The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on Afghanistan, including and in particular to the parliament. This year I have reported to the House on three prior occasions, in March, May and July.
I last reported to the House on 7 July, which followed my attendance at the meeting of NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) defence ministers' meeting in Brussels in June, the beginning of the northern summer fighting season, United States President Obama's statement on Afghanistan on 23 June and the commencement of transition to Afghan-led security. My report on this occasion follows my visit to Afghanistan on 3 October and my attendance at last week's NATO and ISAF defence ministers' meeting in Brussels on 5 and 6 October.
Why we are there
My visit to Afghanistan and my attendance at the NATO/ISAF defence ministers' meeting in Brussels has reinforced the government's view that it is in our national interest to be in Afghanistan, not just with our alliance partner the United States (US), but also with 47 other members of ISAF acting under a United Nations mandate.
Australia's fundamental goal is to prevent Afghanistan from again being used by terrorists to plan and train for attacks on innocent civilians, including Australians in our own region and beyond. Last month's commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks was a sober reminder that there are serious and horrifying consequences if international terrorists are allowed to operate unchecked.
It is therefore imperative that we remain focussed on our goal to help prepare the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to take lead responsibility for providing security for the Afghan people. To do so we must continue in our efforts to stabilise the security situation and to mentor and train the Afghan security forces. To leave now would be to put at risk the gains so hard fought for and won.
ISAF campaign progress
In Afghanistan and Brussels I met senior NATO/ISAF commanders and my defence ministerial colleagues from a number of NATO/ISAF contributing countries including Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom. Ministers and commanders are confident of the good progress that is being made in Afghanistan. We are now seeing results from a clear strategy, appropriate resources and a realistic transition time line. Afghan and ISAF forces have stalled, then reversed, the Taliban's momentum. This fighting season, the Taliban has been unable to retake any ground in Oruzgan, or indeed across Afghanistan. The transition to Afghan-led security commenced with the handover of seven provinces and districts to Afghan-led security in July this year. This process has not been reversed by the Taliban.
In my March update to parliament, I warned that we had to expect the Taliban to fight back through high-profile, propaganda motivated attacks. Regrettably these high-profile attacks have come to pass. While the Taliban have not been successful at the tactical or operational level, high-profile attacks have occurred with a high civilian casualty toll and the terrible loss of former Afghan President and Chairman of the High Peace Council, Professor Rabbani. These high-profile attacks are aimed at undermining confidence in Afghanistan and sapping political will in the international community:
Australia condemns these civilian casualties. A failed insurgent attack on Oruzgan province Governor Shirzad on 28 July resulted in the deaths of 16 civilians, including 12 children killed in a callous way. There have been more such instances across Afghanistan. As the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Steffan di Mistura, advised the NATO/ISAF defence ministers' meeting in Brussels, around 85 per cent of civilian casualties are caused by the Taliban. Afghanistan and the international community need to make clear that the change of tactics by the Taliban to mount such high-profile, propaganda motivated attacks and suicide-bomb assassinations is a sign of Taliban weakness not strength.
O ruzgan campaign progress
During my visit to Afghanistan, I visited Australian troops serving in Oruzgan province in the south of Afghanistan. I met Australian troops at the multinational base in Tarin Kowt and Patrol Base Wali in the Mirabad Valley and again thanked them for their excellent work. I met with Australian and United States operational commanders in Oruzgan province, including the United States Commander of Combined Team Uruzgan, Colonel Robert Akam. I also met with Oruzgan Governor Shirzad and his provincial security chiefs; the Commander of the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army, Brigadier Zafar; the Provincial Chief of Police, Brigadier Mattiullah Khan; and the Provincial Chief of the National Directorate of Security, Colonel Khan Muhammed.
In Oruzgan, Australian troops are working under an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) flag with their colleagues from the United States, Singapore and Slovakia in Combined Team Uruzgan. Their mission is to train the Afghan security forces to take on lead responsibility for security by 2014. They are well on track and making good progress to achieve that objective. ISAF, working closely with Afghan partners, has expanded its security footprint across Oruzgan to encompass over 30 operating bases and checkpoints. In turn, this has allowed the Afghan government to expand its influence and provision of basic services to the people of the province. Since 2008, Australia has increased its effort from the mentoring of a single kandak (battalion) to mentoring six kandaks plus the brigade headquarters.
At times the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has had a presence in more than a dozen different bases in Oruzgan. Due to the increasing size and effectiveness of Afghan forces in Oruzgan, ISAF is progressively transitioning control of these checkpoints and operating bases to Afghan counterparts. This has included the recent handover of three patrol bases to Afghan forces. By the first half of next year, 2012, it is anticipated that the Australian Mentoring Task Force (AMTF) will be in a position to reduce its footprint to as few as four main locations in Oruzgan, with mobile mentoring teams able to assist Afghan partners at their operating bases for periods as required.
Australian forces continue to make important progress towards training the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade so that it can take responsibility for security in Oruzgan. As part of this work, on the advice of the Chief of the Defence Force, the government has authorised a number of Mentoring Task Force personnel to continue the training and mentoring of the 6th Kandak of the 4th Brigade in northern Kandahar, south of the Oruzgan border.
The 4th Brigade has increasingly assumed the lead for the planning, preparation and execution of tactical operations, allowing Australian forces to concentrate on mentoring and partnering Afghan command and combat support functions. The 4th Brigade is also demonstrating progress towards operating independently, with a number of infantry kandaks now expected to be capable of conducting independent operations by early 2012.
On current advice and projections, the 4th Brigade, as a whole, is expected to be operationally viable and ready for provincial transition by 2014. As my predecessor and I have previously advised the House and the Senate, Australian Special Forces are authorised to operate in adjoining provinces on operations that have security benefits in Oruzgan province. This involves operations to maintain pressure on insurgent leadership in Oruzgan, and its surrounding provinces including Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and Daykundi.
So far this year, our Special Forces have conducted around 40 out-of-province operations, directly contributing to the security of Oruzgan and facilitating our ongoing training mission. Australian Special Forces and their Afghan partners, the Provincial Response Company (PRC) and the National Interdiction Unit (NIU), also continue to disrupt the insurgency in and around Oruzgan province by taking insurgent leaders and bomb makers off the battlefield and reducing the insurgency revenue stream from narcotics. This has helped create the environment necessary for ISAF forces to finalise their training mission and to create a safer environment for the Afghan people in Oruzgan.
Weapons cache finds have increased significantly and there has been some success in interdicting the movement of Taliban forces and supplies from Pakistani tribal areas across the border into Afghanistan. Australia's support to the NIU has reduced the insurgency's ability to fund its campaign by targeting the sale of narcotics. This support, commencing at the Afghan government's request, has led to a series of successful operations in and around Oruzgan. In September, the Afghan National Security Forces, supported by Australia's Special Forces, seized and destroyed a record amount of drug products in southern Afghanistan.
Transition
My visit to Afghanistan also confirmed that the international community is on track to achieve nationwide transition of security-led responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. In July, Afghanistan and the international community welcomed the formal start of the transition process in the first tranche of provinces and districts across Afghanistan. This marked an important step towards President Karzai's objective that Afghan authorities assume lead responsibility across Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
The first tranche of provinces and districts to have transitioned to Afghan-led security accounts for around 20 to 25 per cent of the Afghan population. President Karzai is expected to announce the second tranche of districts and provinces for transition later this month. When this second tranche of transition occurs, Afghan security forces will provide lead security for up to 50 per cent, half, of the Afghan population. Subsequent tranches will see international forces continue the process of handing over the lead security responsibility across the country. The Taliban will continue to test the transition process through more high-profile attacks and assassination attempts.
Australia is confident that the Afghan National Security Forces will continue to demonstrate their resolve and growing capability by standing up to and against such violence. In Oruzgan, as I have previously indicated, we continue to do well in training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the ANA. We are confident that we can transition to Afghan-led responsibility in Oruzgan by 2014.
Post- t ransition
As the international community looks ahead, ISAF must maintain its Lisbon summit commitment to transition to Afghan-led security by 2014. Likewise, both NATO and the United States must maintain their commitment to a long-term, enduring strategic partnership with Afghanistan. NATO and the United States confirmed their long-term commitments at the defence ministers' meeting in Brussels last week. NATO and ISAF defence ministers welcomed the outline of the NATO Strategic Plan for Afghanistan which sets out the proposed approach to the NATO/ISAF presence in Afghanistan for the 2012 to 2014 period, and, most importantly, for the post 2014 period. This continuing long-term commitment and continued investment in Afghanistan's future is a key to ensuring that Afghanistan and its neighbours—including Pakistan—also invest in a peaceful future for Afghanistan.
It is important to begin work on the post 2014 period now. Not to set this out soon will undermine what we have achieved, jeopardise Afghan confidence in the international community's long-term commitments to their country and send the wrong message to regional neighbours, in particular Pakistan. Australia looks forward to continued work on the strategic plan ahead of the Chicago summit in May next year.
Australia has made clear it expects to maintain a presence in Afghanistan after our current training and mentoring mission has concluded, potentially through institutional training, a Special Forces presence, military advisers, capacity building and development assistance. Important into the future will be continued international community support for the Afghan National Security Forces. The international community must ensure the Afghan National Security Forces are provided with the resources they need to maintain security into the future.
Conclusion
Australia has lost 29 members of the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan. Since my last update to the parliament, Private Matthew Lambert died as a result of an improvised explosive device attack on 22 August. We remember him and express our condolences to his spouse, his family and his friends.
In this period, New Zealand has also lost two fine soldiers with the tragic fatalities of Corporal Douglas Grant and Lance Corporal Leon Smith. I conveyed Australia's condolences to my New Zealand counterpart, Dr Wayne Mapp, New Zealand's Minister for Defence, at the time. I was pleased that Australia was able to assist with the initial transportation through our C130s with the repatriation of both Corporal Grant and Lance Corporal Smith to New Zealand.
New Zealand is doing excellent work and making an important contribution to the international community's efforts in Afghanistan through the provincial reconstruction team in Bamiyan province and support to the Afghanistan National Police Crisis Response Unit in Kabul. At this time of tragic loss on both sides of the Tasman, we remember our losses with our age-old refrain, so fitting for our Anzacs, 'Lest We Forget.'
With these terrible tragedies, we must continue to be clear sighted about our objective in Afghanistan. Our objective is to prevent Afghanistan, in particular the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists.
We will not be in Afghanistan forever, and we are on track to transition to Afghan-led responsibility for security arrangements in Oruzgan in 2014. It is important that the international community now begin work on planning for the post-2014 commitment in Afghanistan. This will send the right signal to Afghanistan and its neighbours to invest in a peaceful future for Afghanistan.
I table a paper in conjunction with my ministerial statement, and I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.
Leave granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 15 minutes.
Question agreed to.
I thank the Minister for Defence for honouring his word and for continuing to keep this parliament informed on the progress of combat operations in Afghanistan. Indeed, true to the minister's word, this is his fourth update this year, building on updates in March, May, 7 July and of course today.
It is important that we in the coalition restate our very strong bipartisan support to the government in the prosecution of war against Islamic terrorism and insurgency within Afghanistan. It is also important to state that this support is not borne of necessity but of conviction. We believe, as we always have, that the maxim that 'all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing' holds true. And good nations, Australia included, will continue to join with 47 other freedom-loving countries of the world to raise this standard high.
El Salvador's recent commitment to the fight is encouraging and demonstrates that the majority of the true democratic countries of the world are now standing shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan. This global bipartisanship has one over-arching goal—to ensure that insurgent elements within Afghanistan can no longer use that country to extend their hate and violence across the free world. I join with the minister in acknowledging that this is indeed within our national interest. This fight in Afghanistan that we have been engaged in for so many years is in our national interest, and the coalition will not shirk our responsibility in this regard.
Australia's mission within Afghanistan remains limited and discrete. Principally, the mentoring task force—currently mentoring task force 3, based on the infantry battalion commanded by Colonel Smith—is training and mentoring the Afghan National Army, principally the 4th Brigade, in elements of the Afghan National Police. We are currently providing a substantial special operations task group—indeed, the third largest contingent of special operations currently in theatre. We provided limited rotary wing and heavy-lift support and of course a range of imbedded officers to a range of joint ISAF commands.
However, the major tasks of training and mentoring the ANA and disrupting, dismantling and destroying the insurgency through the use of the SOTG remains hard going. Be under no doubt that this enemy is tough and resilient. There is little tangible sign at present that they are ready to give in or indeed to negotiate. The minister talks of being 'confident of the good progress that is being made'. We hope and pray that his confidence is right. We certainly join him in sharing a cautious optimism but also acknowledge that there is much to do before a handover to full Afghan National Army commander control across the province in 2014. Regardless, the minister can rely on the opposition's support in this critical task.
I note recent media reports citing comments from the current Australian Commander of Joint Task Force 633, Major General Angus Campbell, that the ANA will require substantial support post 2014 to be truly ready to plan and conduct operations. Notwithstanding any comment on the veracity of those reports, it is important to note that our commander, Major General Campbell, is an experienced and respected commander, and the coalition has always held to the view that the ADF drawdown must be metrics based and command judgment led. Indeed, the minister has previously stated that a metrics based drawdown will be the order of the day.
