the Labor Party, the Rudd government, yet again to lift the productivity performance of Australia back to where it needs to be.
All week we have had this trivial, juvenile nonsense that has been dreamed up in their own conspiratorial minds—and we are hearing it again today—about issues that the vast majority of Australians do not care about. The government are getting on with the tough business of governing Australia, of lifting our productivity performance, of investing for the long-term, future prosperity of this nation. The opposition is not fit to lead Australia and, most importantly, the Leader of the Opposition is not fit to lead this nation.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with his minister for finance’s assessment last night of OzCar when he said:
If you look at the total picture you will see there are lots of representations going on with respect to car dealers and financiers, lots of connections being made.
Prime Minister, how many of these connections included a personal phone call from the Treasurer, updates to the Treasurer’s home fax, a car dealer’s mobile phone details being handed over to the CEO of a finance company seeking a $500 million Commonwealth guarantee, a Treasury official referring to the Prime Minister’s friendship with a car dealer when seeking finance on that dealer’s behalf, and self-assessment of financial viability by the dealer? Isn’t it true that if you look at the total picture, of the 240 car dealers, only one had the right connections and got the special treatment?
I stand by everything that I have said earlier in this place and I have full confidence in the Treasurer. That is the first point. The second thing I would say to those opposite is that the Leader of the Opposition, as this week has unfolded, has fundamentally holed his integrity. He has fundamentally undermined his authority. We have seen it day in, day out through this debate in this chamber. When the nation is expecting us to be engaged in a debate about the economy, about climate change and about jobs, instead, after 36 hours of the House sitting this week, those opposite have not asked a single question on the economy, not a single question on families, not a single question on education, not a single question on health, not a single question, least of all, on climate change. There has not been a single question on any matter other than what we have seen, which is the rolling politics of fear and smear.
Can I simply say to those opposite that throughout the course of this week what we have had is a government getting on with the business of cushioning Australia from the worst impacts of the global economic recession in contrast with a Liberal Party wasting the nation’s time rather than getting on with the business of government. What we in the government have is a positive economic strategy to cushion Australia from the recession. Those opposite have a negative strategy with the objective of talking the economy down based on the politics of fear and smear and based, in the end, on the falsehood of a forged document. Above all, what we have demonstrated this week is that this Leader of the Opposition is no longer sustainable in his current position.
We saw the member for North Sydney walk away from him only the other night. We saw the member for North Sydney, in response to the question ‘Whose idea was this?’ say, ‘Ah, his.’ He said it did not have anything to do with him. As I said yesterday to the House, when you are in a scrap the last person you want to have behind you is the member for North Sydney. The member for North Sydney demonstrated such robust qualities of loyalty and solidarity to his leader when placed under pressure in an interview only yesterday! Instead, he ran a million miles away. But he is not the only one. Various writers in today’s papers have reflected the observations of others. In other words, when asked the common question on the part of all those opposite: ‘Whose strategy was this?’ the general answer on the part of those opposite was: ‘It was this fellow’s strategy.’ In fact, it was: ‘Don’t look at me, just look at him.’
Where we have got to in this debate, which has lasted the entire week when the entire nation would have had us focus instead on jobs, on small business, on getting ahead with the economy and on making sure that we make a difference in the midst of the worst economic recession in three-quarters of a century, is a Leader of the Opposition slowly sinking beneath the waves in the eyes of his colleagues. What we have now, through his own efforts this week and his own efforts alone, is a Leader of the Opposition no longer fit for office.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s response to developments in Iran?
I thank the honourable member for his question, because I think all fair-minded Australians and all fair-minded peoples in the world are observing events in Iran at present with great concern at this rolling travesty of democracy. The Australian government deplores the brutality, the repression and the violence against peaceful protesters. There are clear doubts about the integrity of the election process and result—doubts made even clearer by the announcement of a review of the results by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Preliminary findings are that there were electoral irregularities. Two days ago, Khamenei agreed to extend the review—but for a mere five days. We call on this review to be full, fair and thorough with the results made available for all to see. Frankly, we do not hold much hope. The Iranian authorities have pre-empted the review by rolling out an annulment of the election results. This is genuinely a disgrace. Worse, they have undertaken a severe crackdown on their own people. Voters and ordinary citizens are so concerned by the election results they risk their lives to speak up for their vote. They are peaceful protestors facing violent reprisals and growing arrests. People are shouting their protest from the rooftops in the dark because they are so afraid of what would happen to them were they to say so during the daylight. There is an increased media blackout making it harder for the world to see the true extent of what is going on in Iran today. But we see enough to discern the truth. We have condemned the reported arrest of journalists and remain deeply concerned about foreign journalists being told to leave Iran.
This behaviour is in stark contrast to the political enthusiasm shown by the people of Iran in the lead-up to the elections. Expressing our concern and outrage at the brutalisation of peaceful protesters is not, as Iran’s leadership has claimed, interference in its internal affairs; it is an obligation. The Australian government calls on Iran to halt violence against protesters, to ensure that all Iranians have the right to peaceful protest and the free expression of their political views, to release those who have been detained for expressing their political views, to allow media freedom as part of that free expression and to review the electoral process thoroughly, dispassionately and fairly so that the will of the Iranian people can be seen to be expressed.
The Australian government has registered its deep concerns with the government of Iran and will continue to do so in partnership with our friends and allies around the world. The government will also continue to urge Iran, and will continue to press action on Iran, to meet its international obligations related to concerns about its nuclear program. Iran continues to reject sustained international efforts to work with it to resolve this problem. It continues to reject the generous package offered for a resolution of this problem. As we know, President Obama has made a historic decision to reach out his hand to Iran. We support his diplomacy and his action unreservedly. Iran now has an opportunity to offer its own hand back. As I have said before, Iran therefore has a clear choice: it can take a responsible path and take concrete steps to engage with the international community or it can continue down its current path, which will only lead to further international isolation. I believe I speak on behalf of all members in this place when we condemn the repression of human rights in Iran and this appalling travesty of democracy unfolding before our eyes.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: the opposition associates itself with the remarks of the Prime Minister. We support the sentiments expressed. They are committed to freedom as we are for the people of Iran.
I refer the Treasurer to an interview on Radio National this morning with Longreach car dealer Jane Colvin. Jane Colvin says that when she contacted her local MP, the member for Flynn, to inquire about OzCar financing she was initially just sent a press release. Jane Colvin says she then tried to get more information but:
… we never received anything back from the politicians after that basically. We contacted others as well as our local member but we really did not get any information.
Does the Treasurer stand by his claim that all car dealers have been treated the same or does he only look after friends of the Prime Minister?
First of all, that car dealer never contacted my office. That car dealer did contact the member for Flynn, who did assist that car dealer. As I said to the member the other day, if he has any further information, I am more than happy to follow it up with the Treasury. I have no evidence that that car dealer did speak to Treasury but, if that exists, I will be happy to follow it up. These matters are being dealt with by the Treasury secretary. You would appreciate that in these circumstances it is somewhat more difficult at the moment, given the circumstances of one of the officers in the department.
It is also the case that many car dealers may not have been eligible for assistance. It depends on the circumstances. If the member is serious, I am happy to look at all of those details, and I will follow them up, as I have done whenever I have been approached by anybody.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. Will the minister inform the House about any new information on the impact of the government’s plan to support jobs in the building industry?
I would like to thank the member for Corangamite. I know he is very concerned about employment in the construction industry in his area in particular. In October the government established the first home owner boost because we knew that increased activity in the housing and construction area would support jobs, not just in the construction industry itself but also in the material supply, retail, banking and other associated industries. I am very pleased to inform the House that, by the end of May this year, 97,761 households had taken up the first home owner boost. That means that by now well over 100,000 households have benefited from the first home owner boost. That is nation building for our future.
The member for Corangamite has been telling me about how successful this boost has been in the area he represents—in suburbs like Grovedale, Torquay and Colac. It is a story I have been hearing around the country. For months the official data has been telling us that record numbers of first home buyers are entering the market. Housing finance data shows that, and ABS data on employment by industry shows that employment in the construction industry was up by 10,000 jobs in the three months to May 2009.
Two months ago I visited a first home buyers show in Brisbane. There I saw the number of people getting information about entering the housing market. I also met Rob Lyndon, the Managing Director of Adenbrook Homes. He said to me that, whereas once upon a time first home buyers accounted for about 10 per cent of Adenbrook’s business, they now account for about 40 per cent of Adenbrook’s business. That means that they are bringing a different type of product to the market—smaller and more modest homes. Theirs start at $125,900, plus land costs. They are also expanding into three additional regions because of the extra demand generated by this government’s first home owner boost.
Of course, our support for housing and construction reaches beyond first home buyers to the $6.4 billion we have set aside to build 20,000 new public housing dwellings across the country. The great news is that we are well ahead of schedule with this building. With the $400 million we have set aside for repairs and maintenance, we had originally planned for about 2,500 homes to be saved from the wrecker’s ball. Instead, 10,648 dwellings will be saved from the wrecker’s ball and another 38,000 homes will have other work done to them. In stage 1 of new construction, which is under way, we are building 2,690 dwellings, which is 400 more than we anticipated, and 500 of these homes are being built as we speak. The first one is complete and a family has already moved in—well ahead of the time we expected.
This government has a plan for nation building for recovery. It would be terrific if the opposition focused, as we have been focusing, on jobs for Australians.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s interview on AM this morning.
Government members interjecting—
Those on my right will remain silent.
I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s interview on AM this morning. After failing to name one car dealer other than John Grant who received a personal phone call from the Treasurer, he responded:
Well it’s not exactly the right question.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only way to have all the questions answered is to call a full judicial inquiry?
I am interested that the honourable member raises the question of inquiries. I am interested that the honourable member raises the question which therefore goes to what is happening with an AFP inquiry. It goes to the question of an undertaking that he gave across the chamber two days ago to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation that he would cooperate fully with the AFP investigation, yet I heard in the last 24 hours—I thought—the Leader of the Opposition saying he would not provide his computer records to this inquiry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to reflect on that.
The government has in place an AFP inquiry. We have in place an Auditor-General’s inquiry. We believe these measures are sufficient. I say to the honourable member opposite that there are so many questions which now hang over his head concerning his dealings with this individual. It is time that he gave a full account of these matters.
Mr Speaker—
Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Yes.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery. Would the minister inform the House of the impacts of climate change on rural and regional health and why action is needed?
Can I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Unlike our friends opposite, who on this subject are led by a cabal of sceptics and fakers, the member for Leichhardt along with his colleagues on this side of the House understand only too well the impact of climate change on their communities.
It is worth while reflecting for just a moment on the likely health effects of climate change. They are likely to include deaths, illness and injury from heatwaves affecting, in particular, children, the elderly, people from lower socioeconomic groups, people with pre-existing medical conditions, people employed outdoors, such as construction workers; and from more frequent and intense extreme weather events, including bushfires, floods, storms, coastal storm surges and cyclones. And these may of course also trigger mental health problems. I make the observation, despite the protests from those opposite, that during the course of the debate earlier this week on the issue of rural adjustment members of the National Party sitting in this place spoke about the importance of looking after the mental health of their constituents. They said this because of the duress they were under as a result of climatic events.
Unlike those opposite, we understand that we need to do something about climate change. I know that the member for Leichhardt, for example, is acutely aware of the impacts of climate change on his electorate. In his electorate he can expect the spread of vector-borne, water-borne and food-borne disease. He can expect dengue fever to spread, possibly getting down as far as Rockhampton by 2050. He can expect increasingly extreme storm events. He can expect that the Great Barrier Reef is likely to experience significant annual bleaching by 2030.
The member for Mallee—someone who, I understand, thinks carefully about these issues—can expect that in his electorate the average annual number of days over 35 degrees will increase significantly. In Victoria the decline in annual rainfall and increased evaporation is likely to reduce run-off into rivers by up to 45 per cent in 29 catchments by 2030. The member for Kalgoorlie can expect that by 2030 the annual average number of days in Broome over 35 degrees will grow from the current 54 days to between 64 and 119 days.
Mr Laming interjecting
The member for Bowman is warned.
It just demonstrates the truth of what I said at the outset: they are led by a cabal of sceptics and fakers. We are about to start the show season in the Northern Territory. You can understand what we are about to see. We could have this cabal of fakers standing around the parade ring being led by the Leader of the Opposition followed by his conga line—these people who are sceptics who are not prepared to act on the issue of climate change and are stalling the government’s CPRS legislation in the Senate. This is a demonstration yet again not only of their lack of understanding of their own communities or their understanding of the regional impacts of climate change or their care for their communities but of how unfit they are to govern.
Mr Speaker—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I am not sure if the members on my left thought they were effective in the way that they treated the minister while he was answering, but to then continue it while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is preparing for her question amazes me.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer the minister to his statement in the House on Tuesday that a fake email was:
… according to the Australian Federal Police, created on a Treasury computer and emailed from Treasury to the computer at the home of Mr Grech. Although it was subsequently deleted from the Treasury computer …
I remind the minister that the only public statement by the Australian Federal Police on the preliminary results of its investigation makes no mention of any of these allegations. Will the minister advise the House of the source of these allegations he made during the course of this police investigation?
I am genuinely puzzled by the member for Curtin’s question, because I have here a media statement by the Australian Federal Police which tends to suggest that she has not been keeping up with events. So I would suggest that it is long overdue for the opposition to get onto the real issues that concern people in this nation; to give up on what has become a desperately embarrassing effort that now has absolutely not the slightest thread of credibility. So, I am afraid that there is no basis for the—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning relevance. The fact is that not one of the allegations made by the minister would—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat; she cannot debate the issue. The minister is responding to the question.
In conclusion, I would point out to the member for Curtin that, if she scrutinises Hansard for Monday, 22 June—in particular, statements from the member for North Sydney—she might find that in fact her question could be better addressed to him.
Mr Speaker, I seek to table the public press release from the Australian Federal Police that makes no mention of the Treasury computer, of Mr Grech or of the deletion of the email.
Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
Mr Speaker, I ask the minister for finance to table the statement from the AFP that he was referring to.
Was the minister reading from a document? The minister has indicated that he did not read from a document.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister inform the House on the outlook for agricultural exports? What opportunities are there for the government to drive efficiencies to further advantage our agricultural exporters?
I thank the member for Blair for the question. A good part of the positive economic story that has been coming out in various reports of late has been the success of Australian agricultural exports. The government has been determined through the process following the Beale review to continue to advance that. Members would be aware that, previously, questions have been asked by the opposition on the cost impact that would come about as a result of the abolition of the 40 per cent export subsidy. Following that first being announced, representations were made to me by industry to seek out ways that we could perhaps kick off a reform process which would allow a whole lot of efficiencies to be driven so that, instead of a cost-recovery process which demanded that the public servants would have to make themselves more efficient directly and then industry would just have to wear whatever cost the outcome was, industry would have the potential to take control of some of those efficiencies on a more direct basis.
Those discussions have been continuing with industry, and last Friday I was able to jointly announce with industry a $40 million package, all of which was extra money being made available to deliver those reforms over the next 12 months.
In the days that have followed, there have been very constructive conversations with all sides of parliament and all sides of the Senate, which came to a head today in a discussion as to whether or not the Senate would pursue issues that had already been flagged with respect to disallowance of the fees that have come through as a result of the abolition of the 40 per cent export subsidy. All members of the Senate have been involved in constructive conversations. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of and the discussions that we had with the Greens on particular undertakings that they sought with respect to the horticulture sector and making sure that the refund process could actually be done across the entire 12 months, taking account of the seasonal nature of those exports. I also acknowledge the discussions with both the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry here and his representative in the Senate in terms of particular guarantees that they have sought on both a 12-month review and a review that would take account of the impact on small abattoirs in the lead-up between now and August.
I am pleased to say that the Senate ended up determining to defer that disallowance resolution. What that allows now is for the reform process to go ahead. Had that disallowance been carried, there would have been a $40 million hole in the quarantine budget, and the quarantine services would not have been in a position to continue to fund themselves throughout the whole financial year.
It has been a situation where a lot of constructive work has been done during the course of the week, and Australian agricultural exporters have an opportunity now to be the long-term beneficiaries of a long-overdue reform.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, with regard to energy use and climate change, if your government is committed to better energy efficiency, committed to delays or avoidance of further coal fired or nuclear generation, committed to true engagement of community in a transition economy, committed to dealing particularly with peak load issues on electricity infrastructure and committed to a national electricity market and a national electricity grid as compared to emerging bidding wars between various states—Prime Minister, if you are committed to these, can you explain your view, your government’s view, on a national feed-in tariff scheme, including consideration of my private member’s bill, which is currently before the House?
I go to his ‘Kennedyesque’ preamble to his question. I noted them all down. They go to renewable energy, the future of coal fired generation and other forms of generation, a national transmission system, peak load stations and also a national electricity market—and the role within all that of a feed-in tariff regime, as I understand it.
In terms of our commitment, first of all, to action on climate change, the government’s strategy is clear. We are proceeding on at least three separate fronts. Firstly, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as honourable members would be aware, has been introduced by the government to the parliament. We await with active interest what those opposite will do in terms of a critical vote which must occur on it. We know that those opposite have voted so far to do one thing, which is to vote not to vote on it.
But we, the government, have decided that the way ahead is for Australia to have a legislative regime in place because of the needs of business certainty and because of the impending meeting in Copenhagen, which affects us all. The decisions taken there will affect what happens with greenhouse gas emissions globally and, critically, the roll-in of the big economies.
The second front that we are operating on, of course, is what we are doing on energy efficiency. We have particular measures on that already advanced, not least of which is the $4 billion investment that we have underway at present for energy efficiency measures for homes—namely, to have as an objective for the nation energy efficiency measures including ceiling insulation in all of Australia’s owner occupied dwellings. That is a good objective for the nation—and good for jobs also, on the way through—but very good in terms of taking 50 million tonnes equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere.
The third front that we are operating on is the renewable energy target, and of course that goes to the question of legislation as well. We wait with interest as to the posture that will be adopted by those opposite. This is also important, as honourable members would be aware, to the matters I raised earlier in the week about creating the legislative regime to provide discounts effectively for consumers wanting to install solar panels in the future. It is critical that this legislation is passed because it goes to how in fact we are going to provide renewable energy certificates—
You still haven’t listed it for debate until 2 am tonight!
I do love it when the Liberal Party interject on the delay of legislation. The member for Flinders—in on queue. When it comes to the delay in legislation, when those opposite boast of filibustering, there is something to be answered by those opposite: who is in the business of delaying legislation? We know why these things are occurring. It goes to a collapse of authority, a collapse of leadership. The Leader of the Opposition cannot unite his party, cannot unite the Liberal Party—
Mr Hunt interjecting
Order! The member for Flinders should curb his enthusiasm.
or the coalition on these critical questions which are before the parliament.
On the renewable energy target, it also goes to a question which was raised by the honourable member about how we dovetail those arrangements and other arrangements with the whole proposition of feed-in tariffs. This will be the subject of continuing discussion between ourselves and the states. As the honourable member will be familiar with, states have different arrangements on this matter. I can understand, therefore, some of the concerns that are raised in the community on this. We, through our officials, are consulting with the states on a range of matters and will continue to do so. As these consultations come to a conclusion and produce a particular outcome for the nation on feed-in tariffs, if we are able to get to that outcome, then I will of course answer further to the honourable member’s question. We understand the logic of what has been put behind it, we understand the difficulties we currently face given the different regimes which exist in various other states and we understand the complexities which arise as a result, but I can assure the honourable member that we are working through each of those challenges and we are doing so with officials from all of the states and territories.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister outline how the government’s secure and sustainable pension reforms will prepare Australia for future challenges, and of any responses to these reforms?
I thank the member for Shortland for her question and for her very hard work on behalf of more than 26,500 pensioners in her electorate of Shortland.
I can inform the House and the 3.3 million pensioners around Australia—age pensioners, disability support pensioners, carers and veterans service pensioners—that we expect and hope that this afternoon in the Senate this government’s historic reforms to the pension will become law. These laws will deliver a historic level of pension increase and historic reforms to the pension from September this year. These reforms are long overdue. A new report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the government’s reforms are certainly essential. The Pensions at a glance report shows that the poverty rate for older Australians is double the OECD average. The report bases its figures on 2006 figures. Only Ireland, Korea and Mexico have higher rates of old-aged poverty than Australia. The OECD makes it clear that Australia’s pension system has been inadequate for some time. It says:
The high risk of old-age poverty in Australia is mainly due to the relatively low level of the age pension.
Page after page in this report shows how the former government ignored the plight of pensioners for 12 long years. For 12 years they did nothing, despite knowing just how tough it has been for pensioners in this country. The previous cabinet even rejected a proposal brought by the previous minister to their cabinet to increase the pension. I say to the current Leader of the Opposition: shame on him and shame on every single member of the former Howard government that ignored the plight of our pensioners.
By contrast, of course, this government is delivering the biggest pension reform for 100 years. For 100 years we have seen the pension as such a critical part of our social security system, and these reforms are long overdue. We know that these reforms have also needed some very tough, very difficult decisions made that the previous government did not have the bottle to make. They did not have the decency to increase the pension and they certainly did not have the bottle to do some of the difficult things that needed to be done—decisions like increasing the age pension age. Of course now that they are in opposition, they say that they support some of these tough decisions. Here is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in relation to the age pension age on ABC radio back in May:
… I think a modest increase in the age is a structural reform that is worthwhile.
But of course we have got very used to the Leader of the Opposition saying one thing and his members of the coalition rushing out there and saying the exact opposite. We know he cannot control his party on climate change or on alcopops legislation and he certainly cannot control his party on pension reform. What I have here is something from yet another member of the Liberal opposition. This is from the South Australian senator Simon Birmingham. He is out there in his latest newsletter saying:
The Labor government has once again shown its mean and tricky colours by raising the retirement age.
That is the exact opposite—
Mr Rudd interjecting
That is exactly right; the Prime Minister reminds me. The member for Warringah says we should increase the age pension age more quickly, the Leader of the Opposition says we should do it and Simon Birmingham said it is somehow ‘mean and tricky’. Of course, we know who was the best at mean and tricky statements. What we would hope to see from a real leader is the capacity to get behind these tough decisions, to pull his party together and to make sure that we get these tough decisions through the parliament. But what we know, in fact, is that he has completely lost control and the opposition is now a total rabble.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his announcement that the Auditor-General will investigate and report on the OzCar affair. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that all of the Auditor-General’s reports in response to this request will be tabled in this parliament?
The honourable member knows full well that the Auditor-General operates independently, and his investigation should proceed in that manner. Secondly, so should the AFP’s investigation. Thirdly, the opposition should cooperate fully and provide their computer records to the AFP investigation.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Would the minister update the House about Australia’s plans with respect to membership of the International Renewable Energy Agency and outline why action on climate change is urgently required?
I thank the member for Fremantle for the question. It is a further statement of her interest not only in the energy debate but in the all-important issue of clean energy. On 17 May the Prime Minister announced that Australia would join the International Renewable Energy Agency. It is on that basis that I will be travelling to Egypt on the weekend for the purposes of signing on behalf of Australia at the formation of the international institute and participating in a debate about the work of the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Historically, Australia’s participation internationally in the energy debate has gone to the work of the International Energy Agency, and for years that debate has been on the question of energy security. Given the challenge of climate change and the need to move to a low-emissions global community, the debate about energy has become far more complex. It is no longer just about energy security; it is also about energy security in the context of moving towards clean energy. Our participation in IRENA is very much part of that. It is about Australia leading internationally, in the same way in which we are leading domestically, on the clean energy debate.
I have already referred to the fact that it was Australia’s leadership that has now led to the formation of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which is about making sure that we maintain energy security in Australia whilst guaranteeing the future of our coal fired power stations because, as we all appreciate, they supply 82 per cent of Australia’s energy. In terms of the international energy debate, it is also our responsibility not only to invest in technology domestically but also to participate in the international technology debate. I say that because technology has created this challenge of climate change, and technology will be the solution. The role of IRENA is to promote the sustainable use of renewable energy on a global scale. It is also its responsibility, as it is Australia’s responsibility, to devolve that technology to developing nations. If we are to make a contribution globally, then one of our responsibilities is to invest internationally in research and development and to assist less developed countries to pick up and use that technology on a commercial scale.
The question also went to our responsibilities domestically on the climate change front. I remind the House that the budget actually provided for an investment of $2 billion by the Australian government in accelerating the demonstration on a commercial base of renewable energy in Australia. That commitment included $1.6 billion for the Solar Flagships Program and an additional $465 million to the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. That raises the issue of certainty. It goes to the heart of our requirement as a nation to put a price in place on carbon and also to establish once and for all a set target on renewable energy. I say that because the energy security debate requires investment horizons that enable the private sector to make investment decisions in Australia. As we all appreciate—
You’ve had a year.
It has been a year of hard work. The member for Flinders needs to be reminded of a comparison with the work we put in place over the last four months. We put in place the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and we also put in place the renewable energy target that will facilitate investment in Australia, but he was part of a government that had 12 years to do something and actually did nothing on the climate change debate.