The coalition therefore acknowledges and accepts that our nation will maintain a logistics, training and special force element in overwatch within Afghanistan post the 2014 substantial drawdown. This will include elements of the provincial reconstruction team and may include capacity-building elements in governance, electoral matters and administration. It is important that we understand that a nation such as Afghanistan, still on its knees, needs its friend's hand until that nation can firmly get on its feet. We will not abandon Afghanistan. We have expended much treasure, much toil and much blood fighting to ensure that the world can enjoy freedom from those who would seek to do it harm. So the fight ahead will be hard. The high-profile attacks against former President and Chairman of the High Peace Council, Professor Rabbani, and the increase in suicide in Kabul are a case in point. These attacks mark a tactical change in the insurgent engagement in high-value public killings. As a people in this country, as Australians, we universally and utterly condemn the suicide attacks and the numerous assaults on innocent civilians. A cowardly enemy that resorts to appalling tactics on children is an enemy that deserves to be defeated.
In my previous response to the minister in this place I remarked that of the over 30 forward-operating bases and patrol bases the vast bulk, indeed, as many as 22 or 23, are manned only by Afghan National Army soldiers. If the MTF is on track to increase this number to 26 by mid-2012, as the minister stated, and that Australian Defence Force personnel will man only four, this will be a real achievement. The ink blot approach of providing security across the population centres in Oruzgan province would appear to be linking up. The move towards mobile mentoring teams to provide assistance to the ANA kandaks is a positive step. We are cautiously optimistic.
I make the point that MTF 3 has done an outstanding job in building on the work of MTF 2. MTF 2 did a substantial amount of work in finding a range of caches and removing weapons systems and IED components from the battlefield. MTF 3 has built on this brilliantly. The Taliban has not regained any substantial initiative or indeed combat capability whilst MTF 3 has been in theatre. Indeed, all indications are that the average life expectancy of a Taliban commander who dares to enter Oruzgan is no more than five days, with the majority of commanders seeking to stay in refuge in Pakistan and to issue orders to their underlings and soldiers from the safety of that area. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that young Taliban soldiers are not particularly impressed with their commanders hiding in Pakistan.
We certainly welcome the new deputy CTU, Colonel Ben James, a colleague of mine, and thank the previous deputy commander of CTU, Colonel Smith, for his tremendous work in being the second-in-command of ostensibly a brigade sized response within Oruzgan.
In July this year, in the third of the ministerial responses, the minister noted that the first provincial transitions in the north of Afghanistan were occurring. Something like 25 per cent of the population, by the end of July and early August, was actually being protected by full Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police control. There is every indication that President Karzai will seek to announce the second in a range of provincial handovers in the coming weeks. This may take the Afghan command and control of provinces up to 50 per of the country. It is certainly a welcome move.
It is important to note also that a coalition government will continue to reach out to Pakistan and support Pakistani counterterrorism and military efforts to improve security within that country and indeed the region. We will continue to provide the very best officer training at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and stand ready to provide further support to Pakistan if required. Our nation's support post the floods in 2010 in Pakistan is testimony to our enduring concern for Pakistan and its people. Pakistan and Australia are not just good cricket sparring partners; we are friends. We are friends who also acknowledge the complexities of Pakistan, and we certainly join the international community in encouraging Pakistan to do whatever they can to continue to disrupt the insurgent elements within their borders.
I thank the minister for the equipment improvements that have been going into the theatre in Afghanistan since July. Moving the Giraffe, the counter rocket, artillery and mortar system, further into patrol bases is a substantial and good move that provides real and tangible benefits. The work in digger works in actually providing a colonel, in this case Colonel Blain, to oversee the equipment improvement that soldiers would seek to have is another good move, as is a range of the other equipment being put into theatre.
I acknowledge the Minister for Defence Materiel for his work in looking at greater Australian content and putting some teeth into the priority industry capability of defence apparel and ensuring that boots, clothes and hats are majority Australian content. I also call on the minister to widen that to include body armour, helmets and a range of combat clothing and accessories. A core competency of us as a manufacturing nation must be to outfit our combat soldiers on the ground with the very best of equipment.
I thank the minister for his continued updates on detainee management. Over the last three and four times we have spoken in this House on this matter I have continued to reiterate to the minister that our detainee management policy has to mirror that of our coalition partners. At present, we can only detain those within Afghanistan for four days, whereas our coalition partners can detain for periods in excess of that. It is interesting to note that under Australian domestic terror laws we can actually detain for longer than four days. I would hope that the minister would continue to look at adjusting detainee management policy to bring the amount of time that Australian forces can detain those on the battlefield in line with our coalition partners.
I join the minister in acknowledging the tragic loss of 29 soldiers in combat operations in Afghanistan. Since we both last spoke in this place on this matter, Private Matthew Lambert has been tragically killed. In August in this House we appropriately and properly paid condolences to Private Matthew Lambert, his family and his friends. I made the point that, when Private Lambert arrived in Afghanistan as part of MTF 3, his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Smith, addressed the soldiers and said to them, 'You haven't yet earned the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the soldiers of MTF 2, but you will. I am confident that we will build on their successes and that each and every one of you will work hard to emulate and expand on their achievements.'
I went on further to say that Private Lambert's unstinting service earned him the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with any in our grand military heritage, because he served in the most remote part of the province, in Patrol Base Anaconda in the Khas Oruzgan Valley. He served in the rough, in areas barely accessible by vehicle. He patrolled the valleys on foot, he manned the battlements and he mentored the Afghan soldiers he lived and fought with. He did everything asked of him in some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth, and he did it at night, in the rain, in the cold, in the heat and in the dust. Private Lambert embodied everything the 2nd Battalion is known for. Duty first. We know his deeds, and today we honour his name—a name known not only by us but known by a family who loved him, by a regiment who trained him, by the men who fought with him, by the medic who cradled him, by the pilot who flew him and by the doctors and nurses who did everything to save him. This is the great military that serves us today in our name. These are the great men and women in combat operations in Afghanistan that seek to fight for freedom where terrorism is simply a byword. They deserve our nation's absolute and enduring support.
I also acknowledge the loss of two brave soldiers from New Zealand from across the trench, and as a nation we mourn with that country.
It is important that we do not lose heart and do not lose resolve. I say to the government and echo the words of the previous joint task force commander in 2010: Minister, in government do not get the wobbles. You enjoy strong bipartisan support. You have a competent and exceptionally well-trained military. You have great commanders on the battlefield and also back here at home. You have some of the finest and most courageous soldiers, sailors and air men and women anywhere in the world. Hold the line and finish the job.
I move:
That the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill which will amend the Corporations Act 2001 to better protect consumers. I am pleased to do so in the presence of so many firefighters who are members of their union and promoting the long-term interests of their members. It is great they are here. These measures which I refer to constitute a growth strategy for the financial planning and advice industry. They are fundamentally about improving consumer confidence and financial advice and, therefore, increasing the propensity of everyday Australians to seek advice. To the Gillard government these amendments are, therefore, both pro-business and pro-consumer. This bill will improve the capacity of the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), to act against unsatisfactory persons and it introduces a requirement for financial advisers to seek their clients' agreement every two years to continue to charge ongoing fees.
The initiatives in the bill implement part of the government's Future of Financial Advice reforms which is its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' inquiry into financial products and services in Australia that was established in the wake of collapses such as Storm Financial. It was chaired by the member for Oxley. The recent TRIO collapse is also relevant. This bill represents the first part of the FOFA reform package.
Importantly, the bill includes two key measures to enhance consumer protection and instil more trust and confidence in financial planning.
Firstly, the bill sets in place arrangements which require financial advisers to obtain their retail clients' agreement every two years in order to charge them ongoing fees for financial advice (that is the opt-in requirement). Currently, there are some clients of financial advisers that pay ongoing fees for financial advice who receive little or no service. Some clients are unaware of the amount of these fees and continue paying them because they are disengaged. This scenario can arise both where the advice fee is paid via a third party product commission, and directly from the client to adviser. This is occurring despite the fact that most ongoing advice contracts allow a client to opt-out at any time.
The government's new measure promotes the active renewal by the client to ongoing fees for advice, with opportunities for them to consider whether they are receiving value for money. It also assists disengaged clients from paying ongoing fees that they should not be paying.
The current disclosure of ongoing fees at engagement in the statement of advice the first time you get advice is an insufficient safeguard, because the disclosure is not ongoing after your first meeting with the planner in some cases. A client might be paying fees that were outlined in a statement of advice they received from an adviser years ago.
The basic requirement is that advisers must obtain their clients' agreement to renew at least once every two years.
The renewal notice empowers a client to renew or end the ongoing fee arrangement. If the client does not respond to the renewal notice, they are assumed to have terminated the advice relationship and no further fees can be deducted by the adviser from the client. If an adviser breaches by overcharging after a client has not opted in, they could be subject to a civil penalty. The maximum amount of this civil penalty, which is lower than others in the Corporations Act, reflects the tailoring of the penalty to suit the nature of the offence.
There is considerable flexibility as to when and how advisers obtain the renewal notice. The bill also provides additional grace periods if a client inadvertently opts out by not responding to the renewal notice in time.
The disclosure requirement is an important supplement to the renewal requirement. It includes fee and service information about the previous and forthcoming 12 months, and assists clients to understand whether they are receiving a service from their adviser commensurate with the ongoing fee that they are paying.
The renewal obligation will apply to new arrangements after 1 July 2012, but does not apply to existing clients of financial advisers. However the annual disclosure obligation will apply to all clients of advisers.
Overall, the measure is about the focus being on the client of the financial adviser, and what is in the client's best interest. This is line with the existing practice of many advisers. Not only is this the fair thing for the client, it is also professional best practice. There has been a lot of scaremongering about the cost that this measure will impose on financial advisers, and with this a variety of estimates of that cost. It is a matter of fact that for advisers that charge on a pure fee-for-service basis (that is, per hour or per piece of advice), the renewal measure will impose no cost whatsoever.
It is true that for advisers who have no contact with particular clients for a period of more than two years, then opt-in will impose a cost on that adviser, either in chasing up the client or in losing the business. However, it is not fair to characterise this latter case—the cost of losing business—as a new cost. The cost exists in the system right now, the only difference being that it is the disengaged client—rather than the disengaged adviser—that is currently bearing the cost.
This measure remedies that situation and ensures that the client, and their retirement savings, comes first. I would also like to emphasise at this point that the government undertook a thorough, methodical and open-minded consultation process with industry, consumer advocates and financial services experts. While parties started in significantly different places, I believe that through persistence and negotiation effort we were able to arrive at a destination that has prompted widespread support from the industry, the experts and consumer groups. I would like to record the government's appreciation to key participants in these lengthy but valuable discussions—such as consumer advocate Choice and a number of the retail and industry superannuation funds and their representatives and the Financial Planning Association—who deserve recognition in this place for their professional commitment to improving trust and confidence in financial advice.
Secondly, the bill enhances the capacity of ASIC to supervise the financial services industry and protect investors.
Providers of financial services must be licensed by ASIC as part of facilitating investor confidence that those persons are competent and are of good character. Licensees also have representatives who act on their behalf.
ASIC has powers to protect the public, including powers to apply a variety of administrative remedies against a licensee (or its representatives) that breach the law.
During the Ripoll inquiry, ASIC raised concern with its ability to protect investors by restricting or removing unscrupulous operators from the industry. A number of factors were impacting on the exercise of ASIC's powers, including decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) relating to when someone 'will' breach the law, the difficulty with removing individuals given the focus on licensees in the Corporations Act and the lack of scope for ASIC to remove representatives in certain circumstances, such as where they are not of good fame and character.
The changes implement the Ripoll recommendations in this area and will strengthen ASIC's administrative powers as they apply to licensees and representatives to strengthen the gate-keeping function of the licensing regime and extend ASIC's powers to remove unsatisfactory persons from the industry.
The changes to the licensing and banning thresholds include that ASIC can refuse or cancel a licence, or ban a person, where that person is likely to contravene (rather than breach) the law. ASIC may also remove representatives if they are not competent, of good fame and character or if they are involved in its licensee's breach of the law.
The changes generally align the thresholds for licensing and banning with similar provisions under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, which ASIC also administers.
As with the exercise of any administrative powers, an ASIC decision will be based on the individual circumstances of each case, but would generally take account of factors such as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the internal controls on the licensee or the person and the previous regulatory record of the person.
Existing review rights in relation to ASIC decisions about licensing and banning continue to apply, including to the AAT.
These changes should result in ASIC exercising its administrative powers more efficiently and effectively to protect investors. The government readily acknowledges that these future financial advice reforms sit firmly beside our commitments to boost and strengthen superannuation. If we are going to encourage Australians to compulsorily to save more for their retirement, we must ensure that the wealth management system is operating in the best interests of people for whose retirement savings incomes they are administering.
The Gillard government celebrates the demographic fact that Australians are living longer than ever before and that the goal of lifetime income security after someone has retired is a most worthy one that is part of modern Labor's DNA. We want Australians who have worked hard all their life and paid taxes to retire in dignity and comfort and we want them to have real confidence that those who are providing advice on where to invest their savings will do it well. Might I say that we do believe that most financial planners are very professional and we have high confidence in them. I am proud to support and be part of a government which has not shirked the challenge, has taken the proverbial bull by the horns when it comes to the financial planning and advice and is improving this important industry for Australia's future prosperity. But be in no doubt that this government understands that the arc of Australia's economic future will continue to bend towards our strengthened financial services. The Gillard government is a huge supporter of financial services: we believe in the opportunities of the Asian century and the rise and rise of a new middle class throughout Asia. This presents Australia's wealth management and financial services industry with enormous potential.
In summary, the measures in this bill support the key public policy objectives of Future of Financial Advice to improve consumer trust and confidence in the financial advice they receive, and improve professional standards.
Debate adjourned.
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 taxation laws.
Schedule 1 amends the income tax law to provide the Commissioner of Taxation with discretion to disregard certain events that would otherwise trigger the assessment of certain income for a primary production trust in the year of the event.
Currently, our income tax law allows primary producers to defer or spread profits made on certain forced disposals or death of livestock arising from natural disasters.
However, the concession immediately ends upon the happening of a disentitling event, for example, when a beneficiary leaves Australia permanently. This can produce some inappropriate outcomes. For this reason the government is broadly restoring the discretion which existed prior to the Tax Law Improvement Project in 1997.
This schedule also removes the death of a beneficiary as a disentitling event.
The amendments apply retrospectively from the 2005-06 income year and ensure a favourable position for affected taxpayers. Schedule 2 relates to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT). Since its introduction by the Hawke government in 1986, the PRRT has played an important role in ensuring that a share of the economic rent generated from offshore petroleum projects is retained by the community. From 1 July 2012, as part of the government’s resource tax reforms, the PRRT will be extended to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, including for the first time those located onshore, as well as the North West Shelf project.
In this context, it is vital that current and prospective PRRT taxpayers can be certain as to how the PRRT applies to their specific projects.
Schedule 2 provides this certainty by amending the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to reinforce the long-established interpretation, recently affirmed by the Federal Court, of how the ‘taxing point’ is determined for the purposes of the PRRT.
The taxing point is central to the determination of PRRT liabilities, in that it is the point at which assessable revenue for a petroleum project is determined and up to which project expenditures are deductible.
Specifically, this bill clarifies the definition of a ‘marketable petroleum commodity’ in the PRRT law. Under the PRRT law, the taxing point occurs where marketable petroleum commodities produced by a petroleum operation become ‘excluded’—normally by being sold or by being moved from the place of production.
The new definition explicitly requires that the intended final use of a substance be taken into account in determining where in the production chain a marketable petroleum commodity is produced. This requirement has always existed, albeit implicitly, and is clear given the structure and operation of the PRRT law as a whole. The PRRT has operated on this basis for over 20 years.
By making this existing requirement explicit, the amendments will put the matter beyond doubt, removing any lingering uncertainty around a central element of the PRRT.
This measure was first announced in the 2011-12 budget. Consistent with that announcement, the amendments are effective from 1 July 1990.
Because the measure serves only to clarify and affirm the current application of the PRRT, it does not impose any additional tax burden. Accordingly, these amendments have no revenue impact.
Schedule 3 amends the tax law to better protect workers’ entitlements to superannuation, strengthen the obligations of company directors and enhance deterrence of fraudulent phoenix activity.
These amendments will provide disincentives for directors to allow their companies to fail to meet their existing obligations, particularly obligations to employees. They do not introduce new obligations on the company but, rather, penalise company directors who are failing to ensure that their companies meet their obligations.
These outcomes are achieved by extending the director penalty regime to superannuation guarantee. This will make directors personally liable for their company’s failure to meet its obligations to pay employee superannuation.
Secondly, this will allow the commissioner to commence recovery against company directors under the director penalty regime without issuing a director penalty notice. This power is limited to situations where the company’s unpaid pay-as-you-go (or PAYG) withholding or superannuation liability remains unpaid and unreported, three months after becoming due.
Thirdly, it is making company directors and, in some limited cases, their associates liable to a tax which, in effect, reverses the economic benefit of a PAYG withholding credit. This tax only applies if directors or their associates are entitled to a credit for amounts that have been withheld from payments made to them by the company and the company has failed to meet its obligation to pay PAYG withholding amounts to the commissioner. Further criteria must be satisfied before associates are liable.
Together, this package of amendments will improve the likelihood that employees will receive the superannuation they are entitled to. It will reduce the ability of directors to avoid paying director penalties for their company’s superannuation guarantee and PAYG withholding debts. Further, it will increase the disincentives for directors to allow their company to fail to meet its existing obligations.
The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the amendments to the Corporations Act contained in this schedule.
Broadly, these amendments commence on royal assent.
Schedule 4 contains minor consequential amendments to the taxation arrangements that bring the gaseous fuels—liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG)—into the fuel tax regime. The changes ensure that legislation applies as intended and does not impose excessive compliance costs on the gaseous fuels industry.
The amendments in this schedule confirm that excise duty does not apply when CNG fuel is manufactured in home refuelling units that do not have commercial scale capacity.
The amendments also confirm that entitlements to fuel tax credits are available to unlicensed distributors of LPG for non-transport applications; and that the content of notices to accompany the supply of LPG for non-transport use, which will be developed in consultation with the gaseous fuels industry, will be set out entirely in regulations.
The measures contained in this schedule apply from 1 December 2011.
I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that the government will separately legislate to address difficulties gaseous fuel marketers would face in complying with the existing payment arrangements for excise and excise equivalent of customs duties.
Under these new legislative arrangements the government will allow up to six business days after the end of the weekly duty accounting period before duty payments must be made by entities with gaseous fuel tax obligations.
The changes will apply to duty obligations for LPG, LNG and CNG. They will not impact on payment of duty for other types of fuel.
The revised arrangements are in response to the concerns of marketers who, in many cases, are unable to identify whether deliveries of gaseous fuels are for transport use or for non-transport use until deliveries are made and invoices are processed. This may be some days after the fuel has left the excise or customs licensed premises.
In devising these arrangements the government was mindful of the position of gaseous fuel manufacturers and distributors who are already in the excise and excise equivalent customs duty system and whose accounting systems facilitate payment under existing arrangements.
The revised arrangements provide flexibility for existing parties in the fuel tax system to maintain their existing payment arrangements. The government's decision to amend legislation to implement revised payment arrangements for gaseous fuels reflects our commitment to respond to industry concerns and develop workable and practical solutions.
I can also announce that I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that he will administer the periodic settlement permissions under the existing excise law to allow duty to be paid for gaseous fuels up to six business days after the end of the weekly duty accounting period from 1 December 2011.
These arrangements will continue once legislation is enacted to give effect to the government’s decision on the six-business-day payment arrangement for gaseous fuels.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 accompanies schedule 3 to the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 to make directors and, in limited circumstances, their associates liable to pay pay-as-you-go withholding non-compliance tax.
The tax liability arises where the company has failed to pay to the commissioner amounts withheld under pay- as-you-go withholding arrangements and the director, or their associates, is entitled to a credit for amounts withheld from payments made by the company to them.
The Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill will impose the tax, which reverses the economic benefit of a credit to which directors and their associates were entitled. This produces a result consistent with the government’s election commitment.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the following Main Committee orders of the day, private Members’ business, be returned to the House for further consideration and the resumption of each debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day:
No. 6—National standard for fertiliser products;
No. 4—Coptic Christians in Egypt; and
No. 2—AQIS export service rebate.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members’ business being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011—Order of the day No. 1;
National standard for fertiliser products—Order of the day;
Coptic Christians in Egypt—Order of the day; and
AQIS export service rebate—Order of the day.
Question agreed to.
I have a few brief remarks in closing this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. Firstly, I note the significance of this House's first co-sponsored bill. The bill is sponsored not only by me but also by the member for Calwell and the member for McMillan and it is seconded by the Independent member for Kennedy. The first-ever bill proceeding through this place that enjoys support right across the chamber is testament to a number of things. It is testament to the independence of the United Firefighters Union, many members of which are here with us in the gallery today, and also the very strong science based case that they have put for this legislation.
The bill also reflects an understanding right across this chamber that many of the firefighters who will be affected by this bill do put their lives on the line for us in some very obvious ways. It is an extremely risky job to go into a burning building to rescue someone and then to extinguish the fire. But what the science shows, what the firefighters have demonstrated to us and what the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee has endorsed is that the risks do not stop there. Indeed, it is often the case that the after-effects of repeated exposure to the kinds of chemicals that are found especially in structural fires can be just as lethal as the fires themselves.
What is clear from the science put to the now concluded Senate inquiry into this bill is that, when firefighters are repeatedly exposed to the toxic cocktail of 70,000 synthetic chemicals in the average home fire because it seeps in through their uniforms, no matter how good the uniforms are, although firefighters might start the job 20 per cent healthier than the average member of the population they can find themselves after five years, for example, having up to twice the risk of leukaemia and a much greater case risk of cancers like testicular cancer.
The firefighters union, through the campaign it conducted to bring this matter to the attention of the House, has convinced all of us, no matter where we sit in this chamber, that we should be doing what we can to protect those who protect us. The Senate committee did recommend there be some amendments to the bill but did recommend that the bill be passed. It is my anticipation that the second reading of this bill will now pass through the House. We will have the opportunity Monday fortnight to consider some of the amendments. It will then come back here the following Thursday and I anticipate it will still continue to enjoy the support of everyone right across this chamber so that we can hopefully, if all proceeds well in the other place, have this legislation in place by the end of the year. I think it will be a remarkable testament to this parliament that we finish the year with a co-sponsored bill that is about protecting those in the community who protect us. So together, I know, with many others in this place—and I am sure many of those in the gallery—I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In accordance with standing order 41, further considerations of this bill shall be accorded priority over other public members' business and the selection committee may determine times for consideration of the remaining stages.
by leave—My comments will be exceptionally brief. I told my staff when I saw this bill that, no, we are not going to vote for it. We are not Santa Claus here to be handing out money, pay and conditions to everyone who wants some extra pay and conditions. Jen Eliot, my chief of staff, said, 'No, you will read the scientific basis for this request,' and she forced me to read the scientific analysis and data put together by the United Firefighters Union. Having read that, there was no way that I could then shy away from backing the bill. It was an unassailable case.
In making that statement, I want to pay a very fine tribute to the firefighters union here. It is very seldom that we in this place get a case put as professionally and as scientifically as that. They fought like tigers to stay out and away from amalgamation, and that decision has served this union well. It is a very good decision today, and we thank the honourable member Mr Bandt for bringing it forward. But most of all I think that it is a tribute to good unionism. Unions seem to get criticised almost universally throughout the Australian media these days and all of us are intimidated and do not come forward and praise a union these days. This action is something that needed to be done and has now been done. My congratulations to both sides of the House and to the initiator, but most of all to the union—a very, very fine performance.
On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the House I very much welcome the firefighters who are here in the gallery today. They do a great job on behalf of the Australian people and it is fantastic to see them in the people's house today. This is an initiative that has widespread support across the House of Representatives and across the parliament. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the government, I very much welcome them here today.
I seek leave to make a brief statement, following the passing of my motion, on the current situation in Egypt.
Leave granted.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Gallery today of His Grace Bishop Suriel of the Coptic Church, Rev. Father Jonathan Issac, Rev. Father Gabriel Yassa, and my good friend and former Sutherland Shire councillor Magdi Mikhail.
Our motion recently noted that Egypt is currently experiencing a period of unprecedented transition, the success of which hinges on full respect for the rule of law and compliance with international human rights standards, including freedom of religion. The motion that was just passed could not have been more timely, as it comes just days after we saw the shocking military violence against the Coptic Christians in Egypt. During the recent debate we noticed that it was only on 1 January this year that a bomb was detonated in front of a Coptic Church, the Two Saints Church, in Alexandria, killing 23 people and injuring more than 97. We noted that this was the most deadly act of violence against Egypt's Christian Coptic minority for more than a decade, when a massacre in 2000 left 21 Coptic Christians dead.
However, it is very sad to say that the latest attacks on the Coptic Christians have left 24 dead and over 270 injured. And what we have seen on video of these recent attacks is armoured military vehicles driving at high speed, ploughing into unarmed Christian protesters. For members of this House who have not seen these videos, although they are graphic and horrific I suggest that you do to understand the gravity of the situation.
Medical staff at Cairo's hospital have told Amnesty International that the casualties resulted from bullet wounds and crushed body parts resulting from people deliberately being run over by army vehicles. A young Christian, Vivian Magdi, whose fiance was killed when an armoured vehicle ran over him, gave a tearful account to Egyptian TV. She said:
His body was in the middle of the wheels. His legs were torn. His head hit the pavement, breaking his skull. Soldiers gathered around us and started to beat him up. I begged them to leave him.
She told the soldiers he was not breathing. She continued her account:
Then a soldier with a red cap came, shouting, cursing and hitting me with a stick then tried to beat him up. I threw my body on him (her fiance) ... and the soldier said to me: 'You infidel, why are you here?'
Let us be clear: when military forces open fire on unarmed civilians and drive armoured vehicles at high speed into crowds and kill at least 25 it is not only murder; it is mass murder.
Egyptian state television must accept some responsibility for this latest violence, for they called on so-called honest Egyptians to rush to the defence of the military, which they said was under siege from Copts. This resulted in vigilante attacks against Coptic Christian protesters who were merely fleeing the army's bullets and armour.
The fate of Egypt will be determined by how Christians are treated in that country in the future. The situation could not be more serious, not only for Egypt but for the world. The Coptic Christians are the largest non-Muslim minority in the Middle East. The Copts have been the intellectual entrepreneurs in Egypt, and the country will continue to decline without a strong Christian minority. We have already seen this year the collapse of the Egyptian tourist industry, and since January their share market has collapsed by 45 per cent in value, pushing the economy to the verge of abyss. The country is fast running out of financial reserves. Growing hunger in the streets is a reality. And the latest piece of madness has pushed the country closer to the edge. This risks people becoming more radicalised, pushing Egypt and the entire Middle East into a downward spiral.