That also raises the nature of question time today. This government has actually focused on a serious debate throughout the course of question time this afternoon, and I compare that with the other side of the House. Just think about the issues that we have confronted this afternoon, and not only this afternoon but over the course of the whole week, while the opposition has continued to wallow in the gutter. Let us go to the nature of those questions: the all-important issue of jobs and the state of the Australian economy—an issue that never confronted the previous government over 12 long years.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 104: he was not asked on this subject and he should not answer on it.
The minister will relate his material to the question.
Move he be no longer heard, Tony!
The Leader of the House!
Mr Speaker, I was going to the issue of climate change and the importance of the economy. Our investment in climate change actually goes to the issue of the future of the Australian economy, because unless we invest in clean energy we do not have energy security in Australia. And energy security goes to the heart of the debate in the House this afternoon in question time: the strength of the Australian economy, our capacity to invest in infrastructure and our capacity to create new jobs in Australia and to skill Australia in new challenges with respect to job growth and investment by the private sector in Australia. It also goes to the issue of productivity—just like climate change, another issue that the former government never confronted over 12 years. So, as we leave question time this afternoon, at the end of a long parliamentary session, just think about this comparison.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Member for Warringah, the minister is being relevant to the question, but I urge him to commence summing up his answer.
Yes, the truth does hurt. This side of the House will continue to solve the problems the Australian community expects us to solve to invest in our future, while the opposition continues to wallow in the gutter.
My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney to his previous answer in this House, where he stressed the importance of an independent police investigation into the creation of an email. Will the Attorney advise the House on whether he has provided any updates to any ministers, including the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, on developments in that police investigation further to the Australian Federal Police statement released on Monday?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The answer to the honourable member’s question is no.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I congratulate him on his statement yesterday on forestry. Can the minister outline the government’s priorities in agriculture and the importance of providing certainty in policy, including the monitoring and protection of Australia’s flora and fauna?
I thank the honourable member for his question and his comments concerning the ministerial statement on forestry that was made yesterday. One of the important things for people in any form of business, including the farming business, is to have certainty. It is important to provide certainty for them so that they are able to make business decisions now, plan for themselves and then act into the future. That is the reason the government made sure that it put out for discussion the green paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, made sure it put out the white paper and made sure it put out the draft legislation and introduced the legislation into the parliament using a very clear timetable.
That capacity for certainty is entirely limited by the incapacity of the opposition to deliver on providing a position. Whether it be on the alcopops legislation, on the immigration vote that we had today or on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the only thing they have been unable to agree on is to not vote at all. The sceptics have gradually won the argument and the person who badged himself as believing passionately in action on this issue was even willing to abandon that. Of all the things that business will ask for on any policy issue, the one they ask for most often is certainty, yet we find ourselves in a situation where even that is not able to be delivered because of the state of the current opposition. The fact is that they are in the situation now of having more factions and groups than they have members.
I also deal with the importance of certainty in animal welfare in my role in the agriculture portfolio. The differences from state to state and the different sets of rules regarding animal welfare are seen as being a major problem, which is often raised in the ministerial council. My responsibilities do not go only to production animals; they also extend to domestic pets. The Leader of the House used the line a couple of days ago, in passing, that a dead cat can not bounce. Annabel Crabb has revealed a story of the very sad passing of a cat, in the Quarterly Essay, which raises serious—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He was asked about agricultural priorities and, under standing order 104, he should stick to what he was asked about.
The minister will relate his material to the question.
As part of that protection of fauna, it is important that we know that when someone is in a bad mood you do have to take extra care of domestic pets.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
I have important responsibilities on the issue of animal welfare, and I am aware of potential threats to Jasper the cat, living at the Lodge. I do put the Leader of the Opposition on notice: if anything happens to Jasper the cat, questions will be asked.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to request the minister to withdraw that imputation. That was a grubby remark. I ask it to be withdrawn.
I am honestly, perhaps naively, not aware of what the aspect is that has brought offence.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! If the Leader of the Opposition wants to further expand so as to assist me—on usual reading of it, I am honestly having difficulty.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order, I understand your predicament, but, given the minister’s waving around of a particular recent publication, it was quite clearly a smear directed at the Leader of the Opposition. It is offensive and it should be withdrawn, and I request that it be withdrawn.
Opposition members interjecting—
If people really want me to take action, if they would just wait a second. To assist the orderly carrying out of the further business of the House today, I ask the minister to consider withdrawing.
On the point of order, Mr Speaker, we have come into this House, not just today but this week, to debate issues. The opposition have engaged in a grubby, opportunistic campaign all week. Not one question on policy, imputations in every single question that they have asked for four days—
Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Whilst not a point of order, a point has been made, but I will ask the minister to consider withdrawing.
I withdraw.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that that be withdrawn.
The offending member will withdraw.
I withdraw.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Firstly, to assist the House, to advise members of what are likely to be the arrangements—there is not certainty because there is not certainty about what is occurring in the Senate—it would appear that we will likely be in a position to adjourn at the normal time because of the failure of the Senate to deal with legislation. I will update the House if that changes. I obviously am not conscious of what may occur in the other place, as we refer to it formally, between now and the next little while, but at this stage it would appear that we will adjourn at the normal time. If that is not the case, I will advise the House as soon as I know otherwise. I have had discussions with the acting Manager of Opposition Business. If we do have to come back to receive some legislation that is returning from the Senate then the intention will be to have a break and then come back to deal with that legislation briefly. That is the best update that I can give. I will continue to be in liaison with the acting Manager of Opposition Business because I know that people have arrangements to make.
My attention has been drawn to a list I tabled on 1 June outlining off-network projects that are being delivered as part of the Nation Building Program. My department has now updated the list and it should be noted that the total funding for off-network projects is $680.2 million. I stated in the House that it was $655.2 million, which was on the list from my department that was tabled on 1 June. Therefore, I table an updated list from the department of 41 projects at a total cost of $680.2 million. These projects form part of our record $35.8 billion investment in road, rail and port infrastructure.
Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The minister may proceed.
During question time, I learnt that Dr Ron Silberberg, the HIA managing director, will be retiring after almost 30 years with the Housing Industry Association. I know that he has been both a thorn in the side to both sides of parliament at various times and a very strong advocate for his members in the housing industry. He certainly has known the value of the economic stimulus spending that he lobbied very hard for. I know that just as he has been a help and an agitant to both sides of parliament, both sides will wish him all the very best in his future.
I rise on indulgence, Mr Speaker. I worked closely with Ron Silberberg in my capacity as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. He was a great supporter of many of the policies of the former government, including the establishment of the Building and Construction Commission. I too, on behalf of members on this side, wish him well in his retirement.
War brings many tragedies and next week we commemorate one of the greatest tragedies of the Second World War. On 1 July 1942, a United States submarine patrolling the Babuyan Channel leading from Luzon in the Philippines into the South China Sea torpedoed and sank what it believed to be a Japanese merchant vessel. It was in fact the Montevideo Maru carrying Australian prisoners of war. Its sinking is the greatest single maritime tragedy in Australia’s history, with the loss of 1,053 Australian lives. The Montevideo Maru carried no markers identifying it as a POW transport and was indistinguishable from legitimate targets of Allied aircraft and submarines. The prisoners were locked in the hold with no means of escape once the ship was struck. The Montevideo Maru took 11 minutes to sink. No prisoners survived.
What we know of this tragedy comes from Japanese survivors who eventually reached Manila and reported the sinking. By the time searches were launched, it was too late. No trace of the vessel or any survivors could be found. On board were 1,053 Australian prisoners of war and civilians who had been captured and held by the Japanese at Rabaul on the island of New Britain in what is now Papua New Guinea. Among those aboard was former member for Brand Kim Beazley’s uncle and the current member for Kingsford Smith’s grandfather.
Through the war, Australian authorities sought information on the whereabouts of those captured at Rabaul. However, they were never informed that the Montevideo Maru was sunk with the loss of all prisoners during the war. It was not until after the war that Australian authorities discovered the tragic story. With 1 July this year being the 67th anniversary of the sinking of the ship, we will pause to remember the loss. The servicemen lost on the Montevideo Maru are among the 12,104 casualties of World War II who have no known grave.
On 1 July this year, the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines, Mr Rod Smith, will unveil a plaque commemorating those on board the Montevideo Maru on behalf of the Papua New Guinea Volunteer Rifles Association at the Hell Ships Memorial established in memory of all the ships that carried POWs. Later in the year, under a grant made by the Australian government to the RSL Angeles sub branch in the Philippines, commemoration of the Montevideo Maru at the Hell Ships memorial will be further enhanced and an interpretation will be placed in a nearby museum.
The families and associations with connections to the Montevideo Maru have never lost sight of the tragedy that occurred 67 years ago. That it is still shrouded in mystery must also add to their sense of loss. It is something that we as a nation should never forget, as I am sure all members would agree.
I rise on indulgence, Mr Speaker. I would like to associate the coalition with the minister’s remarks. The sinking of the Montevideo Maru with the loss of 1,053 Australian prisoners of war and civilians on 1 July 1942 is the greatest single tragedy in Australia’s maritime history. More importantly, it is also one of our lesser known. The Montevideo Maru sank after being torpedoed off the Philippines. There were no survivors. The Australian prisoners of war and civilians who perished had been captured and held by the Japanese at Rabaul on the Island of New Britain in what is now known as Papua New Guinea. I note that the names of the Army and Air Force casualties are listed on the memorial to the missing at the Bita Paka war cemetery in Rabaul, which I have had the honour of visiting.
In placing my condolences on the record today, I wish to help to bring to the attention of the Australian public this little-known sacrifice of 1,053 Australians on board the Montevideo Maru so many years ago. In particular, I wish to thank and acknowledge those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation, a sacrifice that has contributed to the peace that we enjoy today.
I understand that on 1 July on the 67th anniversary of the tragedy the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines will unveil a new plaque commemorating those on board the Montevideo Maru on behalf of the PNG Volunteer Rifles Association at the Hell Ships Memorial established in memory of all the ships that carried prisoners of war. I commend this latest acknowledgement of the tragedy, but also wish to remind the House of the important and vital contribution of our veteran community, past, present and also into the future. It is important in honouring those who have served our nation and given the ultimate sacrifice and also in acknowledging the significant loss to their families that every effort is made to locate the resting place of those who lost their lives at sea on that fateful day. I ask and urge the government to do everything that it can to locate the resting place of those who lost their lives when the Montevideo Maru sank. Lest we forget.
For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 4 December 2008, the date of the last schedule, and 24 June 2009. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.
The document read as follows—
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 4 DECEMBER 2008
Proposed to be Circulated by the Leader of the House
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP in June 2009
FOREWORD
On 4 December 2008 the Speaker tabled a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and Joint Committees listing parliamentary committee reports to which government responses were outstanding in the period since 26 June 2008.
This document presents the government’s response to the schedule.
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (HOUSE, STANDING)
Unlocking the future: The report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Indigenous Australia at work: Successful initiative in Indigenous employment
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
Open for business: Developing Indigenous enterprises in Australia
Several of the report’s recommendations have required extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Government response is currently being finalised and will be tabled shortly.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY (HOUSE, STANDING)
Inquiry into future water supplies for Australia’s rural industries and communities - Interim Report
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Getting water right(s) - The future of rural Australia
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Taking control: a national approach to pest animals
The response has been updated from the DAFF portfolio perspective and is to be forwarded to other relevant Australian Government agencies for consideration. The response is expected to be tabled in the 2009 Spring sittings.
Skills: Rural Australia’s need
The government response is being considered as a priority and will be tabled in due course.
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (JOINT, STATUTORY)
Review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report 2004-2005
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian Society
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report 2006-07
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS (HOUSE, STANDING)
From reel to unreal: future opportunities for Australia’s film, animation, special effects and electronic games industries
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Digital Television: Who’s Buying It?
The Government is finalising policy options in relation to digital television switchover. The Government’s proposals will take into account the report’s findings.
Community Television: Options for digital broadcasting
The Government is committed to ensuring that community television has a future in digital broadcasting. The Government is carefully considering conversion options for community television before a response being tabled.
Report: Tuning in to community broadcasting
The government response is being developed and is expected to be tabled soon.
CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES (JOINT, STATUTORY)
Report on aspects of the regulation of proprietary companies
The Government is currently considering the report and will respond in due course.
CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES (JOINT, STATUTORY)
Report on the regulations and ASIC policy statements made under the Financial Services Reform Act 2001
A number of recommendations outlined in the report have been addressed. The Government is continuing to consider the outstanding recommendations and will take appropriate action.
Inquiry into the review of the Managed Investments Act 1998
The Government is continuing to consider the recommendations in this report.
Inquiry into Regulation 7.1.29 in Corporations Amendment Regulations 2003 (No.3), Statutory Rules 2003 No.85
The Government is continuing to consider the recommendations in this report.
Money matters in the bush-Inquiry into the level of banking & financial services in rural, regional & remote areas of Australia
Due to recent developments in policy, the Government is updating its response.
Report on the ATM fee structure
Due to recent developments in policy, the Government is updating its response. This report is a subsidiary report to Money Matters in the Bush.
Corporations amendment regulations 2003
The dollar disclosure requirements in the Corporations Amendment Regulations (No. 10) were implemented in August 2007. The Government is continuing to consider the outstanding recommendations and will take appropriate action.
Corporations Amendment Regulations 7.1.29A, 7.1.35A and 7.1.40(h)
The Government is continuing to consider the recommendations in this report.
Property investment advice - Safe as houses?
The Government has consulted on this matter in a Green Paper dated June 2008 and is continuing to consider the submissions provided by stakeholders.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, December 2005
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission is an independent statutory body. Recommendations relating to ASICs operational arrangements are a matter for ASIC. Recommendations relating to government policy will be considered as part of normal government business.
Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value
The Government is continuing to consider the recommendations in this report.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, August 2006
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission is an independent statutory body. Recommendations relating to ASICs operational arrangements are a matter for ASIC. Recommendations relating to Government policy will be considered as part of normal government business. The Government notes that subjects of recommendation three (of three) were dealt with in the context of Parliamentary debate on the Corporations Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and in the Treasury discussion paper, Review of Sanctions in Corporate Law, released in March 2007.
Corporations Amendment (Takeovers) Bill 2006 [Exposure Draft]
The recommendations were dealt with in the context of parliamentary debate on the bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. No further response is required.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, March 2007
The report’s only recommendation, relating to the regulation of promissory notes, is being addressed through the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill, which is to be introduced into Parliament in June 2009.
Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Bill 2007 [Exposure Draft]; Corporations and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment Regulations 2007 [Exposure Draft]
Response to the report was included in the Second Reading Speech to the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Bill 2007. No further response is required.
Structure and operation of the superannuation industry
The Government is developing its response in light of a proposed review of superannuation and will table in due course.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, August 2007
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission is an independent statutory body. Recommendations relating to ASICs operational arrangements are a matter for ASIC. Recommendations relating to government policy will be considered as part of normal government business.
Better shareholders - Better company: Shareholder engagement and participation in Australia
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, August 2008
The Committee made no recommendations. As such, no Government response is required.
Opportunity not opportunism: Improving conduct in Australian franchising
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (HOUSE, STANDING)
Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2003
The Government is considering the report and an updated response is currently being prepared.
Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40
The Government does not propose to respond to the report. The reports recommendations fall within the scope of the Review of Australia’s Future Tax System and the proposed review of the Operation and Efficiency of the Superannuation System.
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia & Payments System Board Annual Report 2005 (first report)
No Response Required.
Servicing our future - Inquiry into the current and future directions of Australia’s services export sector
The government response was tabled 4 December 2008.
Australia manufacturing: Today and tomorrow
The government is finalising the response and working towards a completion date of mid-2009.
Inquiry into home loan lending practices and processes used to deal with people in financial difficulty
The Government is considering the recommendations in this report and will prepare a response in due course.
On 27 April 2009, the Government released the Draft National Consumer Credit Reform Package for public comment. The release of this Package is a major step towards delivering credit reform in Australia.
ECONOMICS (HOUSE, STANDING)
Competition in the banking and non-banking sectors
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2007 (Second Report)
No Response Required.
ELECTORAL MATTERS (JOINT, STANDING)
Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008
Following receipt of the Advisory Report from the committee the Government made amendments to the bill and it was reintroduced on 23/03/2009. No response required.
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION (HOUSE, STANDING)
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements
The government does not intend to respond formally to this report.
Current vacancies: Workforce challenges facing the Australian tourism sector
The government response was tabled 4 February 2009.
ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE (HOUSE, STANDING)
Sustainable cities
The government’s response is being considered.
Inquiry into a Sustainability Charter, Review of Green Office Procurement Audit
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Sustainability for survival - Creating a climate for change: Report on the inquiry into a sustainability charter
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
Managing the flow - Regulating plumbing product quality
The government response was tabled on 5 February 2009.
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES (HOUSE, STANDING)
Balancing work and family
The government response is being considered by a number of departments in light of recent Budget decisions and government reviews.
The winnable war on drugs: The impact of illicit drug use on families
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (JOINT, STANDING)
Inquiry into Australia’s Defence Force regional air superiority
No government response is required as there were no recommendations.
Review of the Defence annual report 2006-2007
The Government is finalising its response.
HEALTH AND AGEING (HOUSE, STANDING)
The Blame Game: Report on the inquiry into health funding
Government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course. (The report is being finalised and updated to reflect Budget and COAG issues)
The best start: Report on the inquiry into the health benefits of breastfeeding
The government response was tabled on 4 December 2008.
Review of Auditor-General’s Report No. 19 (2006 - 2007): Administration of State and Territory compliance with the Australian Health Care Agreements
The committee noted that the review was undertaken on the assumption that the 2008-13 AHCAs would be similar to the current ones and that the recommendations may become redundant if this was not the case. On 20 December 2007, the Council of Australian Government (COAG) agreed to reforms to the architecture for Commonwealth-State funding arrangements. As the framework has changed and the Government has taken steps to address issues raised in this report, it does not intend to respond to the recommendations.
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (HOUSE, STANDING)
Research Training in Australian Universities: An Interim Report
The Government does not intend to table a response to the interim report as the final report of the inquiry, Building Australia’s Research Capacity, was tabled on 1 December 2009. The Government response to the final report is currently being considered and will be tabled as soon as possible.
Building Australia’s research capacity - Final Report
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOUSE, STANDING)
Rebuilding Australia’s coastal shipping industry: Inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation
Response in preparation; Minister has indicated response to all recommendations will be provided in 2009.
Funding regional and local community infrastructure: Proposals for the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program - Interim Report
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (JOINT, STATUTORY)
Review of security and counter terrorism legislation
The government response was tabled on 23 December 2008.
Inquiry into the proscription of terrorist organisations under the Australian Criminal Code
The government response was tabled on 23 December 2008.
Review of the re-listing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
The government response was tabled on 28 May 2009.
Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida, Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of Islamic Maghreb as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995
The government response was tabled on 28 May 2009.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (HOUSE, STANDING)
The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
The long road to statehood: Report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into older people and the law
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Reforming the Constitution: A roundtable discussion
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
MIGRATION (JOINT, STANDING)
Negotiating the maze: Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and license
The government response has been finalised and will be tabled shortly.
Temporary business visas…permanent benefits: Ensuring the effectiveness and integrity of the temporary business visa program
The Government response is being finalised, incorporating the most recent reform announcements in the temporary business visa program.
Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning - Criteria for release from immigration detention
The Government response is being finalised in consultation with relevant portfolios.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (JOINT, STANDING)
The Way Forward: Inquiry into the role of the National Capital Authority
The government response was tabled on 11 December 2008.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES (HOUSE, STANDING)
More than honey: The future of the Australian honey bee and pollination industries
The quarantine and biosecurity issues raised in the committee’s report were referred to the Quarantine and Biosecurity (Beale) Review for consideration. The government has agreed in-principle to the reforms outlined in the Beale review report. The government’s response to the committee’s report is being finalised in the context of the Beale review recommendations and is expected to be tabled in the second half of 2009.
PROCEDURE (HOUSE, STANDING)
Encouraging an interactive Chamber
Speaker wrote to the committee and the committee informed no further response required.
Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a Member: Report on events of 10 October 2006
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Re-opening the debate: Inquiry into the arrangements for the opening day of Parliament
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (JOINT, STATUTORY)
Progress on equipment acquisition and financial reporting in Defence (Report 411)
The government response tabled on the 28 January 2009.
Audit Reports reviewed during the 41st Parliament (Report 412)
The government response to recommendations 11 and 12 were tabled on 28 May 2009.
PUBLICATIONS (JOINT, STANDING)
Printing standards for documents presented to Parliament
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (HOUSE, STANDING)
Between a rock and a hard place: The science of geosequestration
The government response is under consideration and will be tabled in due course.
TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES (HOUSE, STANDING)
The great freight task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?
The Government’s position on this report is currently being considered and will be made available in due course.
TREATIES (JOINT, STANDING)
The Australia - United States Free Trade Agreement
(61st Report)
Legislation to give effect to the Free Trade Agreement was passed in January 2005. A government response to the recommendations is not required.
Treaty tabled on 12 March 2008
(91st Report)
The government response is being prepared with input from relevant portfolios. The response will be tabled in due course.
Treaties tabled on 12 March & 14 May 2008 (93rd Report)
The government response was tabled on 19 March 2009.
Treaties tabled on 14 May 2008 (94th Report)
The government response is being prepared and will be tabled in due course.
Treaties tabled on 4 June, 17 June, 25 June and 26 August 2008
(95th Report)
The government response is being prepared from relevant portfolios.
Treaties tabled on 16 September 2008
(96th Report)
A government response is not required by the Committee
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Senate on 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984 I present a report on the release of evidence and records of joint committees for the period 9 May 2008 to 11 May 2009.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 46 and 47 of 2008-09 entitled No. 46, Business continuity management and emergency management in Centrelink-Centrelink, and No. 47, Management of domestic fishing compliance-Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
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:Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period July to December 2008.Department of Finance and Deregulation—Reports—Former parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period July to December 2008. Parliamentarians’ overseas study travel reports for the period July to December 2008. Parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period July to December 2008.Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Committee—Report 412—Audit reports reviewed during the 41st Parliament—Government response to recommendation 18.Ministerial statements—Treasury—Report on the operation of the guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding—Mr Swan, the Treasurer—25 June 2009
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, item 60, page 18 (lines 3 and 4), omit “the first person did not request or require the information for”, substitute “none of the purposes for which the first person requested or required the information was”.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The growth in Commonwealth Government debt which this week passes $100 billion.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I thank my colleagues for supporting me in this matter of public importance—the appropriate protocol to follow at this juncture. It is not quite the same melancholy duty as a former Prime Minister had but, certainly, it is my melancholy duty, from an economic perspective, to inform the House that at the close of business last Wednesday, 24 June, the outstanding Commonwealth debt on issue passed the sad milestone of $100 billion. This comprised bonds of over $78 billion, indexed bonds of $6 billion and treasury notes of $16.1 billion. The milestone is all part of Labor’s plan to run up government debt of over $300 billion, a level unprecedented in our lifetime.
Interestingly, we saw this week revelations that state debt has now exceeded all expectations and by June 2013 state debt will exceed $230 billion, which means that, under Labor, Australian governments will have over half a trillion of government debt—of taxpayer debt. That is a massive amount of money. Why is Labor doing this? It is money borrowed from the next generation. In fact, I lie—I mislead the House: it is not from the next generation alone; it is from all generations. In order to repay this money it will have to be the old, the seniors, the young—every age group will have to dig deep. People not yet born will have to pay off this debt.
The economic slump will not last forever. The government’s own budget forecasts have the Australian economy recovering to above-trend growth by 2011-12. We think the government’s overall forecast and projections are ambitious, to say the least. Having said that, let us accept what the government say: let us accept that for three years there is going to be growth in Australia of less than trend. It begs the question: if we are going to have three years of below-trend growth, why do we have to have seven years of government deficits? Under the Labor Party, even on their projections, there are only three years of below-trend growth. It is not three years of negative growth; it is three years of below-trend growth. And yet we have seven years of deficits which are leaving Australians with over $300 billion of debt.
What is the impact of this debt addiction? It pushes up interest rates. The crowding-out impact results not only from the government being a borrower from the Australian people and a borrower in international markets, but from the fact that the government is a very powerful borrower in the market. It is AAA rated and when the government borrows money it ends up being in competition at some point with business—big business, small business and everyone else.
There’s not much demand!