Now is not the time for silence or appeasement from the international community, for as the Copts go so may go the entire Middle East. If a Christian minority cannot live in a country with a Muslim majority population without suffering persecution and institutionalised discrimination our future looks bleak. However, calls by world leaders after these latest atrocities merely for restraint from both sides naively fail to understand the situation. The Coptic Christians do not have a militia ready to engage the army. The moderate voices in Egypt must be put on notice in the strongest terms to root out any anti-Christian element in the army and to give equal rights to all Coptic Christians and to ensure their protection.
Our US allies generously support the military in Egypt. The Americans should be warning the moderate Egyptian voices that if they fail to protect the Christian minority their military aid will be cut back. There is a real danger of this Arab spring falling into dark Islamic winter. Religious extremism must have no place in a modern society anywhere in the world, including Egypt.
I thank all members of the House for supporting this motion as it helps send an urgent message through to Cairo that to persist on the present course is to court catastrophe. It will also greatly galvanise much needed broader international attention to the issue of looming Egyptian catastrophe. I thank all members.
by leave—I very much want, on behalf of the Australian government, to express our outrage at the attacks that have occurred on Coptic Christians in Egypt.
The resolution that was just carried unanimously by the House had an action component to it. The government has already acted on each and every one of those action components. The Prime Minister and the foreign minister issued a strong statement. The foreign minister, I know, raised these issues in discussions at the highest levels at the United Nations when he was recently in New York. The immigration minister, I know, has had a number of discussions with the bishop and leaders of the Coptic community to ensure that there are appropriate understandings with regard to the circumstances in which Coptic Christians have found themselves.
The Australian government will continue to make the strongest representations that the Egyptian government provide equal rights and protection for all Egyptian citizens, regardless of their race or religion. This is a fundamental human right. As the federal member for Grayndler I can say that I have received strong representations, including from my local mayor, Morris Hanna—the Mayor of Marrickville—and from others in the community who have very strong ties.
Historically the first Coptic church in Australia was at Sydenham in my electorate. Indeed, my association with the bishop goes back many years, to the Marrickville District Hardcourt Tennis Club, when we were both very much younger. It is an association that goes back 35 years—that gives away our ages—in terms of our friendship and our dialogue.
I can say this on behalf of the government: we will not be shy about putting forward these principles in terms of human rights, which we regard as universal. We have not been shy up to now; we will continue with this course. I am very pleased that this is a position which unites everyone in this House of Representatives. I congratulate the member for Hughes on his initiative in putting forward this motion that was unanimously agreed to and I assure the members of the community that this is an issue which continues to be discussed and acted upon at the highest level of the Australian government.
by leave—Arguably the most famous comment in the last century was that made by Mikhail Gorbachev when he was appointed First Secretary. He chose as his first statement to the rest of the world that the important thing for all of us to remember is that when we go on our knees at night to pray we all pray to the same God. I was brought up in a generation where we lived a hair trigger away from nuclear holocaust. I remember as a 12th grader in school, with the transistor radio in my ear, listening to the speech of John F Kennedy over the missile crisis and I could feel the hair on the back on my neck standing up because it was going to be on. There was no way that a tough guy like Nikita Khrushchev was going to back down and, if you listened to Kennedy, there was no way that he was going to back down. So it was going to be on and we were going to be the children of a nuclear war. Good things prevailed, but that situation continued up to the advent of the most wonderful man, Mikhail Gorbachev, whose family have preserved Christianity through 80 years of persecution where it was effectively illegal to practise religion.
I think it is reasonable to say that I have had my life saved twice by two wonderful doctors. Both, judging from their names, were of the Islamic faith and both great men tirelessly worked extremely hard to save my life. I would not be here without those wonderful people.
When the ethnic cleansing was taking place in central Europe, NATO stepped in. The Christian countries stepped in to protect those Islamic people who were being persecuted. The NATO countries have pursued the architects of that oppression fairly ruthlessly. It is very much to their credit. But if you are a Christian you are supposed to love your neighbours, turn the other cheek and do good to those that hate you. That is the very essence of our religious beliefs in this country. For some people they might be philosophical beliefs but, for the vast bulk of us, they are our religious beliefs.
It gives me no joy to recall recent history on our planet where over one million Armenians were murdered. In Spain, 55,000 Catholics were taken out into the streets and shot dead, including 6,000 priests and 13,000 nuns. I quote from Simon Beevor's book on the Spanish Civil War. It seems interesting that they always talk about Franco. Franco said, 'For everyone you kill, I will kill 10.' I do not think he got up to 10, but he did a fairly good job. But that was payback. The original decision was to murder people because of their Christian faith and 54,000 of them were just taken out onto the streets and shot dead. Read the book.
One of the great blemishes upon the soul of our nation was that we participated in the Boer War for Mr Rothschild, Mr Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes—it is a disgrace that there is such a thing as a Rhodes scholarship. They wiped out half the Matabele nation. They murdered them. Then they proceeded to murder 200,000 Boers, including 28,000 women and children in the concentration camps. Hitler was able to say, 'Don't worry about it because the Turks got away with it in Armenia and the British got away with it in South Africa; we can go ahead and murder six million Jews as well.'
This sort of thing has to stop. I very much praise the member for bringing it forward and the members of the Coptic Church, being from a related breakaway, the Western Christians. The original Christians are sitting up there today. In the little Christian group of Ross Cameron we had going here at Parliament House, of which Kevin Rudd was a prominent member, we had a person with a big silver cross who had served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet. I asked him, 'How long has your family been Christian?' He said, 'Since 72 AD.' We praise these people that have stood on the ramparts and kept the Christian faith for 2,000 years, 1,500 years of that being persecution. I think we should serve very clear notice in this place that we are not going to stand aside and see our fellow Christians and the fathers of Christianity continue to be murdered. That is not going to happen. Please God, our nation will grow over the next 20 or 30 years—as I think it must for its survival—to 60 million people and we will be a rich, prosperous and powerful nation. We will put up a defence if persecution takes place. If I can inject a personal note into my speech, the brother of my great grandfather was the patriarch of the Maronite Church. They were people very familiar with the sort of persecution that is taking place. He came to Australia in 1870, so I do not really have a great deal of memories of him!
All the same, I think that an awful lot of Australians will feel very great kinship with the Coptic Christians of Egypt. Even if we did not feel a great kinship, as fellow Christians we will not stand idly by and see fellow Christians murdered—just as we did not stand idly by and watch as fellow believers in the good Lord were murdered in those countries in central Europe. We hope that we will carry those principles forward into the future. I highly praise the member for Hughes for putting this motion forward and I highly praise those people who have kept the faith through millennia of prosecution.
by leave—I want to strongly associate myself with this motion and commend the member for Hughes and all the others who have spoken on this issue, particularly the member for Grayndler, who has such a long association with the Coptic community in Sydney. This situation has worsened, not just in recent days but also over the Christmas season, when Coptic Christians in Egypt faced attack. When 23 people were murdered, we knew the situation had gotten a lot worse. Egyptian society is in turmoil at the moment because of the country's move towards democracy, but that is no excuse, as I am sure the Coptic community will agree, for the Egyptian military and the current Egyptian government to ignore the rights of such an important minority in Egypt. The security and religious freedom of Coptic Christians must be respected, and we call on the Egyptian government to respect those rights and to guarantee those rights.
Let us remember where the events of the last few days began. It is not, as portrayed by some in the media, a fight between militant Christians and Islamic fundamentalists. This began with the burning down of a Coptic church, which led to people making peaceful demonstrations that were then attacked by the Egyptian army. I regret to say I have read reports that, in provincial areas of Egypt, parts of the Egyptian provincial government and even parts of the Egyptian military have participated in these attacks on Coptic churches. This is outrageous. I remember the words of his Holiness the Pope, who expressed his solidarity with the Christian people of Egypt by calling on world leaders to speak out against attacks on Christians in the Middle East. This is the sharpest point of those tensions, and it is not an excuse to say, 'Society is out of control; we're in transition,' and that the Egyptian military cannot guarantee the safety of people practising an ancient religion in their own country. The world is looking at how the Egyptian government behaves. As various members have said, the Egyptian economy, Egyptian tourism, all of those things, are at risk. It is in Egypt's interest to protect its own citizens, its Coptic citizens.
I commend the member for Hughes for moving the motion. I am particularly pleased as a member of the government to have worked with ministers like the member for Grayndler and the member for Batman, who had a large delegation of which I was part that met Bishop Suriel in January, along with some of the Coptic fathers, in Melbourne at the federal government offices. We will continue to concentrate on this issue, and the Coptic community in Australia should know that the Egyptian government will hear the united voice of this parliament, showing the Christian people of the Middle East that we are fully behind them.
I thank all those who have participated in the debate. I was privileged to be able to grant leave for additional contributions to be made on this motion, which was unanimously agreed to by the parliament this morning.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
On behalf of the Minister for Health and Ageing, I move:
That, in accordance with section 10B of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the House approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2011 (No. 3) which was made on 26 September 2011, and presented to the House on 11 October 2011.
The Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2011 (No. 3) makes two changes to caps on benefits under the extended Medicare safety net. It indexes all existing capped items by the June quarter consumer price index, from 1 January 2012. In addition, it places caps on the benefits payable through the extended Medicare safety net for two new Medicare items for varicose veins. These caps were recommended by the independent expert Medical Services Advisory Committee and place an upper limit on the amount of benefit that can be paid under the extended Medicare safety net. As I said, this determination has two parts. Firstly, it will index existing extended Medicare safety net benefit caps under the consumer price index effective from 1 January 2012. For items currently subject to an extended Medicare safety net benefit cap, this determination will provide an increase in the maximum Medicare rebates payable for affected services. Items that are currently capped are all obstetric services, selected pregnancy ultrasounds, assisted reproductive technology services, hair transplantation for alopecia, one type of cataract surgery, one type of varicose vein treatment, services to provide facial injections for patients with human immunodeficiency virus and two of the new telehealth items. This determination will increase the caps by the June quarter CPI of 3.6 per cent. For example, for Medicare item 16590, planning and management of a pregnancy, the extended Medicare safety net benefit cap in 2011 was $209.30. After indexation, the maximum amount of benefit that can be paid through the extended Medicare safety net in 2012 for the same item will be $216.85.
Secondly, the determination will introduce extended Medicare safety net benefit caps on two new Medicare benefits scheme items. These items are for laser therapy or ELT which provides minimally invasive treatment for varicose veins. These items will be introduced on 1 November 2011. The Medical Services Advisory Committee, which provides independent expert advice to government, recommended that the MBS funding for ELT be introduced as long as there was a limit on the amount of extended Medicare safety net benefits payable for this service. This is an important determination for the parliament and I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
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: Contamination Remediation works, Former Fire Training Area, RAAF Base Williams, Point Cook, Victoria.
RAAF Base Williams, Point Cook, Victoria covers an area of approximately 344 hectares, part of which borders Port Phillip Bay. It is currently an operating airfield used mostly by civilian aircraft. An area of Point Cook that was formerly used for firefighting training has been identified as a source of contamination. Firefighting training at the site required the use of a range of flammable chemicals to ignite and extinguish old aircraft. A number of known carcinogens and other contaminants toxic to humans and the environment have been identified as present in the soil and discharging via groundwater into Port Phillip Bay. Remediation is required to ensure the protection of human health, and to improve the quality of the groundwater and the Port Phillip Bay marine environment. This can only be achieved by reducing the contaminant concentrations entering the groundwater.
The estimated outturn cost of the proposed work is $27.3 million plus GST. In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Defence accepts the recommendations to proceed with the works. Defence accepts in principle the recommendations to develop and maintain a publicly available website containing information regarding contamination on the Defence estate. Defence will consider the best form that information regarding contaminated sites can be made available to the wider public via the internet. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works contractor will be engaged in December 2011, with the works expected to occur between February 2012 and April 2013. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled Public Works on Christmas Island.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The main objective of the committee's visit to Christmas Island was to inspect public works on the island that have been approved in the recent past or are to be referred to the committee in the near future, and to receive updates and briefings about particular projects with a view to reporting back to parliament. The committee has noted the increase in population on Christmas Island, particularly due to irregular maritime arrivals and the Commonwealth agency staff dealing with those arrivals, and sought reassurance that public infrastructure development and investment is keeping pace with need.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has established the Christmas Island new housing program which aims to provide approximately 40 dwellings to accommodate additional essential Commonwealth agency staff on Christmas Island. This will enable housing currently leased on the private rental market to be released for use by the Christmas Island community. Project 1 of the program is currently underway, with projects 2 and 3 to be referred to the committee in the near future as they come within our competence and purview. The committee is pleased with the progress of this project and appreciates the efforts of departmental officials in keeping the committee informed and updated.
The committee inspected the island's wastewater treatment plant which is currently being upgraded so that it has the capacity to meet current and future demands. The committee was satisfied that the wastewater treatment plant upgrade is necessary to meet the island's needs. However, there were two key aspects of the plant that concerned the committee. My deputy on the committee will talk more about that when he makes his contribution. The concerns were the discharge of treated water and the disposal of sludge. Both relate to the security of the island's freshwater supply. The committee seeks reassurance from all relevant authorities that treated wastewater is not entering the freshwater supply on the island. The committee seeks reassurance from all relevant authorities that adequate measures are taken to ensure that contaminants from sludge are not entering the freshwater supply on the island. The committee also inspected the three immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island, namely North-west Point, Construction Camp and Phosphate Hill. The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship review existing medical facilities and services at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre at North-west Point, with a view to ensuring that all residents have full access to all medical services in an appropriate and suitable medical centre environment.