If you believe the Labor Party, there is no crowding out. There is something absurd about that. Perhaps there is some crowding out. Arguably, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Euro zone are printing money. It works quite well in Weimar Germany and it still works quite well in Zimbabwe, and also in some other places. But there is a certain point where governments have to stop printing money and start pulling back that printed money from the economy. That has a real impact because, ultimately, it means that the only way to stop inflation getting out of control—because of all of this printed money—is to jack up interest rates. That particular time, as interest rates are going up, is exactly when we will be asking business to invest in new plant and equipment and in new enterprise and risk-taking activities. Investment often requires borrowed money. Those businesses will have to borrow at higher inflation rates because they will be competing with the 800-pound gorilla in the market, which is the Australian Office of Financial Management. For example, in Australia the secondary market yield on five-year Commonwealth treasury bonds is 5.25 per cent. That is three-quarters of a per cent higher than at the time of the May budget. It is a full two percentage points higher than the low this year in February. So it went up from 3.26 per cent on 2 February to 5.25 per cent today. That is the five-year money. It is a massive increase. Private sector borrowing costs are, of course, priced off the Commonwealth benchmark. So the costs of finance for the private sector, which are based in many ways on the yield curve of the Commonwealth bond, have gone up in a similar trajectory. At the same time, the Reserve Bank has been cutting interest rates or leaving them at a stable level. So there is rising concern globally about the global supply of sovereign debt. It is a basic economic equation: supply and demand. If governments around the world, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom and the Euro zone, are issuing bonds, if they are creating a massive supply of government bonds and flooding the market, it will inevitably lead to higher interest rates. Those higher interest rates have to be paid for by not just taxpayers but everyone, including people who do not pay tax. Everyone will pay a price because those higher interest rates will be built into the cost of everyday goods. They will be built into the cost of food, petrol, operating a car, buying a car or building a house. Those costs will all go up because the cost of running a business will rise directly as a result of the fact that governments have borrowed too much money.
The OECD has warned about the dangers of the rising debt. It notes that the outcome for the global economy could be less favourable if there is a faster increase in bond yields due to sharply deteriorating public finances. What does this mean? Quite simply, it means that, if governments are borrowing money and they are running deficits, they are borrowing money to fund their day-to-day operations; they are borrowing money from the general public. And, if it is not from the general public in Australia, which represents about 40 per cent of the government’s borrowings—the government borrows 40 per cent of its funding from Australian investors—the other 60 per cent has to come from overseas. Australia has always been an importer of money. We have needed to bring money into the country to fund the massive investment in mining and resources in particular. If you have the federal government borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars and if you have the state governments borrowing $230 billion, that money is going to replace the investment of foreigners in private sector investment in Australia, unless the pool gets bigger. The pool of investment is not going to get bigger because other governments around the world are borrowing so much money at the same time. There is only so much money you can borrow.
Too much debt got the world into this mess. Too much debt is not going to save the world from this mess. The countries that are strong economically at the moment are the ones with low debt or no debt. Look at China. China is an economic powerhouse. One of the reasons why it is so strong at the moment is that it has a massive surplus of funds. Some, not all, Middle Eastern countries are in great shape. Why? Because they have a surplus reserve of funds. Australia has been able to ride through this storm in better shape than most other nations. Why? Because the government did not have any debt going into this major downturn. The government not only had zero debt; it actually had surplus funds.
Let us look at countries that are in the worst position, such as Japan. In mid-May Moody’s Investor Services downgraded the Japanese government foreign currency credit rating from AAA to AA2. Japan’s government debt is very large, at more than 170 per cent of gross domestic product. Madam Deputy Speaker, to give you some perspective, that would be close to $2 trillion of government debt in Australia. It is the most indebted nation in the OECD. Do you know how Japan got into this position? It was as a result of its government’s massive spending and borrowing from the early 1990s. Now Japan is in its most severe recession since World War II.
In mid-May Standard & Poor’s switched the United Kingdom’s rating from stable to negative, based on the view that the UK’s net general government debt may approach 100 per cent of GDP. This is a direct result of the fact that the UK government, when it should have been running surpluses, was running deficits. After the last few years during the biggest financial services boom in generations, the United Kingdom, particularly with London as the global financial centre, is now in the deepest recession since World War II. And why? One of the reasons is its massive debt burden. It has been running deficits, it has built up this debt and it has no capacity or budget flexibility to be able to address it. And it is most alarming.
There is a great quote from Warren Buffett that I read today. I think the member for Mackellar might be interested in this comment. Warren Buffett, the guru investor in the United States, was asked what he thought of government spending in the US and whether it was going to get them out of their deep hole. Warren Buffett responded:
… you can’t produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant …
It was a good point. What he was effectively saying was that no matter how hard you try just spending so much in one block is not going to deliver your nirvana immediately. You have to be smart and you have to take it gradually. It might take nine months but what you have to make sure of is that what is delivered meets all of the expectations.
That is why the United States has a projected budget deficit for this year of 13 per cent of GDP. Its total accumulated government debt is currently at $11.4 trillion or 80 per cent of GDP. Reports are suggesting debt will go to $19 trillion in the United States—about 130 or 140 per cent of GDP. And think about it: if it has a budget of $3½ to $4 trillion, more than one-third of the US government budget will be interest alone on its debt. Then you have one-third of the budget on defence and one-third of the budget to run the country. This is why it is a sad day and this is why it has been a sad week, primarily from an economic perspective: because this government has taken us past $100 billion of government debt and, what is worse, the debt is growing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it speaks volumes, doesn’t it? A week has gone past, the last week of the sittings of this session of parliament and only in the last 30 minutes do the coalition seek to engage in a national economic debate. All the rest of the time the opposition sought to smear the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of Australia, and as an afterthought at five seconds to midnight, they no doubt thought that perhaps the media would get stuck into them because they have engaged in no debates about the future of this country, about economic policy, about emissions trading or about immigration. No debates until at five seconds to midnight they bring on a debate about the economy just so they would not be exposed for having had no interest in economic policy, only an interest in smearing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
On this sad occasion, when we have only a short time allocated, I have been left with a little over 10 minutes to respond to one of the important economic discussions of our time. I point out in response to the statements that have been made by the shadow Treasurer that, since the budget was brought down in May, Australia’s AAA rating has been reaffirmed. So where is the basis of the concern about Australia’s standing, Australia’s capacity to borrow money and Australia’s fiscal position when our AAA rating has been reaffirmed?
Mr Laming interjecting
I hear the member for Bowman now getting stuck into the ratings agencies. Yet, it was just a moment ago that the shadow Treasurer was pointing out that Australia remains AAA rated—the highest in the world. I point out that Australia’s debt will be seven times lower than that of any of the major advanced economies—seven times lower. The global recession has caused government budgets around the world to go into deficit and here in Australia it has ripped off $210 billion from the Australian budget, which is about $1 in every $5 of taxation revenue. Of course in those circumstances a budget will go into deficit—of course it will.
Another major fact is that, if Australia did not have a budget deficit and if the government did not step in to fill the gap left by the private sector, we would have a deeper recession, slower recovery and hundreds of thousands more Australians out of work. Indeed it has been estimated by Treasury that about 210,000 more Australians would be out work if it were not for the active involvement of the Rudd government in managing the economy.
The truth is that the Liberals are running another dishonest scare campaign on deficit and debt. But when they are actually pressed they admit that they would do the same thing. The shadow Treasurer, when he was pressed on this point, said: ‘It would be a lot less than what Labor is doing. It would be at least $25 billion less.’ So he is arguing that instead of $188 billion, it would be around $150-odd billion debt that the coalition would have. But when the opposition leader was pressed on this the journalist asked him: ‘What does the coalition regard as an acceptable level of debt?’ he said—and this is a beauty:
Well, the level of debt should be no more than is absolutely necessary.
That is a profound statement, isn’t it? The journalist said: ‘What then?’ and he said:
Well, it’s not a question of a number.
So they actually do not have a very different or any different position from the Rudd Labor government’s position on debt. They simply want to run a scare campaign—on the day when two major economic reports have been released. The first is the OECD Economic Outlook, which says that in 2009 it expects Australia’s economy to contract by 0.4 per cent, yet other major advanced countries will contract by 4.1 per cent—0.4 per cent for Australia, 4.1 per cent other major advanced countries. The second is the consultation report released by the International Monetary Fund, which says:
We welcome the quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus.
It goes on to say:
The government’s commitment to return to surpluses and achieve a positive budget balance on average over the medium term is commendable. Few other advanced countries have adopted such a clear commitment.
There is an endorsement of the government’s economic strategy, of the government’s fiscal strategy, by both the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. And, hot off the press today, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry put out a supporting press release entitled ‘Stimulus measures are helping business in a difficult trading environment’.
This MPI is just another example of a dishonest scare campaign—this one on debt—by the coalition. The fact is that, when I go around Australia, small business owners tell me how important they regard confidence in the economic outlook to be in sustaining their businesses during these challenging economic times. The Rudd government understand the importance of confidence, and that is why we are talking up the economy.
Yesterday the Australian Retailers Association’s June index showed a 24 per cent jump in confidence among small and medium enterprise retailers over the past quarter—a 24 per cent jump in confidence. The Sensis Consumer report says ‘Australian consumer confidence has jumped to a 15-month high’, rising by a record 10 percentage points during the quarter. Well, that is good news, but you would not think so if you were listening to the coalition because yet again the opposition are intent on talking down the economy. They have been scaring people about their job prospects for their own base, opportunistic political purposes. The shadow Treasurer, who just spoke, declared in parliament on 12 March:
… 80,000 Australians have lost their jobs in the last two months …
The truth is that, at that time, far from 80,000 jobs having been lost, 2,000 extra jobs had been created. Now, we are concerned about the economic outlook, we are concerned about the job outlook, but it does not do Australia, or the unemployed or small business any good to have the shadow Treasurer misrepresenting the jobs figures for the base political purposes of the coalition. It has suited the coalition to engage in this fear campaign and to talk down the economy and the jobs situation, promoting fear to smash consumer confidence and drive small businesses to the wall. It has suited the coalition to do that.
The truth is—again, far from 80,000 jobs having been lost—employment has grown by 35,000. That is a 35,000 increase in employment. On the day that the national accounts were released for the March quarter, showing that the Australian economy had grown—that it was one of only two advanced economies that actually grew in the March quarter—what happened? What happened on that day when the good figures came out? The coalition switched its tactics because it could not continue with its fear campaign any longer. So it switched its tactics from fear to smear.
The fact is that, in the last few weeks, the opposition leader has been promoting a false email that he hoped would be a dirty little shortcut to the Lodge. He sought to smear the Prime Minister over the government’s support for struggling car dealerships. As for policy development, the opposition leader has relegated that to the backbench. Do you know who he has appointed to be the policy supremo? The co-author of Work Choices, the member for Menzies. He took that job off the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because every idea she came up with he felt he had read somewhere before. So low a priority has the opposition leader assigned to policy development that he has consigned responsibility for it to the backbench. This is extraordinary—policy development goes to the coalition backbench, freeing up the frontbench to concentrate on the opposition leader’s No. 1 priority: to smear the government. That is what has been happening all week when we could have been engaged in the great debates about the economy, immigration or the emissions trading scheme. But, no, they would not do that! My advice to the opposition leader is to abandon his dirty little smear campaign and take an interest in the hard policy work of federal politics. The opposition will never become competitive if they do not do the policy work.
I also say to the member for Bradfield and the member for Higgins that the door is wide open to one of them becoming the Colin Barnett of the Australian parliament. Colin Barnett was able to do it. He said: ‘I’m not running for preselection anymore.’ Someone was actually preselected in his place; I think they ended up in the upper house in a deal. At the last moment, when Colin Barnett realised that this was his chance, that he might be able to do something constructive, what did he do? He said, ‘Well, I am interested,’ and he became the Premier. I know that if the member for Bradfield were to reconsider, he could become the Colin Barnett of the Australian parliament. The member for Higgins is not too late. He said he was not going to renominate. He can renominate and he can become the Colin Barnett of the Australian parliament. Come on down, Member for Bradfield; come on down, Member for Higgins; and put this useless, hopeless opposition leader out of his misery. I say to the opposition leader: he tried fear, he moved to smear and now he should just disappear.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for this unexpected opportunity of a couple of minutes. The Treasurer will not turn up to an MPI, and the Donny Osmond of the Labor Party here cannot get through the full 15 minutes. You are a joke. You are an absolute joke. Your job is to do the—
Dr Emerson interjecting
Oh, yes, I’m really in for a surprise! You surprise everybody. At least you turn up—but you cannot talk for 15 minutes. Every MPI this week involved the Treasurer—
The member for Casey will address his remarks through the chair.
and he has not turned up to one. He has not turned up to one MPI all week. The Treasurer has been asking all week for this MPI on debt. He has not turned up, so the minister for small business comes in here in his place.
Yesterday we had the Leader of the House reminding us of Mark Latham, and that reminded me of course of the Treasurer not turning up to MPIs. Remember that wonderful column that Mark Latham wrote where Joel Fitzgibbon, the former Minister for Defence, revealed that Wayne Swan as shadow Treasurer refused to do an MPI the day after a budget. We have got a Treasurer who will not do an MPI, who will not answer a question and who cannot even mention the size of the deficit in his budget speech.
You are about to get your surprise.
Donny, sit down!
Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
It is difficult to follow on from the member for Casey, but I follow on the topic that he was seeking to pursue. In the adjournment debate this evening, I will use the opportunity to talk about two people from our side of politics who have recently announced they will not be recontesting the next election. The first is the member for Higgins who last week announced to the House, in a very stylish manner, that he would not recontest the next election. This will bring to an end a high-class political career, one in which he has represented the Liberal Party and has made us very proud. He has represented our side of politics and our beliefs in this place for some 20 years. He deservedly should be proud of what he achieved in parliament, and I congratulate him for the way he announced he would not be recontesting.
He was elected into the parliamentary Liberal Party at a time when the parliamentary Liberal Party was in somewhat disarray. He was very quickly promoted through the ranks. He became deputy leader in 1994 to the former member for Mayo. He was instrumental in ensuring a smooth transition to John Howard, who went on to become the second-longest serving Prime Minister. It was the most successful political partnership in Australia’s history; it achieved great things for our country. The member for Higgins has often said, and particularly in the last week, that he came to this place to make Australia a better place. He leaves having achieved that aim, undoubtedly. We should be very proud on this side of the House to have had someone of the quality of the member for Higgins, who has dedicated a large portion of his adult life to our side of politics. It is a great honour to know the member for Higgins and to enjoy the experience that he offers those of us, the younger members on this side of the House, as we seek to emulate some of the feats he achieved as Treasurer of this country.
I do not need to remind the House—maybe I need to remind those on the other side—but when the member for Higgins became Treasurer there was $96 billion of debt, which he paid off. He established the Future Fund, taking pressure off future generations for the first time. He oversaw a period of growth in this country like we have never seen before. He managed the budget in a way that took pressure off ordinary taxpayers. He should be very proud of what he achieved in this place.
The other member who announced his decision not to recontest some time ago is the member for Bradfield. He is a house mate of mine, as is the shadow minister at the table, the member for Paterson, who is one of life’s gentlemen. The member for Paterson also has a very proud record in this place—unlike another member of our household, who we will not talk about. In service to our country, the member for Bradfield had a distinguished career prior to entering parliament. He gave up that career to give service to his country—which is something we often do not pay enough tribute to in this place, certainly on our side of politics.
He was elected in 1996 into government, but his record as education minister and defence minister is something he should be—and is—very proud of. He introduced education reforms into Australia which have not been seen before. He does not get the credit he deserves for what he did for our education system. He introduced reforms such as standardised testing and simple report cards, which this government is now largely running off the back of. He also introduced significant reforms for our higher education sector. As defence minister, he did a very good job in what has been shown recently to be a very difficult portfolio. Again, he should be very proud. He led our party in a very difficult time following the last election. Of course, it is always difficult to lose the leadership in the circumstances that he did; however, he has handled himself with utmost grace. He should be very proud of his achievements. I use the opportunity this evening to put on the record my appreciation for both the member for Higgins and the member for Bradfield as they move on to the next part of their career.
I rise this evening to speak about a TAFE funding program that was announced in my electorate of Deakin last Friday, 19 June, by Minister Mark Arbib in his role as acting Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I was very pleased to have Minister Arbib announce that Swinburne University in Croydon will received $9.96 million for a Flexible Green Trades Complex. Swinburne University is one of 32 TAFE institutions that will share in the $200 million for training infrastructure that will keep Australia working. This investment forms part of the Training Infrastructure Investment for Tomorrow, or the TIIFT program. I am very happy to have such a great educational institution in my electorate. Swinburne is large and is attended by many local people. Many other people travel for many miles to get to the university because it has a great reputation.
Swinburne not only has a campus in Croydon; it also has another four sites in Australia and one in Malaysia. The university being in Croydon really puts a name to the town as it is well known across the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Before telling you more about this announcement, I would like to talk about the Swinburne University of Technology—the Croydon campus in particular. Swinburne is recognised nationally and internationally as an innovative and progressive institution. There are 19,521 TAFE and 39,813 higher education students at Swinburne, with 3,300 of these students at the Croydon campus. Swinburne TAFE’s portfolio of training courses is growing, with a particular emphasis on sustainability; in fact, sustainability is one of the unifying philosophies across the university with staff and students working together to integrate sustainability practices into all of their teaching.
The Croydon campus of Swinburne also has a particularly strong focus on youth. There is an emphasis on trades, with apprenticeships and preapprenticeship programs being provided in building and construction, and painting and decorating. Swinburne’s role with the youth of the area is important, given that the local area is challenged by high numbers of disengaged youth and youth unemployment. Hence it gives me particular pleasure to tell the House about the Croydon Green Trades project announced last Friday and how the community of Deakin and the outer eastern region of Melbourne will benefit from investment in the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund for Vocational Education and Training.
Swinburne has predicted that 26,000 new jobs will be created in five industries, with the development of new green jobs underpinned by the trades. With this in mind, tradespeople need to develop skills and knowledge about sustainable practices and learn about new and emerging technologies. Of course, this institution is not just for apprentices currently undergoing training but also for the many tradespeople who might have completed their apprenticeship years ago or decades ago. Trades evolve—new technologies come about, new work practices come up and new products are invented—and it is important that people who have already been trained in particular trades pick up new skills as they go through their working lives.
The Croydon Green Trades Complex includes new programs in green plumbing, and this campus of Swinburne is the perfect site when you consider that almost half of Victoria’s plumbers are located in Melbourne’s east and south-east. Importantly, training providers in the area are at capacity and all have waiting lists for their programs for apprentices. Sometimes those waiting lists extend to six months or more. The skills shortage in the trades is something I have often spoken about. Unless we have capacity at the training level the shortage will continue. In the fields of building, construction and plumbing, the Flexible Green Trades Complex will lead initiatives for green training through its large, flexible work spaces as well as its small project breakout rooms for student use. With existing plumbing programs filled to capacity, the green plumbing training tower will fill a gap and will also service the needs of our emergency services trainers.
Having a look around the campus on 19 June was most informative. There were lots of apprentices working there, learning the practical side as well as the theory of their trades in a very well-set-out area. The fact that there are plans to have that area extended to cover more and newer technologies is even better. In keeping with Swinburne’s environmental ideals, the complex has been designed to include a number of sustainable initiatives in the construction and ongoing usage of the building, including an underground water tank and an in-slab reticulation system included in the classrooms. I would like to commend Swinburne University of Technology for their leadership in creating green skills for the 21st century. This integrated approach to green practices, technology and trades responds to industry and student needs in the eastern region of Melbourne and beyond.
I have previously spoken about the intense involvement of the Australian Workers Union in the Canning campaign of the 2007 federal election. Canning was a hotbed of union activity, as 2,000 of the AWU’s 4,600 WA members were Alcoa workers, predominantly based in my electorate. The AWU motivated its troops primarily to ‘fight the good fight’ and put Mr Rudd into government. A letter from then AWU Secretary Tim Daly was sent to union members in Canning, soliciting support for the local Labor candidate. The now member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, called for the AWU to give $5 a week to the campaign against me. A bank account at a Halls Head branch of the Bendigo Bank was nominated for deposits. How convenient that it could be deducted from the workers’ pay!
While in itself this shows the union scouring a new level in Canning—without even mentioning the thuggery of polling day—I have since learned that their tactics for resourcing the campaign may stem deeper. The AWU set up an alias, passing themselves off as an Alcoa entity. They called themselves the Alcoa Allsites Operations. There is no reference whatsoever in the title to them being a union organisation but I understand that they were set up by union members who were workers at Alcoa, basically as an entity to garner funds. We know Alcoa Allsites Operations exist. This is a fact. They were disclosed by the ALP—at a Falcon post office box—for donations made over the threshold, totalling $36,000 in 2007-08. My information is that total donations could be as high as $78,000. Disclosure rules also require the donor to lodge a disclosure document. They got caught out because, quite rightly, the AEC wrote to them at the nominated postbox requesting the disclosure documentation. But it was returned as the post office box had been closed.
Through a bit of common sense, the AEC letter found its way to Alcoa directly because of the name. Alcoa knew it was not meant for them so did some digging around to uncover their namesake fund. I understand that each Alcoa site essentially has its own amenities fund, or as they call it a ‘site fund’. Now, let me stress that these funds have actually nothing to do with Alcoa management and Alcoa certainly play no role in their administration. In fact, Alcoa have a policy of staying away from political donations.
With major operations at Wagerup, Huntley, Pinjarra and Kwinana, the AWU collect fees from their members at each site. This is designed to cover incidental costs and, in theory, one would assume it was to be used for the benefit of union members. These funds accumulate and I am told they could amount to anything between $40,000 and $80,000 at each site. Whether these site funds make up the Alcoa Allsites Operations entity is presently unclear but one would suspect that at least a portion of each fund would have reached a central account. In their financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2008 the WA branch of the AWU make no secret of their ties to the Labor Party, declaring, ‘The branch have maintained their affiliation with both the ALP and Unions WA during the financial year.’ That year there was a surplus of $175,000. General donations from the branch total just over $2,000 for that year but at least $36,000 found its way to the ALP from its friend Alcoa Allsites Operations.
When John Hughes, the ALP candidate in Canning at the last election, was getting in campaign mode, there were several discussions about how to manage the campaign funds. It was abundantly clear from the initial letter sent out by the AWU supporting John Hughes as a ‘fresh face for Canning’—even though he was 63—that the AWU membership was to be the main source of funding for his campaign. I understand that Mr Hughes and his team were reluctant to give the ALP state secretary control of the campaign account and discussions were had with the AEC about the establishment and operation of campaign accounts and disclosure requirements. Questions have been raised about the management and legitimacy of these site funds. Workers have raised concerns that large sums of money from these site funds are unaccounted for. That is the problem: the funds are managed by the union bosses and there appears to be no way for workers to reconcile the use of those funds. This only supports the suspicion that the moneys may be used for purposes—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, with respect to relevance. This is completely irrelevant to any role—
There is no point of order on relevance. The minister will resume his seat. The member for Canning has the call.
This only supports the suspicion that the moneys may be used for purposes other than those the workers intended. Undoubtedly, this causes tensions between the workers and union bosses. I have been informed that the workers have seen people buying second-hand utes and personal items, which begs the question of where the money comes from. New AWU state secretary Steven Price was Norm Dicks’s second-in-charge at Alcoa. Mr Dicks was defeated at the election because, I understand, there may be been some questions of his using the funds to his own advantage. I can only hope, for the sake of the members, that Mr Price is not tarred with the same brush.
Mr Speaker—
No. The minister will resume his seat.
After the union spill there was some discontent amongst the members, and the Pinjarra group walked away from the site arrangements. We must remember that these site accounts are apparently not subject to any auditing requirements or disclosure, so the fees paid by the workers could be spent by the people collecting the fees and fiddling the books rather than for the benefit of union members. (Time expired)
It is with great pride that I rise this evening to acknowledge an announcement that was made by the Hon. Peter Garrett and the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, the federal and state environment ministers, on 13 June 2009. In a joint statement released by those two ministers, it was announced that the federal and state governments jointly would be securing—buying back—the former Air Services Cranebrook site, which is a 181-hectare site located in Cranebrook in my electorate. This was first and foremost the delivery of an election commitment. But I think it is important to put on the public record some of the history behind that announcement. This is not just about reclaiming into public ownership a significant parcel of land that contains key environmental values; it is also about righting a wrong that was perpetrated by the previous government.
To put this into context, my position in relation to the disposal of Commonwealth lands has been made crystal clear. As far back as January 2001, as the Mayor of Penrith, I made a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into the disposal of Defence lands. My position in relation to the disposal of Commonwealth lands remains as it was back in 2001. I also happened to be the Labor candidate at the 2001 election. I was unsuccessful on that occasion, but one of the key issues that I campaigned on was to try and secure the preservation of the heritage listed areas of the former ADI site. I must say that, as part of a persistent and coordinated community campaign, we were able to secure, in the final days of the 2001 election campaign, a commitment from the then government to, firstly, preserve the heritage listed parts of that site and, secondly, undertake a comprehensive review of Commonwealth owned lands in Western Sydney to ensure that the debacle of the ADI site would never happen again.
After the 2001 election I recall well, as a councillor, that the council considered the future land use of the Air Services site, which at that time was zoned special uses—wireless. I recall that the council officers had proposed to rezone that land to allow rural residential one-hectare subdivision. I rose on the floor of the meeting and moved an amendment to the recommendation, to retain the existing zoning on that site, special uses—wireless. I could not see any justification for allowing subdivision on those parcels but not rural residential subdivision on other parcels in areas such as Orchard Hills, owned by mums and dads in that area. Subsequent to that we found out, in the dying days of the 2004 election campaign, that the Air Services site at Cranebrook had been secretly sold to a private developer. There was no community consultation; it was sold for $15 million in the final days of the election campaign. I campaigned to no avail at that point to try and stop the sale. Contracts had already been exchanged. The then member for Lindsay allowed on her watch what I think was a criminal act to be perpetrated on the people of our electorate. Subsequent to that it emerged that the so-called review of Western Sydney Commonwealth lands did not even include this site. I continued to campaign to bring this site back into public ownership.
But it was not until the 2007 election campaign that things started to happen. I want to particularly mention the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance. They ran a concerted campaign through that election campaign. I acknowledge Geoff Brown, Lisa Harrold and Wayne Olling. They ran a concerted campaign and, as a result of that, they secured a commitment from both the Labor opposition and the then government to provide $15 million to a Cumberland conservation corridor. It is with that $15 million that the Commonwealth government, in partnership with the state government, has bought back that land and returned it to public ownership so that the threatened species on that site can be protected and that parcel can form part of a key network of bushland corridors throughout Western Sydney.
This is righting a wrong. I wish to acknowledge those people who participated and contributed to that process. I acknowledged the Hon. Peter Garrett and the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. I also acknowledge the member for Londonderry, Mr Allan Shearan, and the Penrith City Council, in particular the mayor and his councillors, for their support. (Time expired)
I rise today as I have a very real concern with regard to the current state and future direction of Australia’s defence policy. I am particularly troubled by the deliberate obfuscation of defence budget and procurement details by the Rudd Labor government. Never has so much been promised by so few to so many—and never has so little been achieved, despite the rhetoric. The government has unfortunately succeeded in politicising the entire defence portfolio. In fact, in a presentation to the National Press Club yesterday, Professor Paul Dibb said that he had counted no fewer than 85 press releases and 670 pages of spin. He said:
The white paper was propped up by the unprecedented media spin from the government …
Today I call on the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Greg Combet, to immediately reverse the Rudd Labor government’s politicisation of the Defence portfolio and to come clean on the details of troubled projects overseen by the DMO. I call on Minister Combet to set the record straight and, as Professor Dibb stated yesterday, ‘correct this glaring deficiency, and soon.’ The government must return to a position that values Defence Force personnel above the selfish interests of political chest beating. With that in mind I would now like to raise some specific concerns, and I urge Minister Combet to pay particular attention to these. These concerns are not just mine but are widely held by Australia’s defence industry. As John Kerin noted in the Australian Financial Review on 19 June, industry are:
… steeling themselves for the [DCP] to be cut from 10 years to 5 years in scope and contain less pricing information leading to more red tape and blow-outs in tendering costs.
First and foremost is the rapidly deteriorating situation with regard to the Air Warfare Destroyer project. This project has already slipped by three months due to delay by the DMO in determining the preferred tenderers for block construction. What is more worrying, according to media reports, is that NQEA, the company selected to deliver the first tranche of hull blocks, has not been able to secure the $20 million worth of underwriting funds that it requires to commence the work. So I ask the Minister for Defence Personnel, Material and Science, Mr Combet, whether Defence will still enter into a contract with NQEA, given its inability to secure the necessary financial underwriting. When will the modules actually start being delivered, given that the contracts have not yet been signed and the project is already three months behind? How does Minister Combet plan on addressing the downstream effect of these delays? Will Defence now give the NQEA block work to FORGACS or will they be forced to renegotiate with BAE for block construction at a much greater cost to the Australian taxpayer?
I would also like Minister Combet to indicate how he intends to fix the complexity of the DMO tendering process, a process that is tantamount to bureaucratic gridlock. Only yesterday it was revealed that German firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, working with BAE Systems Australia, had decided to pull out of the tender process for the Land 17-Artillery Replacement Project due to the complexity of the DMO’s tendering process. As a result, this vital acquisition has now been put on the backburner. Again, I ask Minister Combet how he intends to lead reform in the DMO, given that he has shown little or no interest in the organisation since being awarded the portfolio and in light of his continual preoccupation with managing the climate change portfolio.
Finally, I would like to cover an issue that I have been following closely for some time—that is, the development of Australia’s next generation Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The Australian defence industry has a strong track record of developing and delivering light-armoured vehicles. The success of the Thales Bushmaster project in Bendigo is evidence of this. Thales will deliver a total of 737 Bushmasters to the ADF and export 72 Bushmaster vehicles to the Netherlands. For that reason, it came as a rude shock that the Rudd Labor government decided to award $40 million to American companies to develop nine prototype Joint Light Tactical Vehicles without providing similar funding to Australian industry. For all of the government’s rhetoric about supporting local jobs and industry, it has blindly ignored this proven Australian capability. This is tantamount to committing industrial treason.
It is clear that the DMO would benefit from an increased level of ministerial oversight. What is not clear is whether or not that oversight will be forthcoming from an often distracted minister. Minister Combet must move to reassure the defence industry that they are not a second-order issue. For Australia’s sake, he must deliver a defence capability plan that supports Australian industry and details future acquisitions and costs. I call on the minister to do so without delay.
I think I will be the last speaker at the end of a very, very long week for you, Mr Speaker, before the House of Representatives takes a break, during which politicians go out into the real world. I rise to give some advice to those opposite that they should talk to their constituents. They need to talk to their constituents out there in the real world about what is important in Australia in June 2009 in the middle of one of the biggest global financial crises we have seen in the last 75 years. Talk to them about what is important and, like my constituents, they will talk about schools. Like my constituents, they will talk about computers in schools and how important it is to prepare our students for the 21st century, not for the 18th century. They will talk about how important it is to get infrastructure right, to get ports right and to increase productivity in the Australian economy. They will talk about local road black spots. They will talk about these things.
They will talk about anything other than utes, because the reality is that, apart from the good people of Deniliquin, and then for only one weekend a year, no-one cares about the Utegate affair. Nobody really cares about utes the way those opposite do. We could have dealt with this a long way back, at the very start of this week in parliament, if the Leader of the Opposition had found his backbone and stood up and said: ‘Mea culpa. We made a mistake. I apologise to the parliament. I apologise to my party.’ That is what he should have done and we could have moved on with the things that are important—schools, black spots, computers, infrastructure, jobs, making sure that there is food on the table and making sure that Australia is prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. Heaven forbid that we ask a question in question time this week about climate change—surely the most important challenge facing this country today. But, no, instead we have focused on this irrelevant material, which has been based on a fraud and a fake. My constituents and I know that ‘It is all about the economy, stupid’, to quote a former President. I hope that those opposite go back to their constituents and find out what is important. I am sure that their constituents will assure them that it is nothing to do with the Grechgate affair.
Australia has, perhaps, dodged a bullet. We have the lowest debt. We have the lowest deficit. That whole fear campaign has turned out to be totally baseless, the fear campaign about how the economy is suffering. We look at the OECD report today and the IMF report today and we see that the world will contract by 2.2 per cent, while Australia is to contract by 0.4 per cent. All the major advanced economies will contract by 4.1 per cent. We are the best-performing economy in the OECD. The only one that comes close to us is Poland. Why? Because it had such a shocking year the year before. It is the only country that has actually gone close to having a half-decent improvement. Australians care about the economy and I hope that those opposite will go out and talk to their constituents, for once, rather than talking to themselves about these great tactics. Jobs are what is important. We need to compare Australia with the rest of the world and show that the fear campaign promulgated by those opposite has been a total waste of time. It has shown that those opposite are a roadblock to the recovery of the nation. Malcolm Turnbull has been the biggest speed bump in that roadblock.
Give him his proper title.
I am sorry, I meant that the current member for Wentworth has been the biggest roadblock in this road to recovery for Australia. I hope that the member for Wentworth is able to come into the parliament replenished and refreshed after the break. The first thing he should do is say, ‘I apologise; I am sorry.’ I know that is a word that those opposite often find hard to say, but he should come in here and say, ‘I am sorry for how I wasted the time of this parliament for a whole week and probably caused a few grey hairs for the Speaker in that week.’ Hopefully, he will come back in and apologise and then we can move on with the serious business of governing the country.
Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to move:
That standing order 80 (Closure of a Member speaking) be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings, except when a motion is moved pursuant to the standing order by a Minister.
to move:
That the House:
to move:
That the House:
I rise this morning in this place to bring to the House’s attention the fact that on the Kimberley coast in Western Australia we are planning to create an LNG processing hub specifically for product coming initially out of the Browse Basin. The press last Sunday in Western Australia, specifically the Sunday Times, headlined ‘The battle for Broome’ and ‘Battleline drawn at wilderness gas hub’. It is a lot of piffle. We have got a line-up of would-be, second-rate celebrities, including George Negus, Missy Higgins, John Butler, Di Morrissey, somebody called Geoffrey Cousins—I’ve never heard of him!—and a second-rate drummer by the name of Rob Hirst all wanting to maintain their glorious lifestyle elsewhere in Australia whilst they pontificate about the denial of job opportunities and a future for Indigenous people who have called the Kimberley region home for more than 40,000 years. This annoys me.
This project is going to pay taxes, it is going to pay royalties, it is going to employ people. It is going to put money into government coffers that will afford the maintenance of selected areas for national parks and for the creation of tourism infrastructure et cetera that will guarantee the maintenance of our natural environment, which is so precious. The promoters of this project, specifically Woodside, are responsible developers. They are responsible employers. Their work on the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia has been exceptional. You can go to the Burrup Peninsula today and see on the other side of their fence a perfect environment, an unpolluted environment; certainly not a destroyed environment.
George Negus, for instance, says we should not process this gas in the Kimberley, we should take it to the already destroyed Pilbara. It is an absolute nonsense. This project proposed in the Kimberley region, north of Broome, is some 60 kilometres away from Broome. It will have a boundary of approximately five kilometres by five kilometres. It is going on what is an ex-pastoral station, already changed permanently from its original natural situation. There is no rock art. There is no endangered fauna. It will not disturb the whales at sea who come regularly to the Burrup Peninsula to see what is going on down there. This is going to be a tiny spot in an area twice the size of Victoria. To suggest that its creation will somehow ruin the last bastion of wilderness in the world is an absolute nonsense. Celebrities should get out of the way and let Indigenous people get a job. (Time expired)
People with disabilities become used to adapting to a world where everyday objects, buildings and systems are not designed for their needs. Sadly, it is the people with disabilities who have to adapt because in many cases their needs are considered to be secondary and somehow not relevant when objects are designed. Too much of the energy of too many Australians with impairment goes into dealing with minor irritations which could have been avoided with a little care and imagination. I would like to briefly discuss two examples today.
While smoke alarms are installed in most homes across Australia, I wonder how many members have thought about how useful standard alarms are to people who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. There are various smoke detection devices available for deaf and hearing impaired people. These include sensors which make lights flash in every room in the house if smoke is detected in one room, or devices such as vibrating pads and bed shakers that will wake up a person if a fire is detected during the night. However, these are not commonly installed, and deaf people who buy or rent a house are likely to have the significant extra expense of installing new smoke alarms themselves. Of course, smoke alarms are not just placed in our homes; they are also in hotels, bed-and-breakfasts and guesthouses, which people who are hard of hearing do use. These alarms often rely solely on noise to be effective. A person who is hearing impaired must take a portable smoke alarm with them when they travel to make sure they are absolutely safe.
Standards Australia is currently working on a draft standard for smoke alarms for people who are deaf or hearing impaired. This process started in January this year and a draft standard is expected to be available for comment by November. At present there are a range of good products on the market for people with a hearing impairment, but they are only certified by Standards Australia as smoke alarms, not specifically as smoke alarms for deaf people. I commend Standards Australia for starting this process and for their genuine commitment to ensure that all Australians are protected. However, I would suggest that a better way to approach the problem would have been, when the original standard was being developed, to ask: ‘Will this create a product which will benefit all Australians not just those who are able to hear?’ When the question is phrased in that way, it is clear that the answer for the current standard is no.
My second example in the time remaining is the provision of wheelchair accessible taxis. Many people with a disability who are unable to drive find it hard to access public transport. They rely on taxis for their transport needs. For this group, taxis are a crucial lifeline for participating in society, for medical appointments, social activity and the like. Taxis are regulated by the states, some of which provide their own incentives to increase the number of wheelchair accessible taxis. However, there is no requirement in any state for the number of wheelchair accessible taxis to comprise a set percentage of the overall fleet. For the record, Queensland is the best state at 15.2 per cent while Western Australia is the worst at 6.3 per cent. We think there is a lot more which needs to be done and perhaps we should have purpose-built cabs for people with wheelchairs rather than shoving them into buses which are not appropriate. I think that we do need a new taxi standard design and I look forward to this too. (Time expired)
As we draw near to the winter recess and the attention of the members of this place turns to electoral issues, family and friends—and, for some, warmer climates—I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members and senators that tomorrow is SIDS and Kids Red Nose Day.
This time last year I attended the Carousel Shopping Centre in Cannington in my electorate and helped volunteers fundraise in the shopping centre mall. Now the only reminder of SIDS Red Nose Day that I had last year was that the member for Fadden turned up and spoke in this place about it. Much to the delight of the media he wore a red nose during his speech. Today I have taken it upon myself to remind members about Red Nose Day tomorrow. I have not gone to the length today that the member for Fadden went to last year of wearing a red nose but I have brought some with me and if any members would like to purchase these, I have plenty in my office and their generosity will go to a great cause.
I would also urge all members to contact their state offices of SIDS and Kids to find out where they can assist with Red Nose Day tomorrow. SIDS and Kids is a not-for-profit organisation with the noble goal of eliminating sudden and unexpected infant deaths. SIDS stands for sudden infant death syndrome. The WA branch of SIDS and Kids happens to be based in the suburb of Kensington in my electorate of Swan and I have been fortunate enough to spend some time getting to know the people that run the charity. They do a remarkable job.
SIDS and Kids WA concentrates its efforts on three important services which benefit the local community. Firstly, it advocates for and funds research into stillbirth—something that causes pain and suffering across the nation and indeed the world. Secondly, it goes to great lengths to provide public information to families about sudden infant death syndrome and safe sleeping for kids. Thirdly, it provides bereavement care, support and counselling for the families of those who have experienced the tragedy of stillbirth or the unexpected death of a child. SIDS and Kids has made great strides over the last few years. The organisation claims since 1990 to have saved the lives of an estimated 5,900 Australian babies through the SIDS and Kids sleeping program.
However, there is still a great deal of work to be done—funding research, informing families and providing support. Rates of SIDS and stillbirths are still too high in Australia. I want to be part of the efforts to help this cause. That is why I was pleased last year to become patron of the charity’s WA branch. Last week I organised an information breakfast at Parliament House with key SIDS and Kids figures, which was well attended by members and senators. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my parliamentary colleagues, from both sides of the House, who attended the breakfast.
Tomorrow I will be out supporting the Red Nose Day volunteers again to help raise funds for their organisation. Red Nose Day has grown from humble beginnings to one of Australia’s highest profile fundraising days with a 97 per cent prompted recognition rate. I will be at the shopping centre near my electorate office in East Victoria Park. Local events are of course taking place around the country and I hope that all members will find the time to support this worthy cause. I ask the whole country to support Red Nose Day tomorrow. For the benefit of the members present, I will put on my red nose now.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
Today I am very pleased to record that phase 1 of the runway end safety area at Sydney airport has been completed on schedule. This means that restrictions on the use of the east-west runway at Sydney airport have been eased significantly and noise-sharing arrangements have recommenced during early morning and late evening from 6 am to 7 am and from 7 pm to 11 pm. This is positive news for my constituents in Lowe. The east-west runway is essential for the fairer distribution of aircraft noise and its access, as my constituents well know, is extremely important for noise-sharing arrangements. I have spoken on behalf of my constituents in this place on numerous occasions to express their concerns about aircraft noise. Due to the severely restricted access of the east-west runway over the past eight months, the completion of phase 1 is warmly welcomed by my electorate.
As I have informed my constituents, the closure of the runway was announced by Sydney airport two days after the 2007 federal election. The details of that announcement were never revealed by the former Howard government during the election campaign. The upgrade consisted of the extension of the east-west runway to meet international standards. Despite the necessity of the works, the lack of community consultation by the Howard government with constituents from Lowe and surrounding electorates was contemptible, showing an unprecedented disregard for affected residents.
However, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, imposed 22 strict conditions on the essential safety works to minimise the noise impacts on surrounding communities. As part of those 22 restrictions, the minister increased the working hours to 22 hours per day, seven days a week, effectively halving the proposed period of severe disruption to noise sharing from 15 months to eight months. Further, the minister maintained the existing cap on movements per hour and the curfew hours to ensure respite for residents during construction.
I am extremely pleased to note that last week, on the approval of the Sydney airport master plan 2009, the minister again reaffirmed the government’s commitment to maintain the cap of 80 flights per hour and the curfew at Sydney airport and to invite the state government to participate in a joint study to find a suitable site for a second Sydney airport. Importantly, the minister has also confirmed the continuation of fair noise sharing at Sydney airport.
I take this opportunity to commend the minister and the government for the 22 restrictions placed on the construction of the runway end safety area for the benefit of surrounding communities. This is another example of the Rudd government’s responsive approach to my electorate and the people of Sydney’s inner west. I remain optimistic that the remainder of the works will also be completed on schedule by March 2010 and that the residents of Lowe will benefit from the full resumption of noise-sharing arrangements. I also look forward to meaningful discussions at the next Sydney airport community forum in July when I represent my constituents. I will continue to fight for their concerns in relation to aircraft noise as we await the release of the national aviation white paper expected later this year. (Time expired)
Remember what Labor said prior to the 2007 election:
A Rudd Labor Government will help all Australians play their part in the fight against climate change by making it easier to take practical action in their own homes, their schools and their local communities.
That was an ALP election commitment for 2007—the very words of the current minister. How they have come back to haunt him! With almost every new sunrise we are seeing another government broken promise on solar rebates. The shadow minister has relentlessly pursued the gaffe-prone minister on this issue, highlighting the utter untrustworthiness of the government.
Only this week the member for Flinders exposed yet another broken promise. This time it is the rural and remote areas which bear the brunt of the axing of the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. The title of that axed program is quite prophetic because there is not the remotest chance that the people in remote areas will ever trust this minister or this government again. Minister, people’s trust is not renewable and although you are in power now it will be a generation before this disgraceful treatment of businesses and residents will be forgotten.
The announcement of this axing was even worse than the prior axing as it was made after the scheme had been closed. The scheme was unilaterally ended at 8.30 am on 22 June and businesses began to receive notices at 8.33 am. Yet again, the solar industry was thrown into crisis. The shadow minister has said that his office has been inundated with calls from desperate workers who will be laid off and despairing homeowners seeing their solar hopes evaporating. One company indicated to the shadow minister that his company alone would lose around $1 million a month.
These actions have shown that: (a) the government is incapable of managing the country’s finances; (b) the government’s promises are not worth a thing; (c) the government’s commitment to the environment is a joke; and (d) the government does not care about people—either business people, workers or homeowners. Where is your concern about working families, now, Prime Minister?
As for the minister, maybe he did not ‘wanna be the one’ to do this but he has sold himself ‘one too many times’. There is ‘no-one else to blame’, Minister, and while you have a ‘comfortable place on the couch’ the rest of the country is ‘used and abused’.
On 7 May I was honoured to host a visit by the Speaker, Harry Jenkins, to two schools in my electorate. One of them, Granville Boys High School, is an area where we are seeing major efforts being made in the public education system against enormous odds. I congratulate Principal Linda O’Brien and Hala Maaliki, the chair of the parent and citizens group. I note the amount of work that has been done by the teaching and school community there. I note especially the instigation of new school uniforms, the arrangement of buses to take students directly from the school to their homes and the emphasis upon business connection with the Australian Business Community Network, KPMG, Microsoft and the Shell refinery.
The latest newsletter from the school typifies an attempt to make sure that the school community, many from a non-English-speaking background, are informed about things such as the NAPLAN. I also note the effort to ensure that students have some say in the process. Work has been done by Professor Susan Groundwater-Smith and Dr Kris Needham in consulting the students themselves in focus groups about school safety and respectful learning.
This is a school where 75 per cent of students are of Arabic extraction and there are significant numbers of Turks, islanders and Africans. It is a school where we have seen massive efforts made with regard to moots, with great success recently. I recognise Arshad Guliyara for his role recently in shadowing the school education director; Gehan Tuameh, the state SRC conference representative; and Saad Pareku as a school ambassador—all typical of a very strong involvement of the students in the community. I also note that recently there has been executive training with regard to laptop installation, a language usage laboratory coming on-stream and three science laboratories.
The school makes sure that these students get a real opportunity outside their normal expectations—recently conducting a Narrabeen camp for year 7. We have had the instigation of peer tutoring at Granville TAFE college to make sure that this school is able to give the full complement of efforts to people.
It is a school very challenged by the tribalisation of Australian education into very narrow schools; it is challenged by the instigation of selective schools, which means that students are sometimes denied the highest possible level of studies because of a lack of students in those areas. But this really does represent an effort by the teachers and the school community to make sure that, through public education, children are given an opportunity in an area of socioeconomic deprivation. Without this effort by the teachers and the community I really do believe that it would be a very much greater challenge for the students.
I rise to call on the Minister for Education to respond to students and parents in my electorate who are affected by the proposed changes to Youth Allowance. There is no doubt that these changes will have a major impact on students, parents and families right throughout the south-west of Western Australia. We have seen no analysis of exactly how many current gap year students in my electorate will be disadvantaged and worse off under the proposed changes to the independent youth allowance as a result of the proposed retrospective starting date of January 2010. Parents and students in this category are extremely worried.
The proposed changes will disadvantage all young people currently taking a gap year. The decision to change the criteria for these students will preclude many of my regional students from attending university at all or, alternatively, add a significant financial and emotional burden to both the students and their families. It will also compromise the tertiary opportunities for other children in the same family.
A second major concern is the new work criteria; the requirement to complete 30 hours of employment a week for 18 months in any two-year period. I would like to see the analysis on how many students in regional and rural towns in my electorate will actually be able to find those 30 hours of employment. I understand that in the 15 and over age group there has been an increase in youth unemployment from 3.2 per cent to five per cent. At any time in small regional communities, it is extremely difficult for a young inexperienced person to find 30 hours work each week. In the current economic circumstances, it is virtually impossible. Employment options are few and far between, or considerable travel and therefore cost is involved. How many students from towns such as Balingup, Donnybrook, Brunswick Junction and Dunsborough, Cowaramup, Harvey, Yarloop, Nannup and Augusta will meet that criteria? This requirement will also preclude the seasonal work option, sometimes the only option for regional, rural and remote students. You can spend 100 hours in one week in a header during harvest, or on a tractor during the hay season, and perhaps 18 hours the next doing similar work, but you will not qualify.
Many parents in regional areas both work now just to support their children’s education. Where in such small towns can the same parents find additional employment to meet the extra costs—the additional costs that are not borne by students and families who live in cities who are often just a public transport cost away from their university? Many regional families rely on their children meeting the independent criteria, the gap year, to afford the significant additional cost of educating and accommodating their children or child at a metropolitan university.
I rise to pay tribute to a number of local residents in my community who received Queen’s Birthday honours. I would like to acknowledge Barry Walsh OAM, John King OAM and Ronald Richter OAM. Joan Reese was made a Member of the Order of Australia posthumously. I would also like to acknowledge Keith Rhind OAM and Reverend Peter Kilkeary OAM, who were residents of the Blue Mountains but have also been an important part of the Lindsay electorate for many years.
To become a Member of the Order of Australia, or to be conferred with any of the nation’s highest honours, is a demonstration of a person’s contribution to his or her profession or cause, and their community. These people come from all walks of life; they are our stars, our quiet achievers. All of these individuals have shown their dedication and their strength of character and I congratulate each one of them for their work.
Barry Walsh OAM is known to many people as the face of Penrith Panthers. Barry is the current chair of the Panthers board of directors and has been in that role for the last 10 years. He has overseen some major changes to the Panthers group and has seen the odd premiership win. He is also the chairman of the Panthers on the Prowl Community Development Foundation, something I know he is passionate about. I look forward to working closely with him on that in the future.
Keith Rhind OAM is another Penrith Panthers luminary. He played for Penrith from 1963 to 1966, and moved to managing the club for more than two decades as a member of its board, including being chair and deputy chair. Keith has been instrumental in mentoring junior players and is a life member of the club.
John King OAM is a fire and emergency services volunteer who has served his community for more than 40 years. He has been a member of the Regentville Bushfire Brigade and a member of the Rural Fire Service Protocol team. He has also volunteered at the Sydney Paralympic Games and at the Australian Wheelchair Tennis Open. He currently volunteers as a bus driver for Penrith Council and the Penrith RSL Ladies Auxiliary.
Ronald Richter OAM was recognised for his contribution to athletics. Thirty years ago Ronald started taking his children to Little Athletics and has been volunteering ever since, including volunteering at the Olympics and for Athletes with a disAbility.
Joan Reese OAM passed away in February this year. She was a dedicated history research volunteer for more than two decades and was also a recipient of the New South Wales Premiers Senior Achievement Award in 1999.
Reverend Peter Kilkeary OAM has worked in churches all over Sydney including the Penrith Baptist Church. Although he now lives in Winmalee, he still ministers to people in my local community including the sick and injured at Nepean Hospital.
I pay tribute to each of the Queen’s Birthday honours recipients in my community. I thank them on behalf of the people in my community for their tireless work. They are indeed our shining lights.