It was immediately obvious to the committee that the medical facility at the Construction Camp detention centre is far too small and not fit for purpose. The committee recommends that a fit-for-purpose medical centre be designed and constructed for the Construction Camp detention centre. Design must be completed in consultation with detention centre management, medical staff and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's Health Advisory Group.
The committee also found the existing facilities at the Australian Federal Police headquarters to be inadequate, sub-standard and not fit for purpose. The committee understands that the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has recognised that a new AFP headquarters is a priority need. The committee recommends that the Australian government move to construct new headquarters for the AFP on Christmas Island as a most urgent priority.
After coming back from Christmas Island and preparing this report with the secretariat, the Deputy Chair of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Mallee, and I met with the respective ministers concerning immigration and police, Ministers Bowen and O'Connor—we were not able to meet Minister Crean—and we talked to them about the issues before we presented our report. We also have had good cooperation from the department.
In closing, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the honourable member for Mallee, and the former Deputy Chair, Senator the Hon. Judith Troeth for their commitment to this visit and subsequent report. The deputy had previously visited Christmas Island some time ago and was very helpful to me on that visit. For their advice and assistance with our visit I especially thank the Christmas Island Administrator, the Christmas Island Shire Council, and officials from the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I further thank the committee secretariat, particularly Anthony Overs and Thomas Gregory who accompanied the committee to Christmas Island. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—thank you for the opportunity to support the member for Page. What the public do not see are the numerous amount of parliamentary committees that beaver away in the public interest—the Public Works Committee is one that I am immensely proud of having served on it for some time—ensuring that taxpayers' money is properly and well spent and there is good value for money.
Christmas Island over the years has seen the investment of massive amounts of Commonwealth funding with parliamentary approval via the public works process, so it was a good opportunity to visit and recap on some of those projects. I have had concerns for some time that Christmas Island was under enormous pressure in terms of its public infrastructure—that is, power supply, water supply, sewerage treatment, medical health and all those sorts of things. A lot of people do not appreciate the need for these things because latterly they think that all that happens at Christmas Island is the detention of people seeking asylum. In fact, for 100 years Christmas Island has been a major area for the production of fertiliser and that continues to be undertaken on Christmas Island although there is some uncertainty about its ongoing future.
Most of the activity and presence of Australians on Christmas Island now is to do with department of immigration activity. I was really pleased to have an opportunity to visit the island along with the chair of the committee, the member for Page. A concern that continues to worry me though is the water supply and I continue to quote Julius Caesar who always said the first thing to secure is the water supply. If you secure the water supply for the citadel, you ensure its ongoing security.
Christmas Island as a limestone island has a water supply from the tropical rainforest stored underground naturally and this is then extracted for public use. I was a little alarmed to discover that the end result of the sewerage treatment plant, which the Public Works Committee approved in the last parliament, is sludge. It is a solid waste that needs to be disposed of. The most convenient place to dispose of it is on the top of this reservoir of water storage, a limestone ridge at the peak of the landfill site on Christmas Island. So the report quite rightly asked for this matter to be reviewed. All the questions the committee asked whilst on the island received a vacant response as to whether the water supply was secure. That is something that the committee very strongly feels needs to be reviewed immediately.
I will finish my remarks by thanking the committee. I also particularly thank Anthony Overs and Thomas Gregory, who has now moved on to other committees around the parliament, and Dr Alison Clegg. I commend this report to the parliament.
It is my pleasure today to speak on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. I wish to commence my contribution to this debate by highlighting that the Labor Party has, for a very long time, had a very proud record of supporting people in their workplaces, to ensure that they do have a safe place to go to work and that the employers provide for them all the necessary skills and tools to work within that workplace in a safe way.
Earlier today we were dealing with a private member's piece of legislation that dealt with occupational health and safety issues around firefighters acquiring various cancers as a consequence of the work that they undertake in providing a service to the community and dealing with fires, particularly in structures, and the carcinogens that those firefighters come across.
One of the commitments that Labor took to the 2007 election was to commence a process of harmonising our occupational health and safety laws across this nation. The reason we want to do that is that, despite the fact that we come from a federation, workers are becoming far more mobile than they ever used to be and employers are working across jurisdictions. It is becoming a real problem not only for those workers but also for those employers in having different sets of occupational laws depending in which state a worker might be employed in on any particular day. There are many industries where employees consistently and constantly cross borders, often moving from one jurisdiction to another.
In 2008 we commissioned a review into what model occupational health and safety laws might look like and commenced a process. As a government we received some 242 submissions from state governments and universities, industry groups, individuals and other key stakeholders such as trade unions on what some model occupational health safety laws might look like. I would like to thank all of those who participated in that process. A model act was subsequently developed in September 2009 and was put out for a six-week period for consultation and feedback from all of the stakeholders. Since then we have been working on the necessary legislation and consulting with the states through the ministerial council in terms of those particular laws. And today we are currently debating those draft laws and what they might look like from a Commonwealth perspective.
There will be requirements from the states and territories in order for them to, as they have agreed to do, harmonise their occupational health and safety laws so that they mirror the agreement that we have reached with them. I certainly look forward to the states and territories getting on with that work so that we can develop a consistent set of occupational health and safety laws throughout this nation to provide protection and coverage for workers.
Analysis undertaken by Access Economics estimates that harmonising work health and safety laws will save some 40,000 businesses, which operate across state boundaries, around $179 million per year—providing very substantial savings to the economy, making this nation even more productive. Importantly, this not only will provide great savings for the nation but will also ensure that workers and employers understand more comprehensively the obligations of occupational health and safety and enable the opportunity for employees, particularly those who work across multiple jurisdictions, to have a comprehensive understanding and be able to take measures in accordance with the provisions of these harmonised legislative arrangements to protect their own occupational health safety in work in conjunction, of course, with employers.
In workplaces where occupational health and safety is not a priority, injuries will of course occur. Those injuries are an enormous drain on the productivity of the nation and the productivity of the workplace. It is in everyone's interest that people are protected in the workplace from injury, whether it be physical injury such as back injuries or the like, or whether it be psychological injuries such as stress and the like. It is incumbent on all jurisdictions to work to put in place those arrangements.
(Quorum formed) I might take this opportunity to point out the absolute shameless way that Tony Abbott treated Bernie Banton in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. Bernie was dying of asbestosis—
Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, I rise on a point of order. Members should refer to other members of the House by their seat or title.
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition back then treated workers who were dying of asbestosis in a shameful way. It was a blight on this nation. Bernie was a worker, as I understand it, who after many years of working on the wharves had developed asbestosis. In 2007 the then Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, now the Leader of the Opposition, made an outrageous claim that Bernie Banton was only doing what he was for political reasons. The reality is that Bernie was dying of a deadly disease that he suffered because of the work that he undertook for many years, particularly, I think, in New South Wales. The reality is that the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott do not care about the rights of workers in the workplace.
Madam, Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members should refer to other members of the House by their seat or title.
I remind the member for Corangamite that he should refer to members by their correct titles.
Indeed, and I apologise to the House for that. The reality is, of course, that the Liberal Party have no concern for workers in the workplace. The Labor Party do. We have a very proud history of putting in place legislative protection for workers in the workplace to ensure that those workers can earn an income and go home from work free from injury—whether it be injuries such as back injuries, injuries that come from dealing with complicated and dangerous machinery or indeed stress related injuries from things such as excessive workloads or workplace bullying.
The Labor Party continue to deliver on this very proud tradition of putting in place occupational health and safety laws throughout this nation to protect the interests of working families. If the Liberal Party can bring themselves to actually support some legislation that supports workers for once, I look forward to this legislation passing this place and hopefully the Senate. Indeed, I look forward to the states and territories undertaking the necessary legislative reform in their jurisdictions to ensure that harmonisation does truly take place.
As I indicated earlier, Access Economics has indicated that there will be a very substantial saving to the nation in terms of productivity, a very substantial saving to the nation in terms of occupational health and safety costs and, I believe, a very substantial saving to the nation in terms of the costs of dealing with and treating injuries in the workplace. This is good reform. It is reform that is necessary to recognise the complexity of business and the complexity of some 40,000 enterprises now undertaking work in multiple jurisdictions across the Commonwealth.
As I said earlier, the Labor Party have a proud history of putting in place protections for workers and we do treat people like Bernie Banton with the respect that they deserve and ensure that they do have the opportunity to seek compensation, unlike the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, who treated them appallingly.
I rise to support the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. Workplace health and safety is incredibly important to our nation. Sadly, it does not always receive the attention it deserves. Each year, more than 300 Australians are killed at work and many more die as a result of work-related diseases. In addition to this, a staggering 140,000 Australians are seriously injured at work each year. Workplace death and injury has a devastating effect on individual workers, families, workplaces and our communities. However, I think one of the greatest tragedies in all of this is that many of these incidences at work are preventable. The pain and suffering that happens for these individuals, families and our community need not occur. Between July 2010 and March 2011, 16 people lost their lives as a result of a falling object, 13 people were killed when falling from a great height, 11 were crushed by machinery and eight were electrocuted. It is likely that with the right prevention processes in place these tragedies would not have occurred. I think it is very important that we on this side of the House are actually taking steps to strengthen and harmonise our health and safety.
We have been talking about this for some time. In fact, I think that over the last 10 or 15 years we have been talking about what it would mean to ensure that we had unified health and safety protections in place for workers right around this country. However, it has taken this government to actually start the hard work of ensuring that people are protected wherever they live in the country, and I think this is incredibly important.
When we hear occupational health and safety, people in their workplaces may at times think it is not that important and their eyes may glaze over. I know that as a teenager working in the retail industry I probably did not give the consideration to health and safety that I should have. I look back now at some of the dangerous practices that were engaged in at my workplace. I would stand on the top rung of the ladder and wait for my manager to throw boxes up to me, where I would catch them and put them on top of the overhung shelves. That is just one example. I look back now and think the consequences, if I or anyone else in my workplace fell, would have been devastating, and it was really only one step away. So I think we sometimes do not give it the attention it deserves, but I believe so strongly that we do need to give it more attention and make sure that Australian workplaces are safe places—that when people go off to work they come home alive and uninjured, safe to their families.
Australian workplaces have come a long way in implementing prevention strategies to prevent injuries. A lot of things such as guards, fencing and harnessing have been implemented and we have seen the number of deaths in our workplaces decline, but there is still a lot more to be done. Certainly in my experience when I was working as a representative for retail workers, a lot of shortcuts were still made. I remember one example that was incredibly preventable. I had visited a Hungry Jack's store. There was an employee who had been seriously burnt as a result of hot oil. He was asked to carry that bucket of hot oil—it was a plastic bucket—and he was seriously injured as a result of that. The authorities did pursue that company and they were fined for that incident, but there was a toll for that shortcut that seemed easy at the time. It had serious consequences for that young person.
So I am very pleased today to be speaking on this bill—to work towards a unified workplace health and safety scheme across the whole country. It does have, as the previous speaker said, large impacts to our economy. Unfortunately figures have shown that it is estimated that $34 billion is the cost to our economy of injuries at work.
Employees should not be fatally injured and have this cost to the economy. We should be doing something to improve that. As the previous speaker said, Labor does have a very proud tradition. (Quorum formed)
I was talking about health and safety, but I am going to acknowledge my parents are in the gallery, as well as the prize-winning Dr Jane Wright, who last night won the Prime Minister's award for secondary science teachers. She is my aunt and I am very proud to have her in the gallery. She is an exceptional teacher who inspires young people about science. I want to acknowledge the great work she does at Loreto college.
But I will talk about health and safety, because Labor does have a very, very proud history in this area. This bill will take another step towards doing what the opposition when in government could not do. They could not nationalise and harmonise occupational health and safety. This bill will do a lot to realise this. It is expected that this harmonisation will commence from 1 January 2012 and make many important changes to health and safety regulation. These changes include a new statutory right for workers to cease unsafe work in certain conditions. This will empower employees to take responsibility for their safety and also motivate employers to maintain a high standard in workplace health and safety.
The primary duty of care will now be extended to persons conducting a business or undertaking. This will produce a broader sphere of protection that applies to all workers, not just employees. Because it should be clear that everyone deserves protection—whether they are hired labour, casual workers or full-time employees—this bill will go towards protecting them. These are very important changes not only for the protection of workers—even though we think that is the paramount importance of health and safety laws—but will also simplify things for businesses. They will take away a lot of red tape, especially if the businesses work across multi-sites in multi-jurisdictions.
This legislation has been talked about for a long time; it is something that will streamline the health and safety system and produce better outcomes for workers and for employers. We know it is the strategy of the opposition today to call quorums and it probably is because they do not see health and safety as an important thing for this House to deal with, but this side of the House does believe it is an incredibly important.
In addition the bill will include provisions to deal with issues specific to the Commonwealth. In particular, it will extend the application of work health and safety laws to members of the Defence Force and other persons deemed to be employees for the purposes of the current OH&S Act. It will enable the Chief of the Defence Force and Director-General of Security to disregard specific matters with the minister's agreement, which has not previously been required. The bill also establishes Comcare as the sole regulator of OH&S in the Commonwealth. This change to the current situation is unique to the Commonwealth, whereby Comcare and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission have shared regulatory powers. This will simplify our health and safety system; it will ensure that responsibilities are clear; it will ensure that people, including contractors, employees of contractors, sub-contractors—I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired.)