I rise this morning to express my dismay at the passing of an amendment to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act in the New South Wales parliament this week. This act was allegedly passed by the New South Wales parliament in order to overcome some unintended consequences of two provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act that they thought were revealed by a recent High Court decision. This High Court case, which was a very important case to my mind, said that the Parramatta City Council did not have the right to compulsorily acquire land belonging to two business owners in the case of the Grocon development. Mr Fazzolari, the owner of an adjoining property, and Michael Winston Smith, had been fighting since their High Court victory in April to stop the government amending the law to allow the Parramatta council to acquire their land and transfer it to a Melbourne developer Grocon as part of a joint $1.6 billion residential, retail and public space development.
This is a retrograde step for property rights in New South Wales and in Australia. I find it distressing that a group of business owners who have property there and who sought just terms from the council could have won their case in the High Court and then have the state government, in a heavy handed way, change the law. An analysis by Maureen Peatman, a partner from Hunt and Hunt lawyers who ran the successful appeal to the High Court, of some of the changes that have been proposed and now enacted into law by the state government says large numbers of private properties could potentially now be acquired by councils under the changes agreed to by parliament.
This ought to be of great concern for all landowners across New South Wales. As I say again, large numbers of private properties could now be acquired by councils under the changes agreed to by parliament. An amendment to this legislation was proposed by the opposition and that amendment was accepted. The amendment said that it would ensure that councils would not have the power to acquire land for purposes that are private and not public. Indeed, in the second reading speeches of many of the members, they expressed the hope—and ‘hope’ was a word that was used quite often—that the government would not abuse this change, these amendments, that were being proposed to the act.
I want to reflect this morning that I do not have a lot of hope in our state government—this state government or any future state government in New South Wales—not to abuse that. There is now a grave concern for private property owners across New South Wales as a result of this retrograde piece of legislation being passed.
The government’s stimulus package has been derided by many opposition members as a wasteful cash splash. Nothing could be further from the truth, as one of my constituents explained to me in recent correspondence. He wrote:
I am aged 64, of Aged Pension age in mid-July. My wife “currently” works at Bonds at Unanderra and we have two teenage girls at high school.
I have been unemployed for nine years despite every effort to obtain employment. On 22nd December I had to get a $500 advance from Centrelink in order to manage food and other necessities over the Christmas period.
The government’s second stimulus payment early this year gave me funds to enable me to start a business. Whilst the needs were trivial, they were nevertheless out of reach, given our parlous financial position.
It enabled me to pay $80 to a Warrawong printer to print one thousand flyers, and to pay $44 to a Barrack Heights distributor to home-deliver the one thousand flyers in the Shell Cove area.
On the first day of delivery of the flyer I have secured two clients.
The nett taxable, GST-payable receipt by me will be $690 per client.
The stimulus payment therefore has:
… … …
… the stimulus payment has seen business flow to three business operators, ASIC, the NSW OFT, the ATO, and has produced a payment saving to Centrelink.
He goes on:
The stimulus payment has also enabled one of the clients, a very good chef employed part-time by a Shellharbour City Centre restaurant, to have funds enabling him to commence a business at Thirroul employing local staff and operating a bistro in a local club …
… This will enable him to end his Newstart arrangements and he will be making GST and income tax payments to the government. He will be employing and training local staff and buying goods from local suppliers.
I shall also be doing his accounting and BAS returns, again a positive cashflow situation for me.
The stimulus payments were not just about retail spending. I thought you may be interested in how it had other effects on two recipients in the local region. If that was multiplied a few hundred thousand times across the country it would be good, don’t you think?
Thank you for giving me a new start off Newstart Mr Rudd and Mr Swan.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Ms King:
That the House take note of the report.
I think it would be fair to say—and my colleagues sometimes tease me about it—that I am a bit of a train freak. I think we in Australia have totally underestimated the capacity of rail to do all sorts of tasks, whether it be carrying freight, whether it be modern passenger services, whether it be bulk commodities being hauled to port. In the last parliament I chaired an inquiry into Australia’s arterial road and rail systems and their connectivity to the ports. So I take this matter seriously.
It is true that if we could vastly improve both the capacity and the speed of rail we could make a huge indent in the amount of traffic on our roads. It is not an easy task and no-one should pretend that it is. On the other hand, we have figures that show the volume of freight traffic on Australian roads is going to double in the next 20 years and we already know the problems throughout Australia because of that. The report I just referred to talked about how almost every port in Australia has some form of connectivity deficiency, and in many instances that is rail. The fact that the government, in its recent major infrastructure packages, has spent a lot of money in the Hunter Valley is proof positive that rail really has to be upgraded.
I am disappointed both with my own side of politics and with the government’s recent infrastructure outlays in that we are not doing more about inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. That would make a huge impact, not only on national efficiency but also on national safety in the number of trucks it would remove from roads into hubbing systems, which would be far less dangerous and far less onerous on the surface of our roads. We all know that roads crumble very easily if they are not maintained all the time. So I am a strong believer in that.
What goes hand in hand with an improved rail system is technology. For many years now—and I understand it has now been corrected—we have had the old, virtually 19th century, regulations between Brisbane and the New South Wales border on the standard gauge line, where the drivers or firemen would have to get out of the cab of the train and put the passing key into the device. It is 19th century technology and it was still being used until comparatively recent times on one of Australia’s busiest rail systems. We have to get beyond that.
Also, we have got to recognise that trains are moving faster. The tilt train that is now operating in Queensland can travel at up to 160 kilometres an hour, and it does on some stretches. In fact, during the trials of the tilt train, a fully laden train, over a measured kilometre, at a place called Avondale, north of Bundaberg, was clocked at 211 kilometres an hour. That it is not European standard, but it is certainly much faster than anything we have ever seen in Australia. So I come back to my problem. The technologies that have to go with that must be at the same level. ‘Technologies’ can mean all sorts of things. It can mean an integrated IT system of train identification and the working of points and passing lanes and the like being controlled at central locations on an electronic basis.
The other thing that you have to look at if you have trains going a lot faster—and we have a lot of long trains now too, particularly coal trains and iron ore trains—is that level crossings have to be at a technological level that copes with those changes. Quite frankly, now they do not. The number of accidents that are occurring across Australia at level crossings is quite horrendous. We saw the recent case in Victoria. I am not for a moment disagreeing with the court or trying to apportion blame to any individual; I am just talking generically. You really have to ask yourself: if the level crossing identification had been better, might that accident not have occurred?
Our committee, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, decided to upgrade an earlier report by the corresponding transport committee in a previous parliament: the 2004 report about level crossings. I mentioned in my earlier speech on this matter that this was brought about by the heart-rending case of the mothers Merrilea Broad and Karen Morrissey, who appeared before us in 2004, having lost their children at a level crossing in Western Australia. It was a horrendous story. It possessed the committee to pull the level crossing component out of a road safety study and make it a separate study. We went to lots of level crossings and looked at technology and made a lot of recommendations. Some have been implemented—particularly by the Victorian government, I might add—and others have not.
In this report, we went over the areas that we have not dealt with for four years and had a look at what had happened. We travelled to Victoria, where we saw some very innovative work going on, particularly with rumble strips at level crossings. There are various forms of rumble strips, and I must say the Victorian ones are very impressive. You have a raised lump of bitumen, not to the extent of a speed bump but to the extent of a small mould. By setting those at a required distance, you can get a vibrating effect in the vehicle without causing it to run off the road or do anything like that. Inside the cabin—I know these sounds of mine might cause some trouble to Hansard—it creates a ‘bumpety, bumpety, bumpety’ effect. As you come to a level crossing, you are alerted to the fact that there is something ahead on the road.
That similar technology is used in Queensland at T-junction roads coming into major highways. So, if you are turning into the Bruce Highway or the Pacific Highway, you will have that bumpety effect as you enter the intersection. You do not just come swinging into the intersection, thinking that it is perhaps another passive road like the one you have just come off. We can all do it—it is just a bit of inner tension, or because you do not realise you are coming into a stream of very fast traffic on a major highway, and you can very easily be lulled into a false sense of security. That happened to me just recently at a major intersection in my electorate. I did not realise I was right on top of the stop sign and, before I realised it, I was through it. So it is important that we have additional signals at these places.
The rumble strip is one way of bringing level crossings to the attention of drivers, and I commend the Victorian government and think they should continue to pursue that—they did not want to have photographs in the report because they said that they are still working on it. I think it is worth commending the Victorian government and saying that all states should have a really good look at it. There are two types of rumble strips, and one is a mechanical one that comes out of the ground. Obviously, that is going to be much more expensive. You really have to work out whether you might be better with boom gates. That is another variation of it.
Intelligent transport systems are also important. Two suggestions came before the committee, both of which I think are worth pursuing. One of them involved putting a special audio signal into GPS devices. I do not know if honourable members in the chamber have got those GPS devices in their cars, but if you have you will know that, as you get a couple of hundred metres from a school, you will get an audible signal coming through your GPS device. The suggestion is that, as drivers come up on level crossings, a similar audible device might alert them to that circumstance. Another one is to have the alert come through the radio system of cars and trucks, by having a permanent loop near level crossings. Those things were not possible 10 or 15 years ago; they are possible today. You have to weigh up the cost and technological difficulties against the possible outcomes.
Another thing we found in this report was that there is very little uniformity of data between the states. If you want to seriously look at these things, you have to have uniform data, because that way you can have uniform solutions—and, more importantly, solutions that people recognise as they drive from state to state. I find that quite commendable, as well.
Another thing we recommended was that, on major highways, there be an 80km/h limit as you come up on a level crossing. To some, that might sound a bit excessive—I think not; we do have those things at schools. We drop the speed 20km/h in most states as you come up to a school during school hours. Why would you not do something similar at level crossings?
I also want to talk about driver behaviour. When you look at the figures, the same sorts of things apply: inattention, weather conditions, alcohol—they all affect people’s behaviour at level crossings, as they do on the road in general. The idea—and I saw this in Gladstone, which at the time was in my electorate—of trucks using a z-pattern to go through boom gates is, to my way of thinking, just madness. A $6 million bridge was built in Gladstone which, although it is used for other purposes and has a long-term arterial aspect to it, covers three level crossings. One of the reasons for eliminating those level crossings was people playing Russian roulette with the boom gates. I think that there should be a mandatory suspension of licence for anyone who drives a vehicle through boom gates after they have come down. People should just lose their licence automatically for three months. If they cannot learn the sensible way, they have to learn the harsh way. I am normally not draconian about road rules and those sorts of things, but having people put lives at risk, including mothers with kids in bassinettes in cars, is just not acceptable. I commend this very good report. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Bradbury) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2009. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to correct omissions in the act, which came into effect in November 2008, and also is intended to make a number of technical corrections, including to references to the act in other legislation. By way of background, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 provides for the injection and geological storage of greenhouse gas substances in Australia’s offshore areas—that is, those covered by the Commonwealth. The bill will provide for access and property rights for greenhouse gas injection and storage.
Despite the constant assertions by the Prime Minister and the current government that the Howard government did nothing on greenhouse gas emissions, the fact of the matter is quite the contrary, and I was pleased that the Prime Minister finally acknowledged that in the House yesterday. I am surprised the Prime Minister had trouble saying ‘$3 billion’, because the ‘billions of dollars’ figures tend to roll off their tongues these days like they were just lolly money. But in the main chamber yesterday the Prime Minister did admit that the Howard government had allocated $3 billion to lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.
The work that has been done to date on lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Australia was done by the previous government. That is a fact. The money that has been put into solar energy, the money that has been put into carbon capture and storage, the money that has been put into better efficiencies in coal fired power stations, the money that has been put into looking at ways in which we can improve the combustion of coal—the money that has gone into all those projects came from the previous government.
It has taken the government 18 months to allocate money for new projects. As yet, no major sums of money have been spent building anything. There has been a great deal of talk—and I know that many would not be surprised by that fact—about what the government are doing about greenhouse gas emissions. But the reality is that they sign things, they initiate reports, they establish a new institute that duplicates the previous institute and they do round-the-world trips talking about what they are going to do. They say they are going to do a lot, but they have not done anything.
The reality is, as is the case with this legislation which began development in 2005 under the previous government, that it is one of the real initiatives that will make a difference. I do commend the government for the work it is doing to ensure this bill operates correctly, but it highlights that bills of this nature—and this one is relatively simple—will continue to need amendment to ensure that they work. I will come back to that point a bit later.
The provisions of this bill will authorise the injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances, as I say, in offshore waters. This means in essence the capture of carbon dioxide together with any substances incidentally derived from the capture or injection and storage process with the permitted and required addition of chemical detention agents to assist in the tracing of the injected greenhouse gas. What that means in layman’s terms is that, when you bury this gas and sequester it in the ground in these subterranean reservoirs or storage spaces, there will be a gas agent that will be put in there that can be traced so that we will know if that storage is leaking.
I cannot emphasise how important this legislation is in regard to where we go in Australia, in particular in regard to the use of zero-emission coal fired power stations. Again, this government has said a lot about that but has not yet put any money into building one. I see it is allocated and I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy for providing me with a briefing yesterday, but what it says is that still this government is not providing enough money to build a series of zero-emission coal fired power stations. We have heard figures bounced around by the Prime Minister of somewhere between two, four and eight of these power stations being built by 2020.
Let me apprise the House of what one of these power stations will cost. It will cost around $3 billion—about as much as a nuclear power station. They are an extremely expensive piece of kit. They are arguably almost double what it would cost to build the same size power station conventionally, as we call it, even using the latest super- and ultra-critical boilers. These power stations are not efficient by nature—30 per cent of the energy they produce goes into capturing and storing the CO2. That CO2, as I mentioned, will be stored in these subterranean reservoirs.
What we all need to understand about carbon capture and storage in relation to zero-emission coal is that it is extraordinarily expensive to build these power stations and extraordinarily expensive to run them. What the government is not telling the people of Australia is that the price of electricity ex the power station will treble. It will go up threefold under their greenhouse gas emission program. Between the carbon price and the actual physical cost of building and running one of these power stations, people in Australia need to be aware that the price of electricity at the power station will treble. No-one is arguing with that figure. The figure is generally accepted to be in excess of $120 a megawatt hour, it is $40 currently and it is possible and accepted that the figure could in fact be as high as $150 a megawatt hour.
That will bring into focus some of the folly of what this government is trying to do with the pittance that it has put into this technology in the 18 months that it has been in power. I say pittance as a relative term, but we need to understand that under the program which the government boasts about of somewhere between two and eight power stations having this technology by 2020 that, in fact, each of those power stations have a commercial shortfall or an economic gap, as they call it, of around $1 billion. And there is nothing that the government has announced to date that will cover that gap. Having covered that construction cost, they then need to be honest with the Australian people about what their electricity bills are going to be.
Industry have got it worked out. They know that, between the CPRS, the rent and the actual cost of building these power stations, their power bills are going to go up significantly, and one of the great natural advantages that Australia has had as a country will be lost forever. Before any of our competitors move to this sort of regime, before we even know what any of our trade competitors are doing, Australia will be locked in through this ridiculous, poorly thought out CPRS to committing Australian consumers, in the case of industry, to an uneconomical price of electricity for those high-level consumers.
We need at some stage to see the government be honest about the challenge that lies in front of them. Can I start by suggesting that they look at this publication, Powering Australia: the business of electricity supply. It has a wonderful photo on the front of a wind energy power station. I know there are some—not me, because I have an engineering eye, being an ex-farmer and someone with that sort of bent—who would say, ‘You have polluted the landscape with wind farms.’ I am not of that ilk. I believe wind farms, along with other forms of renewable energy, have an important role to play, but we need to understand that, given the remoteness of that power station, there are going to be added costs in transmission and energy lost, along with the fact that wind energy costs twice as much as coal energy now. We need to understand that, in terms of cost reduction, that technology is not going to see that figure alter dramatically.
That is one of the reasons why we want to put a price on carbon.
Well, that is exactly the point I have been making. Obviously you were not listening to what I was saying, but I will come back to your point—
Ms Jackson interjecting
Which camp are you in?
Ms Jackson interjecting
The member for Groom has the call.
I have done more on lowering greenhouse gas emissions than you have. If you want me to run through it, I am happy to give you a briefing on what I actually did in six years and what the environment ministers that I worked with for six years actually did, and then you can sit down with me with your environment minister and your other minister and you can compare notes. I tell you what: you are a couple of billion dollars behind—a lot of talk ahead, but a couple of billion dollars behind. We have actually put things on the ground, which you are yet to do.
Coming back to the issue, whilst wind, solar, geothermal, wave and perhaps tidal have a role to play, Australia, as defined in this report, needs to build a thousand megawatts of electricity power stations every year from now until 2020. We need to know from the government how many of those power stations they actually think—not the ones they put in their speeches, not the ones they give in their media spin—will be coal fired power stations, how many of them will actually use this legislation, which is so critical to their survival, and then on what basis they will then tell the people what the price of electricity will be. What is all this going to cost the average person and the average household?
While they are doing that and they are putting together their legislation, they should also address a couple of other issues in relation to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and coal-fired power stations. They should acknowledge some of the points made by the Energy Supply Association of Australia, who actually know what is going on in energy supply. They should take very careful note of these four points, which the Energy Supply Association were talking to members of parliament about over the last couple of weeks.
The first point is that there needs to be something done by this government to protect the balance sheets of stranded coal-fired generators through the allocation of additional permits. The way power stations are being currently treated by the CPRS, they will close, and the members opposite need to explain to their constituents what happens when the first coal-fired power station in Victoria closes in 2015. What is actually going to replace that baseload power? That is only six years away. That does not give enough time for a power station to be built that can use the legislation that we are discussing. What is actually going to replace that power station?
We need to know how the government is going to protect the balance sheets of these coal-fired power stations. We need to know if the government is going to deliver 10 years of firm emission caps to these power stations followed by a 10-year emission target range. Is it going to ensure that these power stations can convince the people who finance them, who lend them the billions of dollars to keep these power stations running, of what projections, costs and income these power stations have got?
I need to emphasise that these power stations are not financed once in their lifetime; they regularly roll over their finance and refinance at various times. As anyone who knows anything about the power industry will know, these power stations are currently going through a round of refinancing. Some of the larger power stations will again be borrowing billions of dollars, at a time—as we are constantly reminded—of very, very tight lending. This money is borrowed both domestically and overseas. That borrowing capacity, which is already hindered significantly by the global financial crisis, will be made significantly more difficult by the CPRS.
We need to ensure that the CPRS provides future settled contracts at permit auctions to enable liable entities to manage cash flows. There is going to be an enormous amount of money being paid by these power stations in advance. That is a cash-flow issue in the millions and millions of dollars. Power stations, in some cases, will need to secure up to $10 billion worth of permits to continue to operate—that is $10 billion over and above the money they are drawing out of their normal refinancing regimes. Ten billion dollars—that is a lot of money. Even in the Prime Minister’s language that is a lot of money. We need to give these power generators the certainty they need or they will simply not continue to operate.
We need the government to provide some assurance to coal-fired power stations that they will have a place in the future. This legislation is a very important part of that. It is a very important part of that because it not only provides the ability for carbon sequestration from land-based power stations, but it also provides the framework, in terms of what the state governments do. In that regard I am less optimistic, because the state governments, encumbered by huge debts, are looking with an eye of complete confusion on this issue. Looking at states like Queensland and New South Wales and Victoria, who rely so heavily on coal-fired power stations, I can only express disappointment in the way they are handling this issue.
That disappointment, of course, does not stop there. We see a ridiculous situation where, despite the grand claims of this government, the Prime Minister’s own legislation does not take into account those first attempts at carbon capture and storage by power stations. We are seeing proponents like ZeroGen refused further assistance by both the state Queensland government—and I will not start on that or I’ll be here all day—and the federal government. We are still not sure if, under their new proposal, that project will get any money.
What we do know for sure is that, despite this legislation, these new leading-edge projects will not get off the ground. This is because of the simple fact that this government, under its CPRS which has not got a practical line in the whole legislation, will simply tax these projects out of business through a carbon emission price. And when I say tax I mean that, when you do not have the technology to lower your greenhouse gas emissions any further, your emissions are still priced and you have to pay that price—and that is a tax. You have no way of avoiding it. It is as certain as birth and death.
We have seen a ridiculous situation where ZeroGen—whose project aims at using this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent from power stations and sequester carbon—still have to pay for the carbon for their pilot plant. Is this government fair dinkum about progressing zero-emission coal in Australia? Or is it, like a lot of what it does, just hot air? We have seen continual reference by this government to how important zero-emission coal is, but we have not seen any real action—a lot of talk; not much action. The government is very good at setting up another institute, particularly if the Prime Minister is about to go overseas, but at no time have we seen what it will actually do to get these power stations built. There is a number between two and eight that floats around, depending on who the audience is.
We need to understand that there are none of these power stations operating in the world on a commercial basis now—zero. Nil. Zero. In the six years I was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, a great deal of money—real money, taxpayers’ money, hundreds of millions of dollars—was spent by the then government to progress this issue. We are still no closer now than we were five years ago, so we need to see this government get fair dinkum about it.
Along with that, as a result of the CPRS, as this legislation comes into practice, as the cost of storing carbon gets added to the price of electricity and as the price of the carbon that is emitted is charged at the carbon price, we need to see what this government is actually going to do to keep jobs in Australia. There is a lot of talk about jobs by this government. The reality is that unemployment is going to rise significantly and perhaps double over the next 18 months. Those are not my figures; they are economists’ figures. The member who spoke previously, who was here with me, showed me the latest economic predictions. They were being made by the same people who, 12 months ago, were predicting a bright future for Australia. What the economic picture seems to be, though—and there is no certainty of this—is that things will get tougher and jobs in Australia will be lost. At that point in time, you would think that a government that is fair dinkum about jobs—as it seems to be fair dinkum about carbon storage—would be making sure that this legislation, when put into practice, did not cost jobs in Australia through increased costs to business.
There is no evidence to support that. There is no evidence to support the idea that the government has any understanding of the fact that trade-exposed energy-intensive industry will simply move overseas—that industries like aluminium, for instance, will simply not expand in Australia and that they will run down their physical assets to the point where they are no longer economical to run, in a cash-flow sense, and they will close. Who knows how long that will take? Maybe it will be 20 or 30 years, or 40 years, if we are lucky. In the meantime, we will see no more of those industries come to Australia. We will see no more pipelines for the Tomago aluminium smelter at Newcastle and no jobs for the people that will be thrown out of work in the resources industry or the coal industry as it is shut down by this government.
It gets worse than that, because this week we have seen the release by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the effect that the CPRS will have on small business. It is sobering reading:
As a consequence—
of the CPRS and its effect on the small business sector—
trade-exposed SMEs have limited opportunities to pass the costs on …
We on this side of the House understand that explicitly. We know business because we are in it. We have done it. We are very good at businesses. We on this side of the House understand business. We know how to make money; those on the other side of the House know how to spend money. But as this report goes on, these businesses ‘have no way to pass on costs to their customers’:
… but are not eligible for assistance under the proposed CPRS transition package.
Increases in energy and transport costs will impact directly on SME employment and profitability.
Employment—does that word ring a bell? It rings a bell over here. It goes on:
The study finds that the CPRS in its current form will generate additional costs that would erode firm profitability by between 4 to 7 per cent …
This is at a time when many economists are still predicting Australia will go into recession. We may have dodged the bullet last time. There is some suggestion that we may escape, but there is more suggestion that we still have a recession in front of us. The report continues:
… the study shows that firms would likely need to reduce labour costs—
labour costs—does that ring a bell over the other side? It sounds like jobs going to me. Labour costs would need to reduce:
… by between:
I still do not have an answer from the minister for industry about how he expects Australian car manufacturers to compete. Plastic is a big component of Australian cars, along with electronics and steel. Steel and plastics will be subjected to the CPRS, and plastics with no compensation, and the manufacturers will be competing against the Americans, not to mention the Japanese, the Chinese, the Thais and the Europeans—although the European cars, while they are very good, always lose a slight competitive edge because of the location. But Australian manufacturers will still have to compete, particularly with the Koreans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Americans and the Thais. Car manufacturers in Australia will be paying this price on plastics, trying to compete with manufacturers in other countries. Again we hear this government say they are fair dinkum about a car industry, but they are quite happy to put it out of business with the CPRS.
I will finish with these last few numbers. The chemicals manufacturing industry will have to reduce labour costs by between 1.8 and 3.2 per cent, and in the machinery and equipment manufacturing sector, which would include the car industry, we are going to have to see a 1.8 to three per cent cut in labour costs. Despite this legislation, despite the work that our government did when we were in office, the CPRS is going to destroy industry in Australia—not just the aluminium industry, not just the cement industry, not just the smelting industry but industries right down in the electorates of the people who sit over there.
What we need is some honesty from this government. We need to see a situation where they will actually ensure that this legislation works—and, as I said, I commend the minister for his efforts on this. He is ensuring that, from his perspective, the legislation to sequester carbon is as good as it can be. There may be further work that needs to be done on it, and therein lies the salient point. As this opposition cooperates with the Minister for Resources and Energy to ensure that this small, simple piece of legislation which constantly needs amendments is amended to make sure it works, we draw the comparison to what it will be like trying to amend a CPRS that is basically flawed. This legislation is basically right. When it was introduced in 2005, it was basically right, but it needs a bit of tinkering. Here we are, four years later, doing that in good faith with the minister. What is it going to be like when we, the people responsible for the economic and social future of Australia, have to try and do the same for the CPRS? It will be full of politics, full of false promises, full of potential to destroy Australia’s economic future.
We will do our best. We were a government with a record of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We reduced greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt hour of electricity produced. We did that. It will never be acknowledged over there. We gave the renewable energy sector a start. We were the ones who introduced the MRET, and it was working.
What we are seeing from this government is a lot of talk, a lot of rush and a lot of politics about the CPRS. Using this legislation as a comparison, we should be very, very afraid of what the CPRS is going to do. It will be flawed from the day it is introduced. It will require constant amendment. We probably will not find out what the Americans are doing until after Copenhagen. The Waxman-Markey bill has to get through firstly the Democrats, then the Republicans and then the congress. The senate runs a parallel process. When it does get through, we will have some idea of what we are up against there. We may then also have some idea of what we are up against with our trade competitors in Europe and Japan. We will still have absolutely no idea with regard to China, Korea, Thailand, India or a list of other countries which will give us competition in the industry sector which we will not be able to deal with and which will cost jobs here in Australia.
Like the shadow minister, I rise to support the legislation before the House, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2009. As the shadow minister has identified, both pieces of legislation largely deal with technical and minor amendments which streamline requirements, provide clarification or reduce the overall regulatory burden on industry. These changes result primarily from three reviews of different aspects of the offshore petroleum regulatory system which have been conducted by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism over the past couple of years. Some of the amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act also arise as a result of amendments to the legislation in the Senate.
I can reassure the chamber that there are no adverse effects on industry from these bills, or indeed any additional costs. It is interesting to see so many Western Australian members in the Main Committee at the moment. I think it is important to acknowledge how enormously significant the offshore petroleum industry in Western Australia is, not only to our state but to Australia generally. In the Western Australian economy, it is a $19.4 billion sector. About 69 per cent of Australia’s natural gas production and 70 per cent of crude oil and condensate production are located in Western Australia. Seventy-two per cent of Australia’s petroleum exploration expenditure in 2008 was spent in Western Australia.
The industry creates significant wealth for the country, including through the employment of tens of thousands of Australians, some of whom are resident in my electorate of Hasluck. The industry underpins the revenue collection of governments and generates valuable export revenue. Particularly in the case of gas, it is also wonderful at replacing costly imported petroleum. It is a strong and vibrant industry and it is essential to the ongoing health of the Australian economy.
Gas activities have been impacted by the economic downturn, with LNG imports having fallen in some countries and investment in production infrastructure having been delayed or deferred as a result of falling investment in gas based processing projects in Australia, although I think the long-term outlook is good and LNG demand, in particular in the Asia-Pacific region, is expected to continue to increase. It may not increase at the growth rates previously envisaged, but I do think it will be a very positive future.
I note in particular Woodside and the current Pluto project in the north-west of Western Australia, which is currently employing some 3,000 people—soon to increase to 4,500 in September-October this year. It is pleasing to see that sort of project development continuing even when there are significant pressures in the international economy. We know what enormous potential these gas projects provide to Australia, particularly in the areas of employment creation, investment and long-term infrastructure, with improvements in government revenues being perhaps amongst the most tangible.
I know that the government is acting now to help Australian business prepare for the economic recovery and it is looking at ways in which we can introduce reforms and make other changes that will promote investment in the Australian gas and mineral resources sector. In this area I would especially acknowledge the work of the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson. It is quite clear that our role as a government in these circumstances is to look at what reforms we can make to best prepare Australian business for economic recovery. As the minister said in a media statement on 9 April 2009:
Our role in the present economic climate is to deliver micro-economic reforms that get rid of red tape, reduce the cost of regulation, simplify the tax system, and get the balance right between taxation of production and consumption, investment and savings.
In other words, we also need to ensure that we do the right thing by preparing the Australian workforce for the skills and jobs of the future in these industries.
I have said how important this industry is to the Western Australian and Australian economies. I was also pleased to see the minister announce earlier this month the release of some 31 new offshore petroleum exploration areas and two special areas in Commonwealth waters. I think that is a reflection that you cannot promote project development opportunities in these industries without ensuring that you have a strong exploration industry. That is where project development opportunities come from, and I am pleased to see that those additional offshore exploration areas have been identified.
Most pleasing for me was the release of the retention lease discussion paper a couple of weeks ago. I think it is a timely discussion to have in this sector. Yes, we have these wonderful resources available but we have to actually make sure that where companies have those leases they do eventually use them. I was interested to see the minister’s media release when he released the discussion paper. He said:
The challenge we face is to realign the national interest of Australia with the commercial interest of investors. I have already flagged that my Department and I will apply a ‘use it or lose it’ principle to retention lease applications. That means we will rigorously apply the commerciality test to ensure gas fields are developed at the earliest possible time.
The government remains strongly committed not only to open and transparent investment regimes and to looking at ways to promote project development in Australia but also to keeping the balance right with the national interest. I commend the minister on his agenda and on the progress to date in these areas.
One aspect of the legislation deals with changes to the safety regulations covering pipelines. This will see pipelines being treated on the same basis as other facilities under the safety regulations and will see the removal of pipeline management plans and pipeline safety management plans from regulations. As such, the pipeline safety management plan levy will become a safety case levy. These changes in levy arrangements are set out in the bills, with amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and the safety levies act.
I think this is a positive change. I would make the general observation that this amendment ultimately will ensure that all facilities, including pipelines, will come under the general oversight or regulation of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, and I think this is a good thing. It is certainly something that has been recommended in the past, by reviews during 2007. From a Western Australian perspective, having lived through the aftermath of the Varanus Island pipeline explosion in 2008—its terrible consequences in terms of the impact on business as well as domestic consumers—it is my hope that the changes to this legislation in this regard will see a better system put in place for dealing with safety and the like in these areas. So I commend and support those changes.
There are also changes in the legislation dealing with an expedited consultation process on the granting of access authorities and making the joint authority the decision maker in relation to declarations of location and granting of scientific investigation consents. All of these changes are designed to streamline current arrangements and to ensure that the requirements of the act become less onerous and that there is less duplication. I think we all commend legislation which reduces a red-tape or regulatory burden. Again, I think this is a positive step in the right direction for these industries.
The legislation also gives the Commonwealth government a role in the declaration of a petroleum location, which leads to an application for either a retention lease or a production licence. These decisions will be made by the joint authority. This is entirely appropriate, given that some of the exploration leases are over Commonwealth waters, and in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The changes to the greenhouse gas storage provisions of the act are to remove several inconsistencies and ambiguities arising from amendments made in the Senate. These changes are purely technical and make no policy changes to greenhouse gas storage related operations—although they do provide me with an opportunity to congratulate the Rudd government on the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute that was launched earlier this year. We know from media and other reports that this initiative has received strong and widespread international support. It is consistent with the government’s climate change strategy, which is designed not only to reduce our carbon pollution but also to help us adapt to the impact of climate change. We have to be involved in finding a global solution to the issues associated with climate change. I look forward to reading more about the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. As I said, it has received significant support globally, and of course we have seen a significant budget allocation to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture and storage projects globally.
As I indicated, most of the amendments in this legislation are quite small, but together they will improve the effectiveness of the act and further streamline regulations. I commend the bills to the House.
These bills, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Amendment Bill 2009, make amendments that are primarily technical but nevertheless deal with one of the great issues under debate in this House at this time—that is, the various aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and particularly, on this occasion, greenhouse gas storage. I find that a matter of great interest.
It is also of interest that, when one consults the explanatory memorandum to the Offshore Petroleum Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill, under items 41 to 49 there is significant reference to, and extensive advice regarding, negligence as a fault in the criminal code that applies to certain matters of occupational health and safety. This is an ongoing trend in laying blame for negligence, particularly negligence by employers or other people in a position of responsibility, as part of protecting people and the generation of a safe environment.
I will take the opportunity to draw to the House’s attention the well-reported fact that we have an ongoing royal commission in Victoria relating to the tragic wildfires that occurred there last February. I have made a submission to that inquiry, but I have not yet had a phone call: ‘When are you coming to expand on your views, Mr Tuckey?’ It is all about the responsibility of the owner of the property to maintain a safe environment. I go as far as to say that blame must be apportioned.
If the government of Victoria were a corporation, there would be no doubt that the members of the Parliament, as board of directors, would be currently being charged with criminal acts, because they ignored all the science of a hundred years or, if you like, of centuries of known and recorded Aboriginal practice. It happens to be a Labor government that is there now and they have been there long enough to have fixed the problem, but the blame goes well beyond that. In fact I have given evidence to a meeting of state ministers that I called to warn them of this, based on advice from our own firefighters who went to America. The ministers have known about it and at that meeting they refused to act. To use the words of one minister, applauded by the others, ‘If we’ve got to touch one tree, in terms of prevention, we won’t do it.’
So here it is: more legislation in this place to apply criminal sanctions to certain people under occupational health and safety rules and still not a mention of it down at the royal commission. They want to tear apart the firefighting services and everyone for their failure to protect people from a nuclear event. They could not be protected if they were anywhere near it. Total evacuation may have been a solution, but not to property, only to person. I just make that point because the opportunity is given to me by those words in this legislation.
As the previous speaker from this side has been saying, the issue arises about greenhouse gas storage and the issue arises about greenhouse injection licences, which are specifically dealt with in this legislation. There are some interesting statistics, which I have developed, tested and had peer reviewed, if you like, regarding how we might achieve genuine greenhouse emissions reductions of 20 per cent without imposing a silly emissions trading scheme.
It is referred to as a carbon pollution reduction scheme when all it is, in fact, is a derivatives trading scheme, the value of which I can only see accruing to the hedge funds and the screen jockeys who will be able to recover some respectability by practising, under the label of saving the planet environmentally, all the things that sent the world broke. I find that response to what I accept is a problem to be patently ridiculous.
It is in fact a system that issues certificates to pollute. Some will be sold by the government accruing revenue apparently of about $11 billion, but we are told that the ordinary consumer and businessman will suffer no ill effects from that withdrawal of $11 billion from money that would otherwise be circulating to their interest. And then of course there is a significant and ongoing debate about the issuance of free certificates to industries principally referred to as trade exposed. As the previous speaker from this side said, nobody thought to put the car manufacturing industry into the mix and yet it is patently obvious that the American legislation will be much more generous in terms of the issuance of free certificates, exemptions or whatever you want to call them. That is the proposed legislation now before committees in the American congress.
Therefore, for companies like General Motors that have now told General Motors Holden that they are on their own but ‘Good luck; we think you might make it’, the reality is that, with a renewed business structure with gigantic capital subsidies from their government and relief from their employees health system that was costing them $1,500 a motor car, the suggestion that they are not going to come out and compete with their own subsidiary is laughable. Considering their mass market and everything else, they will knock spots off us. Even in its endangered state, the Chrysler company is, from my observation, on the roads already penetrating the SUV market, particularly in Australia with their jeeps. I cannot drive down the road for 10 minutes without passing a couple of jeeps or having them pass me.
What I am saying is that the threat from this proposal that is in the Australian parliament has to be considered on a global basis. By the way, I have some admiration for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in some of the initiatives he has taken, but when he stands up in this place and says that farmers can be helped by initiatives in Australia and that their weather pattern is only going to change if we are able to reduce our emissions by 100 per cent it is of course farcical and it should not be said. We have an international obligation; we should not be the world leaders. Our emissions as other nations grow will be one per cent, not even the existing 1.4 per cent.
When you look at those facts of life, it is questionable that we should have a system that allows people to buy certificates to pollute and make a judgment what they do thereafter. If you are running certain businesses with a captive market, what are you going to do? You are going to pass on the price. They cannot get away. Of course, you eventually get down to the household consumer or the primary industry farmer and they pay up because they have no-one to whom they can pass on those costs.
I laugh when we hear these business calls for certainty, so they can make up their mind whether they stay or leave the country, so that they can start to reorganise their investment because China are not going to have an ETS. China are going to have, as already ordered, 20-odd nuclear power stations which do not emit greenhouse gas. China have built the Three Gorges Dam as a huge resource of hydropower and now they are building a 2,000-kilometre high-voltage DC line because they know they can transmit energy along that line with practically no energy losses and therefore of course no associated emissions.
We are talking particularly about greenhouse gas and we are talking about greenhouse gas storage. On a scale of one to 10, I have had to ask myself: how would you best achieve outcomes in this regard and where would you invest government money? Please remember we have just had a disposal through borrowing of $24 billion by way of $900 cheques to the citizens of Australia. Has anybody asked themselves: had that money been invested in practical measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases would that not have been a better outcome for our kids? We could have invested it in jobs in Australia. Most of the technology would be developed in Australia, notwithstanding that none of it has to be invented.
In the remaining minutes available to me, I want to take the opportunity to point out what you can do to reduce greenhouse emissions just by changing your business pattern. Australia has 25,000 kilometres of natural gas pipelines and the gas is put through a compressor stationed every 1,000 kilometres along the line. They are used to keep the gas moving in the pipelines. Gas will not travel on its own. The compressors literally suck gas out of the pipeline and drive gas turbines to recompress the gas and move it on for another 100 kilometres or whatever down the pipeline. Those compressors emit 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per 1,000 kilometres—in other words, some 7½ million tonnes of emissions are associated with those natural gas pipelines. A significant amount of that gas—in the case of Western Australia it is about 30 per cent of the gas pumped down from the Pilbara to Perth—is then turned into electricity in gas turbines. Along that pipeline, 250 megawatts of electricity is burnt up, which is equal to one Collie powerhouse in our state. Having burnt up the gas, the gas is then taken out at the end of the pipeline, turned into electricity and, in some cases, sent a third of the way back up that pipeline in the form of highly inefficient high-voltage AC power—not DC power. AC power is known for its inefficiency. It is known that a transformer must be placed every 20 or 30 kilometres, and that consumes energy. Why would you do that?
The Premier of WA, recognising the need for additional electricity for the Perth metropolitan area—and there is nothing wrong with that—is proposing another 200 megawatts of power generation at Kwinana, just south of Perth. He has just learnt a lesson, and that is: to send any more of that power up to the mid-west region in my electorate, he needs to spend $700-odd million on an AC powerline that is going to waste a lot of electricity. The other day in a flash of inspiration, he said, ‘Why’—considering, of course, that the gas pipeline travels through that country—‘don’t we build the powerhouse up here?’ Fine. But the real question is: why not build it on the beach where the gas comes ashore? Instead of using a highly inefficient gas pipeline to pump the energy to where someone wants to consume it, why not use a highly efficient electrical line known as high-voltage DC? I might add that currently such a line crosses Bass Strait for the simple reason that you cannot put transformers in the sea. It happens to be an electrical system that can carry electricity transmissions in either direction.
Just by changing that system, you no longer need to have emissions involved in the construction of gas pipelines. You do not build these steel pipelines without emissions. The member for Solomon would probably not like to be reminded that, if they take that gas across the sea from Inpex’s deposit in the Browse field to Darwin, there will be a huge emission requirement during the construction of that greatly elongated pipeline. I hear greenies standing up every day saying, ‘The Browse gas shouldn’t go to the Kimberley coastline’—the shortest possible distance—‘it should be pumped under the sea all the way to the Pilbara.’ I have just stated the sorts of emissions that will achieve. But does that worry Missy Higgins?
Missy Higgins has a tax deductible house in Broome, where she goes to get inspiration in the wintertime. She wants to be a protester—excuse me—and there are two or three others standing beside her. Of course, if she got swine flu while she was up there she would expect the Western Australian taxpayers, who are denied payroll tax and things if these projects do not go ahead in their state, to fund the Flying Doctor Service to get her to a hospital—yet to be built. And good luck to Darwin in getting the Inpex project, but that has cost Western Australia the funding of the Fiona Stanley Hospital in the lost payroll tax.
These protestors sit up there and want the roads and want the hospitals, but want the area to be left as a pristine environment. I think the beach involved at James Price Point is pretty, but let me say that there are 6,000 kilometres of coastline in the Kimberley—1,000 as the crow flies and 6,000 if you walked it. Someone wants two kilometres of it to invest in our future, and these people are up there carrying on about it. Excuse me—it is quite silly. It is to the credit of the new government that they have that project going forward.
What I am really saying is that we keep reading so much—the member for Hasluck made mention of it—about carbon capture and storage. I only went to school until I finished my leaving, but I was lucky enough to go to Perth Modern School and I came out with distinctions in science, physics, applied maths and English, if you like to know. I shudder in this place when I hear the grammar that is used these days. But what I learnt—and I passed in economics too—from my physics was that you cannot destroy an element, and carbon is an element. The fact is that you can at considerable cost, and the technology is yet to be proven. The last time I heard from the CSIRO they said, ‘Oh yeah, you can do this; it will only consume 20 per cent of the production of the power station.’ That is a matter of physics. It is not a matter of getting the accountants in to find out how you can reduce that by half; it is a physical fact. So why would you be rushing around trying to prove that point?
There is certainly a place for coal in generating power and energy for Australia. All we have to do to meet international commitments is reduce the relative amount we use. The gas people in Darwin said the other day, ‘We can give you a 20 per cent reduction if you just go on progressively using the gas.’ We want to achieve a massive reduction in automotive emissions and we move to electric cars, and hydrogen fuel cell cars still require electricity. We are going to have to double our generating capacity.
So, in the process, why not use renewable power like the Kimberley tides that have genuine substance, why not use natural gas, why not use the other forms of renewable energy, as unreliable as some of them might be, so that by 2020 the relative component of coal-fired emissions is dramatically reduced? Nobody in the world is talking about reductions of 50 per cent. But of course if 50 per cent of your electricity was produced from renewables and you retained the benefit of the other 50 per cent being used by the cheapest possible product, coal, you have an outcome, and you have not taxed industry into submission and you have not put people out of business. In fact, over time you will achieve lower electricity prices from those renewable resources as the capital is written down, which nobody contemplates.
We keep having this silly argument that somehow you can have an emissions trading scheme and immediately the business community will comply. They will stop emitting carbon. No, some will pay for it and some will leave town and make their emissions where there is a more compliant regime. And take it from me there will be plenty by one means or other. (Time expired)
I listened intently to my colleague’s speech. I have to say that I am getting used to hearing the rhetoric about what we should be doing and when we should be doing it but never, ever making a start. If the Howard government had got re-elected, boy, would they have had a fantastic 13th year! They had these opportunities, so it is no longer just a point of rhetoric. The member for O’Connor was right: there are alternatives that must be considered. The truth of the matter is that going forward in the overall energy debate for this country is going to require a suite of technologies; it will not be any particular one. As legislators, we need to ensure that we have a regulative environment that encourages the commercialisation of each of those technologies that will play a part in the future energy needs of this nation. Having said that, I say that the simple reality is that 80 per cent of Australia’s electrical power is now generated from coal. Therefore it does require a serious response if we are to be serious in addressing climate change.
I sat through a series of reports about climate change that came down at the dying end of the Howard government. One of the reports we looked at was about carbon capture and storage, or geosequestration as it is called. I also recall a dissenting report that came from various members opposite whose dissenting position was based on the fact that they saw no discernible evidence that humankind had made any adverse impact on the environment, climate change et cetera. They wanted evidence on that, based on some reliable information they had on what was occurring not on earth but on Mars, Venus and Pluto—if the latter is still part of the solar system. It was that ridiculous. Regrettably, the person concerned, the member for Tangney, only yesterday wanted to interject to the Prime Minister and again reiterate that, in his opinion, there is no evidence to support climate change as being anything other than a natural phenomenon. Whilst we have people like that opposite, who were in the former government, it is no wonder that in their 12 years of government nothing happened to address climate change.
The establishment of carbon capture and storage as a response to power generation in this country and the fact that we are still carbon dependent is absolutely critical. I know others will argue that this is a technology that is still very new. I know the Greens will argue that by going down this route all we are going to do is further legitimise coal-fired power generation. I say to those opposite: we do need to make that start; this is not new technology—absolutely not. It is just that we are going to change the way we deal with the emissions from, in this case, coal-fired power stations. We can do this by using a network of pipelines to transmit the residue of the liquidised carbon to, I think, a bit over three kilometres offshore and then store it either in geological structures or, alternatively, using depleted oil and gas reservoirs, as they are doing in Bass Strait.
If people are going to argue, ‘Is that the sole answer?’ I still stand by my initial comment: it is not going to be the sole thing that is going to deal with our future energy requirements, but it is certainly one essential technology that will contribute to this country in doing two things if firstly, being able to have competitively priced coal for export and, secondly, ensuring that those energy dependent industries that we are establishing or wish to establish in this country for the future have the energy they need to develop their enterprises and employ those Australians who are working for the further betterment of this country. So whilst this is part of a suite of technology, it is a crucial element for pressing ahead.
Coal currently provides 80 per cent of Australia’s power generation capacity, and on a world scale it is 40 per cent. The member for O’Connor referred to the commissioning of new nuclear power stations, which is occurring in China. The reality is nuclear power currently contributes 16 per cent of world power generation. We understand all that, but the fact is coal-fired power generation is still seen as the effective, viable, affordable form of power generation into the future. Therefore if we are going to have a part in that cycle, if we are going to benefit from exporting coal to the world, if we are going to want to attract those industries and make them competitive by using coal-fired power, we then have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything that we can to ensure that the industry functions as cleanly as possible and that amelioration of carbon is given priority in future construction within that industry.
So while coal’s share of future power generation in Australia will decline—and there is no doubt that it will decline in favour of renewable energy and less greenhouse-intensive fossil fuels, such as natural gas—that is one of the areas in which we are very fortunate. From statistics I read only recently, on current usage we have in excess of 135 years’ supply of natural gas, and that is provided we do not find another supply of natural gas in the meantime. Natural gas will probably be the feed stock as we move closer towards a hydrogen economy into the future. Having that degree of natural wealth is going to be important for this country.
Years back when I had some involvement in the oil industry, working up and down the North West Shelf and into the Timor Sea and those areas, I saw the looks of exasperation on the faces of managers of companies, such as Santos and others, when they drilled and hit natural gas. That is not what they were looking for. They were looking for oil. We have so much in terms of a plugged gas supply at the moment until we discover more and reliable markets. Again that will come as part of the suite of technologies that will move to replace or reduce our dependence on coal-fired power.
The International Energy Agency, which monitors and looks at these forecasts, is indicating that the demand for energy will grow but it still forecasts that coal-fired power will be the essential form of power generation into the future. As a matter of fact, according to the International Energy Agency’s statistics, coal will provide around 44 per cent of world electricity needs by 2030. By the way, that is an increase on the current share. If that is going to increase we need to be a part of the solutions based around clean coal technologies, because our livelihood is steeped in the fact that we are the world’s largest exporter of coal. In the period 2005-06, we netted $240 billion from our exported coal. We are the world’s largest exporter.
Not all that long ago I went up to visit one of my sons working in Queensland, up at Blackwater, and I actually saw the extent of their operation up there, and that is why we do need to commit resources into ensuring that our infrastructure enables us to meet world demand. And that was only on one site. A lot of this country’s wealth generation is based on coal. The industry directly employs about 30,000 people and indirectly employs millions because various areas of industry out there are operating in this country because we have competitive, affordable access to energy, and the aluminium industry would be just one. All these things are very significant.
It is also very significant to note, when talking about finding new technology for coal fired power, to realise we have about 350 years supply of premium grade black coal on current usage, including our exports. We have 800 years supply of brown coal. Maybe that is not a most favoured realisation for those in the Greens, but as a commodity coal is something that we are well endowed with. This means that we should be the world’s leader in developing clean coal technology, and that is essentially what we are trying to do by, firstly, developing carbon capture storage and, secondly, giving weight to the less greenhouse gas polluting fossil based industries such as natural gas.
This technology—and it is not new; it is not new theory—involves reinjecting carbon into either depleted oil and gas reservoirs or, alternatively, into the depleted Esso field in Bass Strait or the Pluto field on the North West Shelf, where the proposal is to inject carbon about 1.5 metres into the substructure, into geological formations. The Greens actually posed the question in one of the inquiries: we are going to store a pollutant and does that break down. The answer is probably no, it does not break down. Those reservoirs under there, particularly the oil reservoirs and gas reservoirs, are full of carbon, and they have been there now for millions of years. That is what we have been tapping. I think using that depleted reservoir in Bass Strait to store future supplies of liquefied carbon will be very successful.
This does require leadership and I am glad the shadow minister is here because I am sure he will want to talk a little bit about the CPRS, and I will invite him to do that because his colleagues in the other place are not going to do it. They have avoided a vote on CPRS; they have avoided actually making a stand—
You know more than America does—you know more than Obama does!
I take the interjection from the member for Mayo. We are determined to make a difference. As the member for Mayo would appreciate, the government that he advised over a period of time—
Four years.
Four years, thank you. They thought many things were absolutely paramount to this country, but they did not take them to an election. And they had Work Choices. Where did they stand on these issues? Where did they stand on the position of low-polluting coal power generation? Where did they stand on those environmental things? They had words—and we heard the former shadow minister speak a little earlier—but no commitment.