It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Corangamite and the lovely hardworking member for Kingston, whose parents are up in the gallery, in speaking on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. The interesting thing to note is that not one of the opposition members is speaking on workplace health and safety. When it comes to the crunch in caring about workers and their families, they fail Australians miserably. I am surprised we have had quorums called by the member for Gippsland, given the amount of workers in his electorate that he has left high and dry and fails to look after and support.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask for that comment to be withdrawn.
What comment—workers?
I ask you to withdraw the comment.
Is the member claiming to be offended by the comment?
Yes.
Are you claiming it is unparliamentary?
Yes.
I am happy to withdraw for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not want to get the little precious petal upset anymore.
As members are undoubtedly aware, the regulatory impact statement for the harmonisation of health and safety regulations confirmed that the national OHS system will bring many benefits, including economic benefits delivering up to $2 billion a year in productivity gains.
Over the past three years Labor has worked in cooperation with various stakeholders such as the states and territories, business groups and the ever-valuable ACTU to achieve a new legislative framework which will replace nine separate OHS acts and over 400 pieces of occupational health and safety regulation. This is an important step because I know that in my own state of Victoria and in New South Wales there are many cross-border issues involving jurisdictions, permits and safety regulations that people face every day working in businesses along the borders between the states. Through the measures in this bill we will eliminate the confusion, complication and higher costs for small businesses along those borders and probably along all state borders across the country.
As the member for Kingston said, it has taken a Labor government to do this because it is Labor that cares about the health and safety of workers. It is Labor that understands that, by undertaking these measures, we are enhancing safety protections for all Australian workers and their families and giving greater certainty and protection for all workplace parties.
Nationally harmonising work health and safety laws was first raised by the Whitlam government back in 1974. So while the genesis for this is very old, the arguments in favour of harmonisation remain very compelling to this day. It is important because around 300 Australians are killed at work each year. It is tragic that 300 people go to work each day, and then one day they do not come home. That is an appalling thing to think of, for their families, their friends and their communities and also for the employers. I know many employers of people who have been injured or have died at work suffer greatly, both physically and mentally, as a result of the issues raised when they lost a valuable part of their team. Many more workers die as a result of workplace related diseases, as the member for Corangamite mentioned earlier, and some 135,000 Australians are seriously injured at work.
I said in my maiden speech that I thought workplace safety and bullying are two of the most abhorrent things we can see in this country. I think back to the time when I was doing my apprenticeship in a shoemaking factory. We had absolutely no workplace health and safety. We were using glues and solvents with no fumigation, no breathing protection, no nothing. We were there at 7.30 in the morning and we did not leave until 4.30; we just sat there and worked away. There were machines that did not have guards. The amount of injuries we used to see happening every day, from minor injuries right through to major ones, was absolutely terrible. That is what started me on my journey to here, thinking that we need to address these things. We need to make sure that when people go to work each and every day they are going to come home safe. It has been a belief of mine that we can never go far enough to make sure that Australians go to work and have a safe, happy and responsible workplace and, of course, that they get remunerated properly for the jobs they do.
We know that the cost of workplace related injury and illness to our economy has been estimated at nearly six per cent of our GDP. We also know, as I said, that the cost to families, friends and others is immeasurable. Therefore, I believe that this bill is necessary as it contains new and tougher provisions, which include significant penalties for those who fail to meet their obligations for work health and safety.
The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government stated in the second reading speech that there are three categories of penalties in this bill, based on the degree of culpability and risk. Category 1 offences, involving proven recklessness, attract a maximum fine of $3 million for bodies corporate and a maximum fine of $600,000 or a maximum of five years imprisonment or both for individuals. Category 2 offences, involving breaches of health and safety duties which expose another person to risk of death or serious injury or illness, attract a maximum fine of $1.5 million for bodies corporate or $300,000 for individuals. Category 3 offences apply for any breach of a health and safety duty, with a maximum fine of $500,000 for bodies corporate and $100,000 for individuals.
As was mentioned before, those opposite did not support the workers during their 11 long years in government. But it is Labor who have come out and said we will protect Australian jobs and Australian families. This bill implements our commitment in 2008 at COAG that all jurisdictions would harmonise health and safety laws. My home state of Victoria will benefit from $50 million in reward payments if these reforms are implemented by 1 January 2012. As I said, this bill will deliver real, tangible economic benefits: $2 billion in productivity gains and around $250 million per year in additional benefits arising from reducing red tape and improving the safety standards for workers.
In 2008 the government established an independent panel to conduct the national review into model occupational health and safety laws. This review panel examined very closely work health and safety laws in each state and territory and the Commonwealth. As the minister correctly outlined in his second reading speech, this bill seeks to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces through the elimination or minimisation of risks, fair and effective representation, consultation, cooperation and issue resolution, provision of advice, information, education and training, and effective and appropriate compliance and enforcement measures. What we have got is a government that is delivering a whole package on these things to ensure that there is no excuse for not having a safe workplace. There is no excuse for not being able to allow people to go to work, to perform their duties in a safe environment and then to come home to be with their families. The definition of 'worker' will be extended to include persons who are currently deemed to be employees of the Commonwealth such as our valued members of the ADF and holders of a Commonwealth statutory office.
Comcare, under this bill, is established as the single regulator for work, health and safety in the Commonwealth and will operate under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The commission will play an important role in overseeing the role of Comcare, which will have responsibility for day-to-day regulatory functions. Unlike those opposite who show no genuine care about workers—and that is why they will not put on the record their support for this legislation—we are getting on with the job and delivering tougher national standards to ensure every Australian worker has the rights and safety they deserve and are entitled to in a workplace.
The harmonisation of work, health and safety laws will be continually enforced by regulators, facilitating a stronger partnership with business to minimise the risks of workplace injuries and deaths. The benefits of harmonisation are great. The analysis undertaken by Access Economics estimates that harmonising work, health and safety laws will save the 40,000 businesses that operate across state boundaries around $179 million per annum. The model WHS legislation will provide enhanced safety protection for workers which is simple and easy to understand. The same rights and protections will be afforded to workers regardless of where their work is carried out. Labour mobility will be increased by providing recognition of licences and training across all jurisdictions. This is very important in today's economy, where we have a growing number of fly-in fly-out, drive-in drive-out workers, so that when people are mobile and move from state to state they can be assured they will have the same workplace safety and that the qualifications they have will be recognised.
The duties contained in the model legislation will also ensure that all workers are provided with protections while at work, whether they are employees, contractors or labour-hire workers, outworkers—who we know in the past have been treated very poorly—apprentices, trainees, work experience students and volunteers through the expanded definition of 'worker' supported by a new compliance regime.
The bill implements the model legislation agreed to by the WRMC in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Mirror laws are to be introduced by each state and territory to also implement these model laws. As the model legislation has been drafted in non-jurisdictional specific terms, the bill includes specific provisions to ensure that the model provisions can operate alongside other Commonwealth legislation without affecting harmonisation. The bill has also been subject to a further three-week consultation period on an exposure draft. Employers covered by the Commonwealth legislation were invited to comment, as were the ACTU and members of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. In response, some 29 submissions were received and the comments made have been taken into account in finalising the bill.
The reforms will repeal and replace the current Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991, the OHS Act. The coverage of the bill remains similar to the OHS Act insofar as it will apply only to Commonwealth public authorities and, for a transitional period, non-Commonwealth licensees. The bill contains a mechanism allowing the minister to transfer OHS coverage of non-Commonwealth licensees to state and territory jurisdictions. It is intended that this power only be exercised once harmonised laws are implemented in each jurisdiction.
By implementing the agreed model bill, there will be some important changes to OHS regulation in the Commonwealth. They are: providing a wider coverage of contemporary work relationships, including contractors; a new statutory right for workers to cease unsafe work in certain circumstances; tougher penalties for failing to meet a duty of care; a removal of Commonwealth immunity from criminal prosecution; and a wider range of enforcement options, including infringement notices, remedial orders, adverse publicity orders, training orders and orders for restoration.
In addition, the bill will include provisions to deal with issues specific to the Commonwealth. It will extend the application of work, health and safety laws to members of the Defence Force and other persons currently deemed to be employees for the purpose of the current OHS Act; enable the Chief of the Defence Force and the Director-General of Security to disapply specified provisions of the act with the agreement of the minister with responsibility for work, health and safety matters—the minister's agreement has not previously been required; and establish Comcare as the sole regulator of OHS in the Commonwealth. This is a change to the current situation whereby Comcare and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission share regulatory powers.
Since WRMC endorsement of the model act as at 24 June 2011, two jurisdictions have passed new work health and safety legislation. The Queensland WHS act received royal assent on 6 June 2011 and the New South Wales WHS act received royal assent on 7 June 2011. The South Australian WHS bill has been introduced into the South Australian parliament and the Australian Capital Territory's WHS bill has been introduced. What we need is the rest of the states, like Victoria, to stop dragging the chain, to get up and to look after worker safety right across this country. I wish this bill a very speedy passage.
Prior to my election to this place I was a lawyer and a union official. As such, I had the responsibility of representing workers who were injured at work. I had the very grave duty of having to visit grieving families who were suffering after the death or terrible injury of a loved one. I campaigned alongside the now member for Charlton and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for justice for the victims of asbestos injury. I campaigned also alongside the late and great Bernie Banton to see justice for those who are victims of James Hardie asbestos diseases. It is for these reasons that I am very, very pleased indeed to be standing here today as part of the Gillard Labor government, talking in favour of this legislation.
It will be to their eternal and national shame that we have not seen one speaker from those opposite stand in this place and talk about the benefits of this bill and the importance of the subject matter. I thought for a moment that maybe those opposite might have been busy somewhere else, doing something else, talking on other matters of importance in this debate, but a quick scanning of parliamentary legislative lists in other places shows no such thing is constraining these members. I think that it is a national shame that we have not seen those opposite talking on this matter. Perhaps they should draw their attention to the fact that in this country it is still true that we have more than four workers each week who die at work. That is almost one every second day. We see thousands more injured at work or travelling to or from work.
Perhaps they might be interested to know that as a result of the passage of this legislation we will be reducing the administrative burden on businesses. They are always talking about the administrative burden on businesses, but when they have got the opportunity to get involved and do something, to be proactive about reducing that administrative burden on business, they are seen to be wanting. Access Economics estimate that there will be about a $179 million—that is close to $180 million—reduction in administrative costs to business as a result of this legislation and you would think that those opposite might show a bit more interest in the subject matter of the bill. But let that be upon their heads. I am very pleased to be talking about this important subject matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would know, as a former worker yourself and somebody who has taken a keen interest in this area, that all Australian health and safety around the modern regime of occupational health and safety laws is built upon the foundation set by the Robens report. (Quorum formed) Before I was interrupted by the antics of those opposite—our framework of health and safety regulation in this country is built upon the report of Lord Robens who, in 1972, chaired the committee of inquiry. In the committee's words, it can be summarised as follows:
The primary responsibility for doing something about the present levels of occupational accidents and disease lies with those who create the risks and those who work with them.
Fundamental to this framework was ensuring that workers in the workplace were empowered to ensure that they could stand up and challenge their employers when they encountered risks to their occupational health and safety in the workplace. Everything that we have done since the reporting by Lord Robens and his committee in all jurisdictions around Australia has been built upon that fundamental point: that empowering workers to take charge of their occupational health and safety in the workplace is fundamental to reducing the risks, the injuries, the disease and the fatalities that may otherwise occur in the workplace. So I am very pleased to be speaking in favour of this legislation.
It will of course provide a wider coverage of contemporary work relationships, including contractors, employees of contractors, subcontractors, labour hire workers, apprentices and volunteers. It essentially acknowledges that the workforce and the nature of employment relationships have changed over the last two decades, and that our occupational health and safety regulation needs to be modernised to encompass that. It provides a new statutory right for workers to cease unsafe work in certain circumstances. It provides tougher penalties for failing to meet a duty of care. It removes Commonwealth immunity from criminal prosecution and provides a wider range of enforcement options, including infringement notices, remedial orders, adverse publicity orders, training orders and orders for restoration.
But most importantly, it creates the framework for creating a uniform national code for occupational health and safety legislation in this country. This is your classic win-win. It provides a uniform set of rights and protections for workers and it removes the administrative overburden that is associated with creating those rights for employees. It is something that all members in this House should celebrate, get behind, and vote in favour of.
In summing up this debate, I would like to congratulate all members for their contributions to the debate, including those from the opposition who spoke last night. I think there is strong and important bipartisan support for this. Obviously, this is something very dear to the heart of those who sit on this side of the House. It is something we have campaigned for for a very long time. As a former general secretary of a great trade union and as President of the ACTU, this is an agenda that we have been pursuing for some considerable time. In fact, one of the very early disputes that I was involved in with the Storemen and Packers Union was with wool storemen around the weights of bales. There were far too many wool storemen injured because of excessive weights. Because of the nature of the industry, growers were seeking to increase the size of the bales. We put a limit of 204 kilos on them. If that was exceeded it was reduced to 180 kilos. That had a significant impact, not only in terms of lessening the industry. It also led significantly to important mechanisation within the industry and a much safer work environment for what is and always has been a vital industry for this nation's future.
Although the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 currently before the parliament applies largely to Commonwealth public sector employment, it does form a crucial part of the Australian government's commitment to nationally harmonise work health and safety laws. This is an agenda item that was pursued with great determination by the current Prime Minister when she was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in our last term. Quite apart from getting rid of that dreaded Work Choices legislation, ensuring that we were moving in the direction of harmonised work health and safety laws was a key achievement of hers in the portfolio.
The bill gives effect to the national framework proposed by the Council of Australian Governments. It was developed in a tripartite way with the involvement of not just the Commonwealth but all state and territory governments, business groups and the ACTU. This is a reflection of tripartism at work. It is a commitment to address a key issue and get agreement despite difficult issues surrounding it. It also brings Australia one step closer to having a nationally harmonised system of work health and safety laws by 2012. This bill complements legislation being enacted across all Australian states and territories. It will lead to enhanced work health and safety protections for Australian workers and greater certainty for business. Make no mistake, these are landmark reforms which have been long in the making. What we have here is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide all Australian workers with the same protections, regardless of where they live and where they work, and to overcome the frustration and complexity faced by businesses of nine different occupational health and safety legal systems and standards.
When I introduced the legislation on behalf of the minister in this House in favour of occupational health and safety harmonisation I gave great detail on the background as to how we got to where we did. In fact, it was exhaustive detail. I will not repeat them here but they were compelling arguments. An enormous amount of work has been put into this and it is incumbent upon this House to give effect to them. Reform and harmonisation of Australian work health and safety laws was made possible because the Australian government forged that constructive working partnership with the states, business and the ACTU. Getting consensus on the content of a new legislative framework that can be adopted by all jurisdictions has been no easy task. Each of the parties came to the table with strong views about the content of the model of work health and safety laws. Amendments have been proposed and we will move to consider them in detail after the second reading. It is not that the parties did not consider the various proposals that are now reflected in the amendments. They did. I made the point before: there were areas of disagreement and tripartite negotiations always result in a level of compromise. As much as people might consider the importance of those amendments when they are moving them, in their view to strengthen the legislation, what they cannot ignore is the importance of arriving at the consensus that we have. I do not question the motives of those who put the amendments forward but simply say that they do not reflect the agreement. If they are passed by this House they risk upsetting that agreement and therefore the movement to harmonisation, given that we have to move these things not just here but through the states.
In many cases there were compromises. It is a credit to all of those involved that they persevered with the process over the past three years in particular. Each jurisdiction will face changes in current occupational health and safety arrangements in order to achieve the goal of uniform OH&S laws. What the parties have been able to agree represents the best possible outcome: a balanced and interrelated package of measures that will lead to enhanced safety protections for all Australian workers and greater certainty and protections for all workplace parties. Certain members have indicated that they will be moving amendments and I will respond to the detail of those when they are moved. I again make the point that members in the Australian government have signed up to play our part in implementing what has been long needed—a nationally harmonised OH&S system. This means having a Commonwealth work health and safety act which accords with the model work health and safety act endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council in December 2009.
The bill before the parliament honours this commitment made under a COAG intergovernmental agreement and, accordingly, we will not be supporting the amendments. I urge other members to do likewise. This bill is only the first step towards a nationally harmonised system of legislation. The harmonisation process will also include model regulations and codes of practice that are expected to be finalised at the national level later this year. The process to develop national regulations is again a collaborative one, being achieved in partnership with governments, employees and employer bodies.
It has been suggested that we should delay consideration of this bill until the model regulations have been finalised. However, I point out the task before the parliament today is to consider the model bill, not the model regulations. The parliament will have the opportunity to separately consider the regulations and the accompanying regulation impact statement for the regulations once they are before parliament. So parliament is not being denied that opportunity. This model bill should not be delayed because delaying the passage of this bill in order to simply consider the regulation impact statement is a circular argument. Those regulations cannot be made until the bill is passed.
The bill itself has been subject to a national regulation impact statement prepared by Access Economics. This analysis showed that the adoption of the model Work Health and Safety Act across Australia is expected to benefit multijurisdictional businesses as well as confer an overall net benefit to the nation in the order of $180 million. In other words, this is a win-win outcome. It is a win for workers because they have a safer environmental framework in which to work. It is a win for businesses because they save money lost in down time through workers being injured and away from work.
The content of the bill has also been subject to exhaustive consultation over the past three years and it has been endorsed not only by the other government jurisdictions but also by the industry stakeholders. Key industry groups—ACCI, AiG, the MBA—have all welcomed the introduction of this bill into the Commonwealth parliament and have strongly urged members to pass the legislation. Importantly, other jurisdictions are getting on with the job of implementing their model bills. Five out of nine jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, have put the model laws before their parliaments. Legislation has already passed in both Queensland and New South Wales.
Against that background, I thank members for their contributions. After we move into consideration in detail I will respond to the particular amendments. This is an outcome well worth waiting for, but it should have been done a long time ago. We are proud to be associated with a government that introduces this legislation following the processes that have led to the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Debate interrupted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a procedural matter rather than the bill before the House. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so and I seek your guidance. As you will be well aware, when a quorum is called in the parliament it has to be filled within four minutes of the bells beginning to ring. This morning Mr Chester called a quorum at 11:04 and a quorum was formed at 11:10, which is six minutes later. Technically, the House should have closed down at 11:08 and I seek your guidance about how that matter should be dealt with.
The issue that the honourable member raises should have been dealt with at the time if there was an issue. If it was not raised then by the opposition or any other member, I think the House has moved on and is considering the business before it. That would be my ruling. I will hear the honourable member again.
Mr Deputy Speaker, out of due deference to you and to the House, I would not mind if you would ask the Speaker for his advice about how this matter could be dealt with in the future and perhaps he could report back to the House at a later time this day.
We have moved on. The Manager of Opposition Business could take that issue up with the Speaker in his own time and seek reference.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (10) together as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 19, page 23 (line 3), after "undertaking insert "who has control over the matter".
(2) Clause 19, page 23 (line 9), after "undertaking", insert "who has control over the matter".
(3) Clause 19, page 24 (line 7), after s' insert "he or she has control over the premises and it".
(4) Clause 19, page 24 (line 8), after "practicable", insert "to do so".
(5) Clause 155, page 111 (line 28), omit "sections 172 and", substitute "section".
(6) Clause 155, page112 (lines 8 and 9). omit subclause (7). [self-incrimination]
(7) Clause 171, page 123 (line 26), omit "sections 172 and", substitute "section".
(8) Clause 172, page 123 (line 30) to page 124 (line 11), omit the clause
(9) Clause 173, page 124 (line 21), omit paragraph (I)(c).
(10) Clause 173, page 124 (lines 26 to 27), omit ", unless he or she was first given the warning in subsection (1)(c)".
I wish to make these amendments to the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. Let me emphasise that we in the coalition do support the harmonisation of OH&S laws. In fact, it was a coalition government that initiated the process, in 2006, hence the Prime Minister is claiming credit for something that the Howard government commenced and that she had not completed. Many speakers on this side have reminded the House of her remarks at the time, that she had actually delivered new occupational health and safety laws. Her words were:
… I have delivered that.
Thirty years—on the day we delivered it there were some public servants that had tears in their eyes because they spent all their working life waiting for someone to deliver that reform. Wasn't easy, but I got it done.
Public servants had tears in their eyes? Really? I wonder if they had tears in their eyes when New South Wales Labor destroyed the harmonisation of OH&S laws in that state. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that Premier Keneally defied Julia Gillard in a desperate attempt to shore up support for the unions and her own leadership by saying that she would not pass harmonised laws in New South Wales, she would be retaining third-party safety provisions and she would be maintaining the reverse onus of proof.
Mr Crean interjecting—
The minister at the table, the member for Hotham, says that harmonisation is under threat, but the point is that the New South Wales Parliament has already changed the model laws in that state, so the amendments we move today would only apply to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The horror that was New South Wales OH&S law has been explained many times, and I probably do not have time to repeat any of those stories, but thank goodness the O'Farrell government fixed up the mess to the extent that they could earlier this year and did legislate to implement the harmonised model. Changes were moved in the upper house. Changes should be moved here in this House today.
The development of OH&S laws by Australian governments has followed sound principles. The main one is that people are responsible for work safety according to what they 'reasonably' and 'practicably' can control. New South Wales and Queensland held employers automatically guilty under duty of care but enabled defences to be mounted according to 'reasonable and practicable control'. New South Wales, as we know, got out of control when it changed its OH&S laws in about 2000 so that guilt was applied to employers even if the employer had no control over the workplace or had acted reasonably. I am a rural member of parliament, and I remember one case where somebody got their leg, I think, caught in the augur of a grain chaser bin. The WorkCover authority sued the farmer, the employee and the manufacturer of the equipment, even though the equipment was brand new, the employee had gone through training and there was nothing the employer could have done. The employee admitted that it was his own silly fault. The cost to the New South Wales Farmers Federation, who undertook to fight this, was unbelievable and in the end I think they just gave up. That was the story of doing business in the state of New South Wales under their OH&S laws. Innocent people were convicted for incidents over which they had no control.
On the surface, it looks as though these new laws have embedded the principles of reasonable and practicable control, but the detail is quite different. The word 'control' has been removed. Instead, you will be responsible for workplace safety if you are 'a person conducting a business or undertaking'—a PCBU for short—and if you influence the activities of workers. To me, this does not make sense, because it is a new concept, it is not tested and it is confusing. As we know, any new legal concept takes years of testing before clarity is achieved. How is that going to help us get good workplace safety laws? In fact, there is a strong argument that these laws would put safety at risk. We are supposed to be legislating to improve safety in the work environment.
The other area of amendment concerns the right to remain silent and protection from self-incrimination. We are gravely concerned about the potential ramifications if the right to remain silent and protection from self-incrimination are denied to employers as a result of this legislation, given that prosecutions under current OH&S laws are criminal matters. OH&S law is criminal law, but the model harmonised law takes away basic rights of criminal justice. Under normal criminal law, everyone has the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. It is a right we all hold and it is this protection that stops abuse of power. The passing of the bill in each jurisdiction will abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination in New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth OH&S Act is silent on the issue and, therefore, it is considered that the privilege against self-incrimination remains. The model OH&S laws take away this right to silence. We therefore propose removing those clauses pertaining to self-incrimination.
This legislation will not result in a national, harmonised system for OH&S because WA has backed delays to the rollout—they have additional concerns—and the Victorian parliament has also echoed some of those concerns, calling for a year-long delay in the implementation of this bill. I acknowledge we have come some way, but we have not come far enough. There is a very strong argument that the amendments here for the Commonwealth jurisdiction will not upset the harmonisation of laws across the states. As each state deals with its own issues, it has the potential to change its own laws. That is what I am proposing here today. (Time expired)
The member for Farrer has moved 10 amendments together. Essentially, four of them relate to primary duty of care and the other six to self-incrimination. I will deal with them in those two groupings. The effect of the primary duty of care amendment in the bill is this: it amends clause 19 of the bill to limit the duty of care of 'a person conducting a business or undertaking', a PCBU, to matters of workplace premises under their control. The amendments would establish a threshold test based on whether or not the PCBU has control over a matter to determine whether or not the PCBU has a duty, rather than on what needs to be done to ensure the health and safety of the workers. That is the effect of what the member for Farrer is moving.
Let me just respond in this way: primary duty of care in the bill does require persons conducting a business or undertaking to ensure the health and safety of workers and other persons 'so far as is reasonably practical'. It is not an absolute requirement. The person conducting the business or undertaking need only do what can 'reasonably' be done in the circumstances to comply with that duty. The national review panel recommended—and workplace relations ministers agreed—that control should not be a separate element used to limit the extent of the primary duty of care. So they considered this matter. They also concluded that it should not be expressly included in the definition of what is reasonably practicable for two key reasons. First, the inclusion of control in the primary duty of care can result in the focus being on whether or not a duty applies, rather than on what needs to be done to ensure the health and safety of workers. In other words, a control test might encourage arrangements to avoid control in order to avoid the duty.
Secondly, the case law provides that control is relevant in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. An inability to control relevant matters must necessarily imply that it either is not possible for duty holders to do anything or is not reasonable to expect them to do so. That is not to say that the concept of control is not contained in the bill, because the bill includes specific duties for persons with management or control of workplaces and persons with management or control of fittings, fixtures or plant at workplaces. Further, the duties in clause 19(4), which the opposition is seeking to amend to include reference to control, only apply where the person conducting the business or undertaking has 'management or control' of the accommodation. At best, the amendments in items (3) and (4) add nothing to the provision as drafted; at worst, they would simply confuse the provision. So the government opposes those amendments.
In relation to the self-incrimination grouping of amendments, the effect of the amendments would remove clause 172, which is the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination, to preserve the common law right to refuse to answer questions on the ground that it might incriminate the person being asked. And items (1) to (3) and (5) and (6) make consequential amendments to clauses 155, 171 and 173 to remove references to clause 172 in those clauses. The reason we oppose this grouping of amendments is this. The right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are important individual rights. However, they are individual rights that are not absolute; they must be balanced against the public interest. In the field of regulation—particularly in the regulation of workplace safety, which is a matter of major public importance—one crucial public interest is securing effective compliance or prosecutions. That is what is really important if we are to get on top of this problem in the workplace.
It is well established that the abrogation of individual rights may be justified if the information to be compelled concerns an issue of major public importance that has a significant impact on the community in general or a section of the community. We assert—and so did the ministers—that safety in the workplace is such an issue of major public importance. Abrogation of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination may also be justified where there is an immediate need for information; where there is an immediate need to avoid risks such as danger to human life continuing; where there is serious personal injury or damage to human health; or where there is a compelling argument that the information is necessary to prevent further harm from occurring.