It is all very well to say, ‘We were going to do that.’ They are a bunch of ‘gunnas’—they were ‘gunna’ do that eventually! They were going to do that in their 13th year! That 13th year would have been a hell of a party. Can you imagine the pop of champagne corks going off everywhere! They had 12 years to muse on these things. They had 12 years of trying to get set in their minds what they were going to do when they got to their 13th year. I am sorry, guys—you missed the party.
But it is not all bad news for you; you are still here as bona fide representatives of your electorates in the federal parliament of Australia. You can still play your role in speaking about the future for this country. You can still have a voice—except that your Senate members do not want it. They said: ‘Let’s not exercise our voice. Let’s vote to not have a vote.’ That is democracy at its greatest! I know that the legislation before us is probably not the best legislation to have the argument on, because it only makes minor technical changes to the bill, but I invite the members opposite to think about this: it actually goes to the heart of what this government is determined to do something about—reducing our emissions. This government is determined to make a start, a critical start, in environmental protection.
These are not things that should be taken for granted. They require action. The time for simply musing, talking and debating is rapidly departing. We see the statistics. We see what the world attitude is. We see what the position of the Americans is. They had eight years of a Bush administration, which did not want to deal with this issue at all. Since the Obama administration has come in they have put a line in the sand and said, ‘We are going to do it.’ I certainly wonder what the Liberals would have done in their 13th year, when they would have had to react to Obama. They could not have taken instructions from George Bush anymore—or could they? That really would have been the tail wagging the dog.
It is now our turn to get in on behalf of Australians and make the difference. The CPRS is critical. It is critical that we put a price on carbon. The opposition had a policy for putting a price on carbon which was never implemented. We are now implementing it. They cannot argue this on the basis of: ‘We refuse to argue it. As a matter of fact, we refuse to talk about it in public and we will definitely not vote on it.’
The issue of affordable power is essential in this country. We are an island which is a long way from our trading partners. One of the things that we use to attract industry is our affordable power. Industry wants to be able to use that, and coal will have an essential place in the mix. I shuddered when, not that long ago, in the lead-up to the last election, Senator Brown wanted a mandate to shut down coal exports within three years. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not aspire for my kids or my grandkids to have earthen floors and thatched roofs or to reduce our standard of living, which has been underpinned by cheap power in this country. If we are to maintain our position in relation to cheap power we need to ensure that we have the appropriate technologies available which allow us to maintain cheap power production on a more environmentally friendly basis. Therefore, carbon capture and storage provides a critical element in the forward planning and the forward development of the electrical power generation industry, the coal fired power generation industry, in this country.
It is critical. We all know that there are costs associated with that. There is no point putting our heads in the sand and saying: ‘This won’t cost anything. It’ll just happen.’ We understand the position that has been put by the member for O’Connor, but we need to be serious about being a player on the world stage. Bear in mind that, whilst the opposition takes the view ‘Let’s wait for the Americans’, we are the world’s No.1 exporter of coal. That is our basic bread and butter. We should not sit back and wait for someone else to tell us what to do. Things have changed. It is now time for decisive leadership. (Time expired)
I would just like to inform the members, if they were wondering about what the photographer was doing here, that all we know is that we had a note from the Serjeant’s office saying that he had been cleared to be up here to take photographs.
In rising to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, I want to put the bill into context. It is a part of the process of ensuring that we move Australia and, more importantly still, the world’s energy generation sources to a low or zero carbon emissions base. That is the goal, that is the objective, that is the responsibility, and that is what will occur. The only debate is around the time frame, but that outcome will occur over the course of the next half century—be in no doubt. The task is to do it in a way which is most effective with regard to environmental outcomes, and most efficient with regard to the costs imposed on our society and on other societies. The task is also to do it in a way which means that no one generation or no one country or society bears a disproportionate load. That is the context.
In addressing this bill, I want to proceed in four steps: firstly, to look at the great global challenge; secondly, to address the challenge we face and our response as we move towards a clean energy sector; thirdly, to deal with some of the impediments; and, fourthly, to deal with this particular bill’s contribution.
The global challenge is simple to understand. At this moment, at this point of history, what we see is 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases being put into the atmosphere every year. That figure is on the increase as China and India grow and add 800 new coal or gas fired power stations over the next five years. That is the grand historic moment which we face at present. The goal and objective, which we have sought for over two centuries, of seeing the eradication of poverty and the development of developing societies is part of that process. It is the grand historic paradox: as people come out of poverty, they consume more electricity and energy and, as they do this, they create CO2 emissions. That is, sadly, the great paradox of history, which brings us to this tragedy of the commons. And that is the issue which has been part of the great work of my life—coming back from a thesis in 1990 on the different approaches to reducing carbon emissions, whether it was a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. That has been part of the work of my life, and I have been happy to place my political career on hold along the way in order to make the case publicly.
Having said that, with this great challenge of 40 billion tonnes of CO2, with this great challenge of 800 new coal and gas fired power stations, with Australia’s responsibility at present being about 1.4 per cent—or 560 million tonnes—of CO2 per annum out of a total of 40 billion tonnes, we then say, ‘How do we address this problem?’ We know that energy generation for stationary energy produces approximately half of global emissions and approximately half of Australian emissions. We also know that deforestation—primarily driven out of the great rainforests of the world—accounts for a wedge of 8 billion tonnes, or approximately 20 per cent of global emissions.
When you look at the great historic passage over the next 50 years, we proceed in three stages. First, we can halve deforestation. We can take that 8 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum, reduce it to 4 billion tonnes, and reduce global emissions by 10 per cent through a global rainforest recovery program. That is achievable, it is desirable, and it has collateral environmental and biodiversity benefits of an enormous scale. That can be achieved over the next five years. The United States, to their credit, has picked up the proposal of a global rainforest recovery program, which we had in government, for which Malcolm Turnbull, Alexander Downer and I announced a $200 million program, and which we pursued. We did it after discussions with Tim Flannery—and I pay credit to Tim Flannery for coming to us with that program, which was announced in early 2007.
Having said that, the second great stage is the cleaning up of our global energy sources, and the third great stage is the cleaning up of our transportation fuels. These are all opportunities which we can pursue over the coming half century. The staging is not absolute, there will be overlaps, we can do the immediate work with the Rainforest Recovery Program, this bill deals with part 2, the clarification, cleaning up and improvement of our energy sources, the transition to a clean energy economy.
That then brings me to part 2, this notion of the clean energy economy, and there are really three elements to this concept alone. Firstly, there is the adoption of renewable energy, secondly, there is the transition to gas as a major fossil fuel base and, thirdly, there is the cleanup of coal fired power. Carbon capture and storage—which is underpinned by this bill, which amends work which we did whilst in government—is fundamental to the process of cleaning up our coal and our gas fired reserves. I say this because we can see that with a full carbon capture and storage program combined with drying and gasification, instead of about 1.2 or 1.3 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hour of energy, or 1.2 or 1.3 tons of CO2 or equivalent gases for each megawatt hour of energy generated from brown coal we can achieve about 0.1 or 0.2 tonnes per megawatt hour or, in other words, we can have an 80 to 90 per cent reduction in emissions. That is profound, that is a profound change.
Similarly, if we do that with gas we are looking again at 0.1 or 0.2 tonnes per megawatt hour. Again, we are looking at a sea-change in emissions. That is the great change for Australia along with the process of biosequestration of soil carbons, of bio-char, of mallee and mulga revegetation—which Garnaut himself talks about as having a potential for 800 million tonnes of additional capture per annum against Australia’s current 560 million tonnes—in other words, the potential for Australia to be a net carbon sink.
We must clean up our energy because if we can do that in Australia we can take that technology to China and India, because it does not matter if we close down Australia if we do not deal with these great sources of China and India, which are multiplying in their emissions as they go through this historic development path, then we will not solve the global problem; there is no question about that. It is, for me, part of my life’s work to help address this issue. So that is I why I believe in the importance of carbon capture and storage.
The member for Werriwa raised what is happening with enhanced oil recovery around the world, he was actually quite informed and I compliment him on what he had to say in relation to that. We know that in North Dakota there is an Australian firm engaged in some of the critical work here, the precursor work towards a major enhanced oil recovery program using carbon capture and storage. We know that the North West Shelf, through the work of Chevron with Gorgon, potentially with the Pluto project, is going to be a site of one of the world’s greatest carbon capture and storage programs. We know in Algeria, we know with the Sleipner field in Norway that carbon capture and storage is underway. The technological components are not that difficult, they are however expensive and so that is the challenge that we have.
Having dealt with the second element of the clean up of energy, I want to deal with the issue in relation to some of the impediments. Recently, we have seen three setbacks. First, we have seen the abolition of the Solar Rebate Program in Australia cutting dead an $8,000 rebate on the same day, no notice, no warning, the loss of jobs, the loss of opportunity, the loss of the capacity for mums, dads and seniors to immediately access solar power.
Seventy thousand more than you guys.
That is sadly gone. I will take your question, give us a question, mate.
Order! can I ask the members to keep order. It is becoming very rowdy in this place. There are ample opportunities to have your say in this House on behalf of your constituents. I will ask the members on my right to quieten down a bit and the members on the left to continue as they were.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I confess I invited the interjection. I am only disappointed it was as unimpressive as it was. Let me answer the question, because I invited it. The solar rebate was introduced by us and it was increased to $8,000. The Prime Minister of the day said that it would be an uncapped system. We wanted it to be successful. The then opposition promised that they would maintain it. Once it achieved exactly what we set out for it to do, to expand the capacity of ordinary Australians to access solar energy, it was axed overnight in the 2008 budget by the minister for the environment the Hon. Peter Garrett, in breach of his own election promise and the Prime Minister’s election promise.
It then happened a second time. The means testing was put in place in 2008; in 2009 – 2½ weeks ago – the program was axed immediately. Four weeks after the Budget Papers promised that it would be continued, it was axed. Three days ago we saw that the remote renewable power generation program, or the remote solar program, was axed retrospectively. The distributors received an email at 8.33 am saying that as of 8.30 that morning this program had been axed. The ability of people in Indigenous communities, the ability of people in the member for Solomon’s home territory of the Northern Territory, to access solar power in remote communities was destroyed overnight. It was destroyed at the same moment. That is profound; it is unquestionable. I have three solar groups in my office today who have been devastated as a result of this decision and I have had approaches from communities throughout Australia who have been profoundly disappointed at the loss of this benefit.
Having said that, we also see that the renewable energy target which would provide some means of responding to this has not even been brought before the House of Representatives for debate even though the replacement was due on 1 July. Today, the last day of sitting for the financial year, a year after that legislation was due, finally that bill is listed. We would have to sit until 2 am tonight until it could be brought on. No debate, no barriers—we had offered to pass this legislation. We had offered to bring it forward. At any time over the last year it could have been listed and we would have found a way to pass it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Is the member for Flinders willing to give way?
Let it rip.
I ask the honourable shadow minister whether he would accede that we have increased the targets in renewable energy in excess of what his government did for 12 years.
The problem is that you have not increased the target. You have talked about it. The problem is that two years ago the other side talked about a 20 per cent target and we are now 18 months in, at death’s door. They did not introduce the legislation a year ago; they did not introduce the legislation six months ago; they did not introduce the legislation during the Budget sitting; they did not introduce the legislation three weeks ago—last Wednesday it came in. We were willing to debate, to work, to push, to find a way through. We committed to passing this legislation if there was real discussion, but what do we see – it is not listed until the final day of sitting in the financial year and that is a year late and even then it comes on at 2 am in the middle of the night. We do want a 20 per cent target; we do want to work with you on that; we do want to see the legislation passed. Unfortunately it is very hard to pass legislation which is not actually debated in the Parliament of Australia. So those are the impediments to a clean energy future.
Finally—and this brings me to the fourth element—this bill, this day, this moment is a positive thing and I congratulate the government. It builds upon that which we have done in terms of creating an enabling environment for carbon capture and storage. It is a significant step forward, and when people from either side of this chamber take that significant step we should all have the good grace to acknowledge it.
I think it is a good bill. I do not walk away from that. It builds on work which had previously been done, but it falls within the broader great global challenge—and I return to my beginning of 40 billion tonnes of CO2 and half of that coming from fossil fuel sources—the creation of stationary energy. As we bring the developing world out of poverty there is a grand, historic objective with a terrible paradox. My response is that we will work towards a global clean energy compact. This bill is an important part of Australia’s contribution.
There are impediments—seemingly little things—but with real human consequences and poor environmental outcomes such as the abolition of the solar rebate program and the solar remote program and the delays to the renewable energy legislation. But we will solve all of those, and we will work towards a clean energy future. That is why I am delighted to support the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the cognate bill.
I note the contribution from the member for Flinders and note his knowledge in the area of environment, carbon capture, greenhouse gases and the like. It was interesting to hear him say that he had to put his political career on hold while he has had this knowledge. If he can possibly do anything about preselection in the seats of Tangney, the Kimberleys and O’Connor, that might make it a little bit easier for him to get this vast knowledge out there in party room and to get a little bit of support. Probably from the member for Mayo, who would be—
Mr Adams interjecting
Well, he is a young bloke and he has got a young family. I think environmental issues should be important to him as well, so maybe they can start to change the mindset of those opposite, when it comes to the environment and the different things that we are endeavouring to do as a government after waiting for 12 years and nothing happening.
The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the cognate bill propose to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety Levies) Act 2003. The amendments are technical and minor policy changes which streamline requirements, provide clarification and will reduce the overall regulatory burden on this industry. It is certainly an industry that is very important to the Northern Territory. It is an industry that is growing in the Northern Territory and, obviously, with regard to the Inpex proposal that is moving forward there, there are also a number of other companies that are looking to invest in the Northern Territory and these types of changes will benefit them greatly.
These changes result from three reviews of the different aspects of the offshore petroleum regulatory system which have been conducted by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism over the past two years. There are no adverse effects on industry from these bills or any additional costs, and I appreciate the fact that those opposite are supporting this bill.
A number of the changes relate to altered arrangements for pipelines, commencing 1 January 2010. These arrangements will be set out in a revised regulation to come into effect next year. They will see pipelines being treated on the same basis as other facilities under the safety regulations. This will see the removal of pipeline management plans and pipeline safety management plans from regulations. As such, the pipeline safety management plan levy will become a safety case levy. This change in levy arrangements is set out in this bill, with amendments to both the act and the safety levies act. The removal of consent to operate a pipeline is part of these overall changes, and will also take effect from 1 January 2010.
Several changes, such as providing a consultation process on the granting of access authority, and making the joint authority the decision maker in relation to the declaration of locations and the granting of scientific investigation consents, are designed to streamline current arrangements. Moving the power to vary coordinates based on the current datum from regulations into the act will streamline regulatory process. It is about cutting red tape. This bill is housekeeping, if you like, cutting through the red tape. It removes the data management plans and changes the timing notification of petroleum discoveries, reducing some of the regulatory burden that is already on the industry. Often some of these things have already been agreed to. They have been debated and discussed within industry. This bill streamlines the process of companies being able to move forward and get their proposals up and running.
A couple of questions have been asked and I would like to talk to those for a moment. What are the advantages of allowing decisions on the nomination of a declaration of a location to be made by the joint authority? This authority will be able to streamline, as I said. Also, by making decisions on the nomination of the blocks and declaration of location joint authority matters, these amendments create a consistent and agreed approach on what is a key matter in the development of the petroleum title.
The declaration of a petroleum location is a necessary step before an exploration company applies for a retention lease to retain title over a currently non-commercial discovery or applies for a petroleum licence to develop a commercial discovery. The granting of a retention lease and a production licence are joint authority decisions. This amendment benefits the petroleum industry, as agreement between the state, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth from the outset on the location removes any potential conflict on the decision later in the development of the petroleum project. Overall, this provides more certainty and should not lead to longer decision making.
Why is it necessary to change the authority for making decisions on setting conditions for scientific investigation consents and granting scientific investigation consent from a designated authority to a joint authority? The granting of scientific investigation consent helps Australia fulfil an international obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention provides that all states have the right to conduct marine science research on the continental shelf with the consent of the relevant coastal state. This can include petroleum exploration operations. Given this, it is appropriate that the responsible Commonwealth minister should be part of the decision to grant scientific investigation consent or to set conditions for such consent.
Further questions may be asked in regard to why these amendments are being put in place. Why is it necessary to notify the discovery of petroleum in petroleum production areas? Why is the period for notification being extended to 30 days? The reason is that discoveries in exploration permit areas or retention lease areas are already required to be notified each year. Each year a few new discoveries of petroleum are found in petroleum production areas. It is therefore consistent to require the notification of these discoveries. However, the government is not seeking through this amendment to get further information on existing accumulations of petroleum but on new, discrete accumulations.
The rule on immediate notification with a report on the discovery within three days, while not onerous, does not provide the government with useful information. Any discovery, whether commercial or not, is required to be notified. If a company has had no time to assess the discovery, and yet the company does not provide this barely-useful information, it has committed an offence. This amendment allows a reasonable period of time for a company to assess its data and ascertain what it has actually discovered by increasing it to 30 days. These rules will apply to the discovery of petroleum in greenhouse gas titles.
An interesting part of this legislation is to increase that time required of companies on making a discovery. They are given that extra time, some 27 days further, so that the information can be compiled and is of substance, complies with the act—they are working to the letter of the law in regard to the discovery that they have made—and is able to be put forward to the correct authorities. What happens to the funding for the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority if the pipeline safety management levy is removed? A levy will continue to be raised for pipelines, but as a safety case levy. New levy arrangements will apply from 1 January 2010, which will be the start of the next levy year following the passage of the amended bill. There are a number of other areas in this bill but, as I have said, it is a non-controversial bill. It is just a little bit of housekeeping to streamline and tidy up the act to make it better for industry and less complicated with less red tape that has to be worked through.
I was listening to the discussion from those opposite and it was interesting to reflect on some of their comments and some of their own history on climate change. For me, there is no silver bullet to climate change. It is a matter of looking at carbon capture and looking at the emissions trading scheme as well as renewables. I was out doorknocking a couple of weeks ago—something that would be foreign to the member for Mayo, being in a safe Liberal seat, but when you are on 196 votes you have to go out and meet the punters—and a lady yelled out to me saying that she was very disappointed that we had dropped the emissions target from 20 per cent to five per cent. As she was verballing me over her fence, I noticed that she was using a Gerni to wash down her driveway. I thought it was quite ironic that she was washing down the driveway. I saw her a couple of weeks later at a school fete and I said, ‘I remember you as the lady with the Gerni,’ and she was a little bit sheepish. I have digressed. I will go back to what I was actually talking about. It is everyone’s responsibility to address their own energy consumption and their own use of water initially. The education programs that have been run by both sides of government are important in this debate and need to be addressed. In the Northern Territory we have a lot of rain, but we are in drought for probably six months of the year—we do not have any rain—and certainly we do waste a lot of water. To see somebody washing their driveway down instead of using a blower or something like that is indicative of the attitude when you live in an area that gets over 100 inches of rain in six months.
There is no silver bullet when it comes to climate change. We need to continue to invest in the renewable energy sector—some $500 million is being invested in that—in clean coal technology and in carbon capture. We should also look at alternative sources of power—wind, geothermal hot rocks and tidal—in areas such as those of the member for Canning and other members from Western Australia. Big tidal changes go through Broome and Darwin, where you get seven-, eight- and 10-metre tides.
There are alternatives and we need to continue to invest in them. It is a real shame—it is disappointing when you are a new member in parliament and you do want to make a difference—that the CPRS bill is once again bogged down in the Senate. We are now not going to be able to get it through until the August sittings. It is just this blocking of legislation, and this is important legislation; yet, those opposite have blocked it in the Senate and decided not to have a vote.
Dinosaurs!
That is the problem—it is dinosaurs. It is a really narrow way of thinking. When we have the debate on economics and the opposition talks about debt and deficit, all you hear is: ‘The burden that is being placed on our children’ or ‘$9,000 for every man, woman and child!’ It is all this ‘burden of debt’ and gloom and doom and fear.
As we have seen this week, it has now gone from fear onto smear, and to the interjections we have had to the last speaker, when the member for Flinders was talking about not being able to debate the legislation. We have spent three days in this House bogged down in a debate about an email that was false, fake and fraudulent. We have spent three days wasting taxpayers’ money in this House when we should have been putting legislation through that would move this country forward; we have been bogged down in a grubby witch hunt. The only person that is really going to lose out from the whole last three days is the poor old Treasury official; I think everyone else will move on with their lives except that bloke. And we have spent three days doing it. Then we have those opposite saying, ‘We have no time to debate this’ and ‘We have no time to debate that,’ because we have just wasted so much time on this other issue that will end up coming to nothing by the end of the week. As I said, it will be one person that will pay the ultimate price for what has gone on this week. For what?
Mr Briggs interjecting
Yes, there is not a lot of cooperation coming from your side of the House, from what I have heard in today’s reports. The thing is, with climate change—
Order! Can I ask the member for Solomon to stick to the debate, which is the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. And let me also remind the members on both sides to address their comments through the Chair.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had sort of forgotten what we were talking about there. It is just typical of those opposite when it comes to issues like climate change. There are very few alternatives. I brought out a bit of paper to write down the member for Flinders’ alternatives and, as you can see, it is fairly blank. A global rainforest recovery program—yes, it has a nice ring to it and probably could work. Unfortunately, they had 12 years to do something about this but did nothing, and we are actually acting on climate change. We believe in climate change while, on their side of the House, they still have their sceptics. I know that it makes it very difficult for the member for Flinders—who has got an extremely good intellect and a real passion for environmental issues—to be hamstrung by the attitudes of other members.
Getting back to the bill, it is a non-controversial bill. It does not have an adverse effect on industry at all, and there will be no additional costs. It is about streamlining the operation so that both industry and government can work together to make sure the legislation allows industry to operate, to keep progressing and to keep moving forward. It gives that little bit of flexibility, in regards to being able to report the data back on discovery—you will find that an extra 27-odd days in the change in the legislation will enable industry that extra time to collect their data. I commend the bill.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 today, which I loosely term the geosequestration bill, and the associated amendments. As we have heard, the bills to be amended in this legislation were passed last year. These bills before us today make purely administrative and technical corrections to the existing legislation regarding safety levies and title matters, which I support.
The original basis of the legislation was an initiative of the coalition in government following a review by the science and innovation committee with the foresight to recognise the importance of creating a framework to manage the relationship between the petroleum industry and offshore storage of greenhouse gases. The resulting legislation aimed to regulate future industry. It provides for the injection and geological storage of greenhouse gas substances in Australian offshore areas in line with petroleum industry legislation. Whilst complicated by its very nature, the legislation was designed to regulate the exploration, assessment and testing of geological storage of greenhouse gases and to tackle potential conflicts between offshore petroleum operations and titles and geosequestration operations and titles.
As a nation we need to reduce carbon emissions; we all know that. With Australia’s vast resources of gas and coal we need to find more efficient ways of serving our energy needs and reducing the emissions at the same time. I note that during the debate on the original legislation there were strong points made that the legislation created disincentives to invest in greenhouse gas storage operations. We must manage the competing interests at play between those seeking to sequester the gases and the petroleum industry and between the cost burden and responsibility of building the infrastructure and monitoring the sequestration of CO2.
I agree there is a strong need to manage the relationship between those seeking to drill for gas and petroleum and those seeking to store carbon. They are working in the same environment. I have taken a strong interest in geosequestration, the development of geological storage of greenhouse gases, in recent times. I have welcomed the opportunity to speak to the experts in the field and have visited a number of research facilities working on carbon capture and storage.
The legislation before us provides for the capture, or geosequestration, of greenhouse gases—carbon, in other words—produced mainly by large emitters. If we continue to use fossil fuels for energy we need to find smarter ways to use them and to invest in clean coal technologies such as gasification and carbon capture. Let me stress here that the Rudd government, for all its green rhetoric, has not offered any real money for clean coal technology. Before the election they were talking about clean coal technology and how they were going to develop it. There has been very little word about clean coal technology since, except in the duplication of international bodies to pursue clean coal. That has fallen off the Labor Party agenda.
Conventional coal fired electricity generation plants have efficiency of about 35 per cent, which means that about 35 per cent of usable energy in the coal is converted into electricity. New technology can raise the efficiency by up to 55 per cent and at the same time reduce emissions by 25 per cent. The science of geosequestration is an innovative process and one that can offer benefits to Australia by storing carbon dioxide underground. As is the nature of new technology, it is often a matter of costs versus benefits—how much people are prepared to pay, how much the big emitters are prepared to invest.
Currently, carbon capture and storage options include storing carbon dioxide in existing gas fields that are no longer used for production. The removal of gas from reservoirs has created porous spaces for the CO2 to be stored. Alternatively, deep saline aquifers can store carbon. Because they are so deep and the carbon is trapped below so much mud and clay, there is little risk of any path to the surface. The CSIRO is also looking at coal seams to store carbon dioxide. In fact, coal seams already store naturally occurring CO2.
Yesterday I visited Geoscience Australia for a briefing on the carbon capture and storage project, and I thank them for their brief. This was an outstanding opportunity to speak to the experts in the field, and they showed me the cores where CO2 would be stored. There is a misconception that when you take the gas out of a field you take it out of some huge cavern or vacuum. You do not. It is actually taken out of a spongy type rock, sandstone almost, that you see houses built from. Once the gas or the liquids have been taken out of this geological structure, there is obviously a great opportunity for other gases to go back in. Overlaying this soft, porous rock that allows the gas to be reinjected is usually a hard rock surface. I was shown cores of these as well. Obviously you do not want leakage. Many of the sites from which natural gas is taken have been there for millions of years, so there are millions of reasons for them being good storage spaces.
I also recently had the opportunity to visit the Australian Resources Research Centre in Perth, very close to where I live. It is a partnership between CSIRO, the state government and the Curtin University, with more than 300 staff working towards cutting-edge technology in oil, gas and the mining sector, including carbon dioxide geosequestration. The centre was established to enhance petroleum and mining operations, to partner and work with the industry and to undertake significant research projects. It is a leader in petroleum and minerals research and a centre where scientists can interact, exchange information and explore new ideas in partnership with the industry to ensure the ongoing sustainability of Australia’s resources and environment.
I welcome the opportunity to learn more about carbon capture from an expert, Dr Silvio Giger. Dr Giger is a structural geologist with the CSIRO and specialises in research technologies to increase oil and gas recovery in order to help secure Australia’s long-term energy security. He also assesses the viability of long-term geological underground storage of CO2—an important role in this day and age. Carbon capture and storage technologies could be well utilised in Australia. The centre’s location in Western Australia is highly appropriate, given that Western Australia produces two-thirds of Australia’s non-fuel materials and about half of it is petroleum. As well, Western Australia produces around 70 per cent of Australia’s natural gas and 68 per cent of its crude oil production. The strong investment means that geological rock formations are among the most studied in the world, and a good base for geosequestration adaption.
A Perth basin is being studied for its potential to store CO2. There is a shale layer over the top, which I have already alluded to generally, which has been identified as a very good seal. It is a sandstone reservoir large enough to store the total emissions from all major sources from the south-west of Western Australia—an estimated 22 million tonnes per year. As I said, one of the areas that sorely need this as a result of the Collie coalfield and what is called the Harvey fault is this ideal location. This is the one being explored extensively by scientists, particularly people like Dr Silvio Giger.
Chevron’s $50 billion Gorgon gas project is one of the largest resource developments in Australia off the coast of Karratha and will make the state a leader in the storage of greenhouse gases. The project will create 600 jobs and will be a leader in geosequestration technology. The major aspect of that project is to ensure the successful sequestration of carbon dioxide as a by-product. It is estimated to capture and store three million tonnes of CO2 per year for 40 years. The CO2 will be separated from the gas and injected into a saline reservoir 2,000 metres below Barrow Island. It will cut the project emissions by 36 per cent. The technology is already in practical use.
The Victorian Otway Basin project, basically a geosequestration test project, was launched this year. It involves compressing and transporting 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and then sequestering it in a natural gas reservoir two kilometres below the surface. I understand some 18,000 tonnes has already been stored. It serves as an example as to what can be achieved and where Australia can go with this technology.
Energy efficiency and reducing emissions is prominent in my electorate. As I have mentioned previously, Alcoa has already taken direct action to address climate change. Globally its emissions are down by 36 per cent on 1990 levels. At the two refineries in Canning they have cut emissions by 12 per cent a tonne over the same period. It has invested in energy efficient cogeneration, CO2 geosequestration and carbon capture technology.
There are two cogeneration plants at the Pinjarra refinery. This technology offers energy efficiency of 75 per cent, compared to only 30 per cent for conventional methods, and saves more than a million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year at Pinjarra compared to coal-fired power. This is the equivalent of taking 140,000 cars off the road per year. Essentially it means that Alinta, Alcoa’s partner, is able to supply more consumers with electricity, and the steam that is created in this process and would traditionally be wasted is used by Alcoa in its refinery for greater energy efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Even before this unit was completed, it became a finalist in the 2005 WA Environment Awards.
I have only a short period of time left, so I would like to say that the coalition acknowledges the importance of taking a unified commitment to the Copenhagen summit. We want an unconditional five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 and conditionally up to 25 per cent. But we propose an earlier start to the emissions abatement and the potential to build on a 2020 target via voluntary action. As I have said many times on previous bills, Australia should wait until we go to Copenhagen, to find out what the great emitters of this world are doing, rather than locking ourselves into a legislative framework that gives us no flexibility to be in step with the rest of the world.
The penalty, of course, is exporting jobs, exporting income and exporting damaging environmental gases to places like Indonesia, who produce far less efficiently and are greater emitters in their refineries than we are in Australian refineries. It is just crazy for us to be ahead of the game before the rest of the world decides how it is going to get on board.
For some reason, the Labor Party thinks that being ahead of the game is smart. All it is going to do is cost jobs. What about the workers? I have said to the member for Charlton, the former ‘champion of the workers’, that realistically, when he is talking about these things, he has forgotten about the workers, because he is exporting jobs. Companies like Alcoa tell me that they will have to go offshore because they will not be able to compete in any efficient way in Australia if this legislation comes in with the targets that the Labor Party is suggesting now and wants to lock us into before we have a level playing field.
The Rudd government needs to think seriously about its levels and its target. The coalition is strongly supportive of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. When the Labor Party talks about signing Kyoto and brandishes that around as a great achievement, it fails to tell the rest of the world that Australia was already achieving the Kyoto targets. I do not know if people understand this. When I say to people in my electorate, ‘Do you understand that, before Australia even signed the Kyoto protocol, we were actually achieving the Kyoto targets, unlike the rest of the signatories who don’t?’ they reply: ‘Why don’t people tell us that? Why don’t people tell us that Australia actually meets the Kyoto targets, instead of saying how terrible we are?’ Well, we do, we always have and the symbolic signing of Kyoto did nothing more to reduce greenhouse gases in Australia. It is just a crazy ideological bent that they are off on.
The coalition’s green carbon initiative aims to achieve, by 2020, additional annual reductions of at least 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent encompassing these measures. I conclude that this legislation is obviously supported because it is sensible. The geosequestration technology is in its infancy, but Australia is at its leading edge. We have a magnificent mindset in Australia, through the scientists that we have in the organisations I have already acknowledged. They are ahead of the game, and the rest of the world is getting on board. As I said, Gorgon is going to be one of the outstanding models of what can be done in this area. That is the reason it has received state and federal environmental approvals to go ahead with this massive project. It is going to produce trillions of tonnes of energy efficient gas for the rest of this world, and it will leave Australia as a showcase on how we should store our greenhouse gases.
Debate (on motion by Ms Grierson) adjourned.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
There are five million Australians missing out on a test that could save lives. New data on bowel cancer screening highlights the urgent need to fully implement screening for all Australians over 50, according to Cancer Council Australia. Cancer Council Australia CEO, Professor Ian Olver, says that the data shows how effective a national screening program can be, yet the program is currently only available to 50-, 55- and 65-year-olds, and he warns that five million Australians are missing out on a test that could help save their lives. He goes on to say that not only are five million Australians currently missing out; current participants are only offered a one-off screening. This is contrary to national health guidelines, which recommend screening at least every two years from the age of 50. Professor Olver said that, according to conservative estimates, the government could save the lives of more than 30 Australians each week by expanding the program to include all Australians aged 50 and over. Further delays in program expansion would lead to more unnecessary deaths.
So how serious is this disease? The answer is ‘very serious’. According to a recent Cancer Institute report, Australia has a higher rate of bowel cancer than America or Britain. Bowel cancer is one of the most common cancers in men and women, second only to prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women respectively. Each year in Australia there are around 12,900 new cases diagnosed. It is a major cause of death, with around 80 Australians dying from bowel cancer each week. Both men and women are at risk, as I pointed out earlier. One in 18 men and one in 27 women will develop bowel cancer before the age of 75.
For women, the number of new cases of colorectal cancer is projected to increase by 30 per cent, from 5,883 in 2001 to 7,673 in 2011. For men, the increase is predicted to be from 6,961 in 2001 to 9,294 in 2011. Furthermore, more than 75 per cent of people with bowel cancer do not have a family history of the disease. It is therefore even more important that the screening program is widened so that all Australians in the higher risk groups are regularly screened. According to a report into cancer incidence projections for 2011, the incidence of bowel cancer will increase per 100,000 people from 51 for 50- to 54-year-olds, 85.3 for 55- to 59-year-olds, 136.8 for 60- to 64-year-olds, 203.6 for 65- to 69-year-olds, until it peaks at a massive 435.8 for those over 85.
But those are just dry facts and figures. Consider the personal cost—the initial shock, and possibly despair, of people facing this potentially fatal disease, then the realities of chemotherapy, during which many people are terribly sick and suffer dreadful side effects. After all that, many patients are still severely restricted in what they can do, and the impact on their lives can be protracted, if not enduring.
I have received many emails from constituents on this important health matter and some have been heartbreakingly personal. One young woman said that her grandfather would perhaps be alive to see his grandchildren had he not died from bowel cancer. On the strength of that, her father took advantage of the screening program and was thankfully declared clear—this time. Another constituent told me that she had lost her mother to this disease at the distressingly young age of 42 years old and she is undergoing regular treatment for a related condition.
These are real people who, without an expanded screening program, face an uncertain future. We have seen the success of the biennial mammogram screening program and the impact it has had on the early detection and therefore increased survival rates of people who have breast cancer. Not only does it make sense but it is our responsibility to ensure that improved medical techniques are used not just to save money but to save heartache, worry, diminished quality of life and, ultimately, lives.
I commend the member for Tangney for raising the issue of bowel cancer screening and I support his call to make the test available to people generally who are over 50. I know the importance of that.
Today I want to speak about the massive investment the Rudd Labor government has been making in our schools, in our colleges, in our higher education institutions and in training facilities—an investment which has enormous implications for Australia’s future. My electorate of Calwell includes some of the most disadvantaged suburbs in Victoria, if not in Australia. Poverty, unemployment, health and housing problems are a challenging reality for many families in the area. We are working to address these issues at various points through income support; through job training and, more importantly, retraining; through policies to support local industries and therefore local jobs; through health services; through affordable housing—the list goes on. Nothing can be more important in the battle to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage than improving educational opportunities. That is why I believe that serious investment in our schools really does represent an education revolution.
One of the first steps this government took when it came to office was to fulfil its promise of upgrading access to computer technology for Australian secondary students. The National Secondary Schools Computer Fund will provide more than 2,300 new computers for use by secondary students in my electorate of Calwell. Schools which have been funded under the program include Gladstone Park Secondary College, Salesian College Rupertswood, Ilim College, Broadmeadows Special Development School, Craigieburn Secondary College, Hume Central Secondary College, Roxsburgh College, Sunbury and Macedon Ranges Specialist School, Sunbury College, Sunbury Downs Secondary College, Aitken College, Penola College, Isik College and St Mary’s Coptic Orthodox College.
We all know how important the ability to use information technology is to succeed in the world. For the generation still at school, this knowledge is more vital than ever. Our children need access to computers to keep up with knowledge and information that is expanding at a staggering rate every day. They need to understand their options, to find work that is meaningful and satisfying, and to fully participate in the community as informed and engaged citizens. Part of the Rudd government’s $2 billion Digital Education Revolution is aimed at giving secondary school students access to world-class information and communication technology. As well as the national secondary schools computer program, we now have significant investment in school buildings and infrastructure through the programs collectively known as Building the Education Revolution.
Under the National School Pride program, this government has made it possible for schools to complete minor works and upgrades that will improve the learning environment for pupils and teachers. In my electorate, $8.9 million has been made available across the government, Catholic and independent sectors. Under Primary Schools for the 21st Century an impressive $70 million has been committed in my electorate alone to construct much needed facilities for the local students. This is a massive boost to our local economy in a difficult time of global downturn. There is still another round of funding under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century to be announced. I am looking for more funding for the schools in my electorate.
This massive investment in our schools by the Rudd government is complemented by the commitment of the Brumby government in Victoria. The Victorian government has initiated the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project in the southern part of my electorate to help reorganise, rebuild and reinvigorate our local state schools, both primary and secondary. In the most recent state budget, the Brumby government announced $4 million for stage 2 of construction of a new senior secondary campus in Broadmeadows. This is in addition to the $12 million allocated in last year’s state budget for stage 1 of the project. The school is due for completion in the middle of 2010.
The federal and state Labor governments have committed a combined $5.75 million for a new, state-of-the-art primary school, the Broadmeadows Valley Primary School, which combines four smaller existing schools. Construction of this school is well underway and it will open at the start of the 2010 school year. Adjacent to this new school will be a brand new early childhood centre, also funded by the Rudd government. In addition, the Rudd government’s programs extend to supporting infrastructure development in TAFE colleges, including Kangan Batman TAFE in my electorate, and at the higher education level investing in universities, ensuring that many more students from disadvantaged areas are supported in accessing tertiary education and funding the full cost of research. I am proud of the achievements so far of this government and I am proud of the very real impact its commitment to education is having and will continue to have in my electorate. (Time expired)
Today in the Australian parliament I want to yet again bat for the constituents of Ryan who have contacted me in relation to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. In recent weeks I have received scores of emails and phone calls from Ryan residents who are deeply concerned that the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program is going to be terminated by the Rudd Labor government. They are deeply concerned because they have seen in recent months that the federal Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Rudd, simply does not know how to spend taxpayers’ money in the most efficient and appropriate fashion. We have seen $900 cheques go out to Australians and we will see the Australian government rack up some $315 billion in deficit, which will be a chain around the necks of the future taxpayers of Australia. In the parliament today, as the member for Ryan, I want to flag the deep concerns of those many residents of suburbs all around the Ryan electorate who have contacted me to express their deep concern that this important program—initiated by the former Howard government—is going to be axed.
About 90 Australians die each week from bowel cancer. This cancer can be treated successfully if detected in its early stages. But currently fewer than 40 per cent of bowel cancers are detected early. That is why this program—and I say again that it was a vision of the Howard government—was put in place. It was put in place so that Australians could have a chance of surviving this awful cancer. The Howard government, as part of its Strengthening Cancer Care initiative in the 2005-06 budget, allocated some $43.4 million over three years for the phasing-in of a national bowel cancer screening program.
Today we live in the era of the Rudd federal Labor government, which is putting the axe to these kinds of programs. It is going to do that because it has given away taxpayers’ money to individuals throughout the country in the form of a $900 cheque per person. Imagine if that kind of money were spent on aged-care facilities. Imagine if that kind of money were spent on income-producing assets and infrastructure. Imagine if that kind of money were spent on small to medium sized businesses. Imagine if that kind of money were spent on medical and scientific research in wonderful institutions like the University of Queensland, in the suburb of St Lucia in the Ryan electorate. Imagine if that $42 billion were spent on those kinds of priorities instead of on giving $900 cheques to people—many of whom are deceased or live overseas and have spent their money in the economies of other countries.
Today I want to bat again for the Ryan constituents who have contacted me. I want to flag some streets and suburbs of residents who have contacted me: Gower Street, Toowong; Sirocco Street, Jamboree Heights; Canowie Road, Jindalee—and both Canowie Road and Sirocco Street are in centenary suburbs—Brisbane Street, St Lucia; Dean Street, Toowong; Wynyard Street, Indooroopilly; Elvendon Street, The Gap; Upper Brookfield Road, Upper Brookfield; and Sweetgum Street, Bellbowrie. These are all people in the Ryan electorate who have emailed me to express their deep concern at the priorities of the Rudd Labor government. They have urged me to ensure that this significant program initiated by the Howard government remains in place.
I remind them that unfortunately these kinds of very worthwhile programs that invest in the health of Australians and that were the vision of the Howard government are precisely the types of programs that are going to be axed, because we face hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit. It is a great shame that the fiscal rhetoric of Mr Rudd when he was opposition leader now sees him in government totally misleading the Australian people. I have even had representations from people who do not live in my electorate but who live in places like Sumner Park in the Oxley electorate and Chelmer in the Moreton electorate. These electorates have Labor members, but their constituents are contacting me about their disgust at the Rudd government. I say to these people: rest assured that your local member is going to fight hard for you so that these kinds of worthy programs stay in place. (Time expired)
Good afternoon, colleagues. I would like to mention two things that are related to my electorate and that are very important economic drivers: tourism and forestry. The first, related to tourism, is that last Saturday I had the pleasure of the company of the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, at a tourism forum that was held in Wynyard and hosted by our local mayor, Kevin Hyland. Part of that visit was to officially open the Table Cape Lighthouse project. There was $185,000 committed in the last election to the lighthouse project. The lighthouse is on Table Cape, which is to the west of Wynyard, and provides a most magnificent viewing platform of the north-west coast, both to the east and the west, as well as the hinterland.
The $185,000 has been used to open up the lighthouse so that tourists can actually go up the lighthouse, go outside and look at the magnificent views from the lighthouse, which was built in 1888. Also, the moneys will be used for signage for those people that go to the lookout at Table Cape and then go on a magnificent coastal walking track towards the west and towards the lighthouse itself. Some of the $185,000 was also used to incorporate, as a visitor experience, the lighthouse with the magnificent Van Diemen Quality Bulbs tulip farm, which is directly to the south of the lighthouse. So you can have the great experience of going through the farm, looking at the lighthouse and going up the lighthouse. Even for someone like me who suffers from vertigo, it was lovely and safe—fantastic views and a beautiful place. So when you come and visit the north-west coast, I hope you will go and have a look at Table Cape Lighthouse and have that wonderful tourism experience. I thank the minister and this government for honouring that commitment.
The second thing I would like to talk about is forestry, a very important industry in my electorate and also in Tasmania. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister came to Braddon with me and went to Circular Head, a great forestry area, to announce Labor’s forest policy before the last election. I was very pleased that in the House yesterday the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, gave unequivocal support to the forest industries. Essentially, his speech outlined our election commitments and how we are fulfilling them—and we are. There was $20 million announced in 2007 to assist industry and support jobs, particularly in regional communities like my own, and the minister was able to go through each of the measures in that $20 million.
What was very important about the minister’s speech yesterday was that it reinforced the importance of regional forest agreements. Throughout Australia, and particularly in Tasmania, these are the consensus agreements based on science wherein we strive to create a balance between conservation, preservation, reservation and, of course, the creation of a sustainable industry so that we can enjoy those things that we need to reserve and conserve while sustainably growing and harvesting a resource that belongs to us all, and that is very important in terms of communities, the economy and, of course, the environment.
We know that forests and the industries associated with them are going to be very important contributors to this whole issue of climate change, particularly in terms of being carbon stores and carbon sinks. I was very pleased that the minister again reinforced this government’s support for the industry and for the RFAs, which are so important in giving surety not only to industry about its resources in the future but also to communities that rely very much on this really important industry.
The other thing that the minister was very strong in endorsing and reinforcing was support for the pulp mill in Northern Tasmania, which is there, is waiting and has been surrounded by political controversy since cocky was an egg but which is a great absorber for jobs in the future. We are waiting for a tick off on that and, if it meets its environmental guidelines, it should go ahead. The minister made it very clear that it should and that he supports that pulp mill. (Time expired)
Some of you will know that our colleague Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, was rushed to hospital last night. Mal was able to diagnose himself as having appendicitis. He wanted to go back to Western Australia but his staffer—the nurse, Gloria—would not allow him to fly and ordered him to hospital. I think that is an indication that women rule the world—and so they should!
I have just been to see Mal at the hospital and I can report that he is in fine form and very comfortable, particularly as he just rang up Gloria and said: ‘Quick, come over—I’ve got a drama.’ His drama was that he had lost a button off the fly of his pyjamas and it needed to be sewn back on! So the nurse was there, sewing the button on and Mal is now resting comfortably.
Tomorrow night it will be my privilege to present to awards to two very fine leaders of the Townsville community. These are the Paul Harris Fellow awards, which are given by Rotary for the highest ideals of service. The two members who are receiving these awards are from the Rotary Club of Townsville Daybreak, which happens to be the club that I am an honorary member of.
The first recipient is Rotarian Trevor Hyatt. Trevor has made a significant contribution to the Rotary Club of Townsville Daybreak over the last 12 years. He has been a board member on several occasions, has served as president for one full term, is in the process of serving as president for the current Rotary year and will be joining the district YEP committee for the upcoming Rotary year. Trevor’s enthusiasm for Rotary is well illustrated by his participation in the club’s projects. He is undoubtedly mister reliable—always there. The fact that he has put up his hand to serve a second term as president is evidence of his firm commitment to Rotary and to our club. Trevor also has community service achievements as a judge in the equestrian events at the various shows around Queensland. He is well known as a member of the community in Townsville and is the principal of a long established and respected local locksmiths business.
The other recipient, Betty Stokes, has been a member of the club for 13 years. She has been president of the club and a board member on a number of occasions. She served on the district YEP committee for a number of years and has been very active within the club in youth affairs. Betty is recognised as a quiet achiever who works away efficiently at whatever she undertakes. Betty is known for her reliability in whatever she undertakes and has been a significant contributor to the development and life of the Rotary Club of Townsville Daybreak. Betty is a person to have in discussion when cool, calm and well-balanced judgment is required. Betty’s son, Phillip, was an outbound exchange student recently. Betty and her husband John are certainly well known in the Townsville community, especially in the medical area. Both Betty and Trevor are very worthy recipients of their nomination for a Paul Harris Fellowship.
Tomorrow I will be attending the commissioning of the ring-road in Townsville and the Woodlands to Veales Road four-laning project. I am really proud of these two roads. I had the vision to get these roads built, and now that they are being opened they are just making such an extraordinary difference to our community in Townsville. You can get from the hospital or Lavarack Barracks or the university up to the northern beaches now in two minutes, whereas it used to take probably 15 minutes. It has cut huge amounts of travel time and, of course, it has been constructed to motorway standard. The ring-road acts as the bypass for Townsville, so it has taken the heavy vehicles out of the suburbs and that, in itself, is a very good thing. The benefit-cost ratio was quite significant and, to that end, the road has been very valuable for the local community.
Tomorrow I am having meetings, as well as a meeting in Brisbane on Monday, with the Defence Force in relation to the developing aerospace precinct in Townsville. These meetings will be in relation to the servicing of our helicopter fleet in Townsville, where we have both Black Hawk and MRH 90s based in the city. The 5th Aviation Regiment is Australia’s premier Army aviation regiment and will continue to be, but we will need to maintain these supercomplicated and technological machines that fly about our skies. I am looking forward to getting some good outcomes from those meetings with Townsville Enterprise Ltd and Townsville Airport.
Today I would like to raise the issue of stroke. I have been approached by the Stroke and Disability Information (Hunter) Inc. group—an organisation that is fondly referred to as SADI. It is situated in the electorate of Shortland. SADI have been providing assistance and support to people that suffer from stroke and other similar types of disability for many, many years. The person who founded the organisation was Elaine Lenaghan OAM, who has since passed away. Her initial work in setting up SADI has been carried on very vigilantly by a number of the people involved in the organisation at the time, and it is now ably administrated by Juliet Roosendaal, who is the project officer. I have to also acknowledge Jim Folby and Stuart Chalmers, who are two constituents within the electorate of Shortland who have always been very active in relation to SADI and raising awareness about stroke in the community.
The week of 14 to 21 September is National Stroke Awareness Week. Statistics show there is a steady increase in the incidence and prevalence of stroke events. As I mentioned earlier, SADI are dedicated to educating the community about any signs of stroke. They provide experienced caring and confidential education, information, counselling, support and advocacy to reduce the incidence of stroke and minimise the physical, social and emotional impact of stroke and other disabilities on clients, carers and the wider community—and, when we are talking about stroke, we cannot forget carers and the enormous impact it has on their lives when one of their loved ones suffers a stroke.
SADI also supports existing stroke recovery groups and helps facilitate new ones. SADI sees itself as an umbrella group that provides support to other groups within the community. It provides information such as brochures, books, videos, DVDs, information packages and one-on-one information sessions. It holds seminars and workshops, links people with similar disabilities and supports self-help groups. SADI provides bi-monthly newsletters that have a wealth of information about every service in the community that people who suffer strokes can link into. These are some of the things that show the fine quality of work that is done by SADI. Additionally, SADI links carers with other carers. Importantly, all services provided by SADI are free.
I will give a few facts and figures about stroke. About 60,000 people in Australia will have a stroke in 2009, which is an enormous number of people. In fact, stroke is the second single greatest killer after coronary heart disease, and the leading cause of disability in Australia. Every 10 minutes someone, somewhere in Australia, has a stroke. One in five people who have their first stroke die within one month; one in three die within a year. It is the second largest killer, as I have already mentioned. Stroke is the biggest single cause of disability in Australia. One in seven people will have stroke. Stroke kills more women than breast cancer. Twenty per cent of all strokes occur in people under 55, and stroke costs Australia $2.14 billion a year.
There is a lot more I could say about SADI and about stroke. The one point I would really like to conclude on is that National Stroke Awareness Week is between 14 and 21 September, and I would like to inform the House that I intend to place a notice on the motion paper to bring this very important issue before the Commonwealth parliament.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm, until Wednesday, 12 August 2009, at 9.30 am, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.