The Work Health and Safety Bill seeks to ensure that the strongest powers to compel the provision of information are available for securing ongoing work health and safety. This means abrogating the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination—and we acknowledge that point. However, the bill balances that loss of a person's right to silence by limiting both the direct and indirect use of forced disclosure against the person required to provide the information. This means that an individual will be compelled to provide information when asked, but that information, and any information that is obtained as a result of forced disclosure, cannot be used to prosecute the individual.
The advantage of section 172 is that all information is available to an inspector following a safety incident, thereby enabling an inspector to take timely safety and remedial action. I would just point out in conclusion that the review of the OHS laws did recommend that broad powers be given to inspectors. In their response they considered robust powers of inquiry and questioning, a consolidation of existing provision for inquiries and questions and a requirement for natural persons to answer an inspector's questions and provide information requested by an inspector. So we reject those amendments as well. We do understand the issue that has been raised by the member for Farrer, but in our view we have got the balance right, and it has been agreed by all of the states and the parties.
On this particular amendment we do insist that we re-introduce the issue of control into this bill. The minister talks about the national review, but there was an enormous amount of dissent in the submissions over the inclusion of the word 'control' in duties of care. Recommendation 8 called for the removal of the word 'control' from the definition of 'reasonable and practicable'. Unfortunately, that has been implemented in the national model OHS laws. The problem we have is that this is a new and untested legal concept of connecting duties of care to a person conducting a business or undertaking. If we take away the word 'control' it creates confusion over who is responsible for what in work safety. It is a major shift away from known OH&S principles in all Australian jurisdictions except New South Wales. I talked about that earlier. It also removes a key element of the ILO OH&S conventions, to which Australia is a signatory, and creates a legal vacuum due to unknown application and interpretation of duties of care under this new concept.
It is reasonable to expect that if we take away the word 'control'—the minister says the concept is there—legal uncertainty will occur and will require many years of judicial testing before clarity is achieved. For anyone who conducts a small business that ends up with an occupational health and safety matter in the courts—there are so many examples in New South Wales; as I said before, it is the worst state for this and businesses close down as a result of it—the last thing they want to hear is that this parliament is responsible for legislating a concept that has not been introduced into workplace health and safety laws anywhere.
We have created this concept of a 'person conducting a business or operation' and the concept of 'duties of care and control' is connected to that person. I really want to emphasise that point because people understand, in a practical sense, that if they control something or if they share control of something then they are responsible. If you take away the word 'control', clarity and focus on personal responsibility for safety is diminished and becomes confused.
Yes, we do want to get the balance right. We have moved away from the days of employers expecting unreasonable things from workers. We have an enormous amount of architecture in the workplace now. But the last thing we want is for employees to become confused and to believe that they do not have any personal responsibility. Ultimately, personal responsibility needs to be emphasised first and foremost, and that seems to be coming out of this legislation. And a new concept is to be introduced—a concept that is going to tie up the courts for years in working out what it really means. I thank the House.
Very briefly on that point, given that this has been responded to, I just make these three points. The concept of control is in the legislation. It will be relevant in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances. We have not included 'control' in the primary duty of care as a result of the national review recommending against it. Whilst this was fought out, this was where the parties settled.
Our concern is that if you put it in it could lead to people or employers using arrangements to avoid control—to avoid meeting the test that the member wants to embody so categorically. They could be encouraged to avoid showing they had control in order to avoid the duty. Our focus is on ensuring that the duty is adhered to. It is for that reason that we oppose these amendments.
Question put:
That the amendments (Ms Ley's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:15]
(The Speaker—Mr Jenkins.)
Question negatived.
I move amendment (1) circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 230, page 158 (line 8), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; or (c) if the offence concerned is a Category 3 offence—the secretary of a union any member or members of which are concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate.
I note with interest the opposition's new-found commitment to the sanctity of the principle against self-incrimination and the right to silence. I hope, then, that when we are dealing with the bill to deal with the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and when I move in this place for the abolition of those coercive powers that deny ordinary workers, and other participants, in that industry the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence that the opposition will vote with me on that amendment.
Amendment (1) is similar to what was adopted in New South Wales when they entered the scheme, and it was adopted in that large jurisdiction for a very sensible reason: history has shown that with regard to the lesser category of offences under OH&S legislation—not the more primary and more serious ones that should, of course, remain prosecutable by the state—there is a distinct advantage in improving health and safety in a workplace by allowing a union who represents members in that workplace to bring prosecutions. Indeed, the Finance Sector Union has used a provision similar to this to great advantage to improve the health and safety of bank employees who, for example, were often facing robberies and the like. This was the kind of provision that allowed perhaps something that might not be at the top of the agenda of a perhaps under-resourced state prosecutor or regulator to be brought before the appropriate tribunal and then proper changes to be made to work practices. It is a very useful amendment. It was one, as I say, that was adopted in New South Wales when they entered the scheme. I commend the amendment to the House.
We oppose this amendment because it would undermine the very deliberate decision that was taken by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council only to allow public officials to bring prosecutions under harmonised work health and safety laws. The report made the point in summing up that the reason we are opposing generally all of the amendments is that we want to honour the agreement that we initiated, oversaw and facilitated, and which was a long time in the making.
This issue of who should be able to bring proceedings for offences under the model act was given careful consideration by the National Review into Model OHS Laws. The expert panel said that this issue warranted careful consideration because of the importance of enforcing the laws and the differences that currently exist across jurisdictions and the different stakeholder views about who should bring them. The review panel did note what the member for Melbourne has referred to—that unions were expressly allowed to prosecute in New South Wales. They have been able to do that for the past 60 years; the provisions in the ACT act were only introduced in 2008. The review report recommended that the right to initiate prosecutions for OH&S breaches should be limited to the Crown. It means that the resources, expertise and accountability of the Crown will always be applied to prosecution decisions and proceedings. This approach is taken in the context of legislation which provides regulators with a range of enforcement measures to allow them flexibility to decide which measures should apply for a particular case to achieve the best health and safety outcomes.
The review panel also cited academic research which indicated:
… in relation to corporate sanctions, a combination of measures will yield the best results in terms of achieving the overall goal of reducing the incidence of contraventions and hence the incidence of work-related injury and disease.
But the panel's recommendation was endorsed by all of the ministers of the council and accompanied by the following strong safeguards, and I think these are important to note: the process for deciding on prosecutions should be transparent and in line with clear, publicly available prosecution guidelines and, as a safeguard against regulator mistake or inactivity, regulators' decisions about not taking prosecution action should be reviewable by the Director of Public Prosecutions on request by any person.
The amendment proposed by the member for Melbourne would allow unions to bring prosecutions for category 3 offences in the bills. These are the least serious of three categories of offences against health and safety duties. Allowing unions to bring prosecutions in these cases will undermine the alternative enforcement measures available to the regulator under the bill. Enforceable undertakings, for example, could not be made where a third party could bring a prosecution at any time.
In any case, I make the point again: this amendment is inconsistent with harmonised laws and is consistent with neither amendments to the New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act nor any other jurisdiction which has introduced work health safety legislation based on the model laws to date—including the Queensland act, which has received assent and does not include a right of unions to prosecute.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (2) to (7) circulated in my name together:
(2) Heading to clause 31, page 37 (line 5), after "Reckless", insert "or negligent".
(3) Clause 31, page 37 (line 11), after "reckless", insert "or negligent".
(4) Clause 245, page 173 (line 12), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".
(5) Clause 245, page 173 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".
(6) Clause 251, page 176 (line 17), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".
(7) Clause 251, page 176 (lines 19 and 20), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".
These amendments will give effect to what one of the participants in the harmonisation process, the ACTU, certainly understood as being an element of what was agreed—namely, that, as well as intentional and reckless acts of employers being able to be prosecuted, grossly negligent acts would also be able to be prosecuted. The ACTU made the point in their submission to the Senate inquiry that they understood that they had received a direct commitment that gross negligence would be something that was able to be prosecuted. Of course, in the context of health and safety, that makes perfect sense. Proving recklessness requires proving an element of intent, whereas negligence, and gross negligence in particular, is about the failure to comply with the required standard of care. In an area as important as health and safety, where steps are required to be taken and certain systems are required to be in place, it makes perfect sense to allow gross negligence to be the relevant test and not simply recklessness or intent. So on that basis I commend amendments (2) to (7) to the House.
The government opposes amendments (2) to (7) moved by the member for Melbourne. I do note that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has also recommended a similar amendment to the bill but, again, this is not what the committee determined.
The model Work Health and Safety Bill which was approved does not include gross negligence in the category 1 offence. I use the word 'gross' because that was the context in which it was considered. I note the change in the amendment that is being proposed. But in not including it, that is consistent with its earlier decision that gross negligence offences should be dealt with outside the model act by local criminal laws and manslaughter offences.
If clause 31 were amended to include gross negligence it would overlap with local general criminal laws where death or serious injury or illness results. Moreover—and this is an important point—such an amendment would go beyond local general criminal laws in that it would apply to conduct that exposed an individual to risk of death or serious injury or illness even where the conduct did not actually result in death or serious injury or illness.
It is appropriate that there be sanctions in relation to negligent conduct that exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. However, it is also equally appropriate that a serious offence, such as a category 1 offence that attracts a jail term, include an element of intention. Conduct that exposes an individual to whom a health and safety duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness because of the person's gross negligence would constitute a category 2 offence under clause 32 of the bill.
Amendments (4) through (7) are not necessary because they seek to amend the provisions in the bill that enable the relevant fault element for an offence to be attributed to the Commonwealth or to a Commonwealth public authority. It is not necessary in the context of proving criminal negligence, where only physical acts and omissions are relevant. And so we oppose this group of amendments.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (8) to (15) as circulated in my name together:
(8) Clause 104, page 81 (lines 11 to 13), omit subclause (2) (not including the note), substitute:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the defendant proves that:
(a) the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances; and
(b) a substantial reason for the conduct was to comply with the requirements of this Act or a corresponding WHS law.
(9) Clause 106, page 82 (line 15), before "Conduct", insert "(1)".
(10) Clause 106, page 83 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) Conduct referred to in section 105 is engaged in for a prohibited reason if it is engaged in for reasons that include a reason set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (j).
(11) Clause 110, page 86 (lines 3 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:
110 Reason for conduct to be presumed unless proved otherwise
(1) In proceedings for an offence of contravening section 104 or 107, if a prohibited reason is alleged for discriminatory conduct, that reason is presumed to be the reason for that conduct unless the defendant proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the reason was not the reason for the conduct.
Note: Conduct is engaged in for a prohibited reason if it is engaged in for reasons that include a prohibited reason—see subsection 106(2).
(2) To avoid doubt, the burden of proof on the accused under subsection (1) is a legal burden of proof.
(12) Clause 112, page 87 (after line 13), after subclause (2), insert:
Note: Conduct is engaged in for a prohibited reason if it is engaged in for reasons that include a prohibited reason—see subsection 106(2).
(13) Clause 112, page 87 (lines 31 to 34), omit subclause (4).
(14) Clause 113, page 88 (line 14), omit "a substantial", substitute "the".
(15) Clause 113, page 88 (line 16), omit "a substantial", substitute "the".
These are important amendments from the perspective of harmonisation. These amendments will bring the protections that will apply in the amended Work and Health Safety Bill to people who might bring complaints or take steps that are available to them under OH&S laws into line with the protections that exist in the Fair Work Act. There are a number of reasons why that is important.
The general principle point of view from someone who has practised in this area for a number of years is that it is very rare, when it comes to questions of discrimination and victimisation for exercising workplace rights that are available to you, that an employer, a fellow worker or whoever it may be says: 'I am now taking this action against you for a discriminatory reason. I am doing this to you—demoting you, dismissing you—because you have put in a complaint.' For that reason the law has recognised for a number of years, under governments of both persuasions, federally, that when it comes to protecting workplace rights it makes sense for the onus to be reversed, but for that to be something that is of course rebuttable on the evidence. That allows someone who has an evidentiary basis for a claim to proceed, and then the onus is reversed.
In the Fair Work Act that we have at the moment that has continued. It also applies to complaints that are made under workplace laws, and those workplace laws can include health and safety laws. If these amendments are not passed, firstly, we will have a situation where someone under the Health and Safety Act will have a lower level of protection available to them than someone under the Fair Work Act and will find it more difficult to exercise their workplace rights. Given the importance we have heard about these provisions and the importance of the protections they provide, every protection should be made available to someone to exercise the rights that are available to them under law.
Secondly, because of the potential overlap between the Fair Work Act and the Work Health and Safety Bill we are going to have a situation where, unless they are harmonised, we are going to encourage forum shopping. We are not going to see complaints made under the Health and Safety Act and a separate system of resolution; we are going to see—and who could blame someone for doing this?—people exercising their rights under the Fair Work Act and potentially seeking to expand the definition of what counts as a workplace right under that act, knowing that there will be more favourable provisions available to them there—provisions that, as I have said, have been enacted under both coalition and Labor governments.
It is for that reason, if we are serious about harmonisation, that these amendments should be passed. I commend the amendments to the House.
he government opposes these amendments too. In moving these amendments, the member for Melbourne has suggested that their purpose is to align the discrimination provisions in the Work Health and Safety Bill with those in the Fair Work Act. I note that the passage of this bill was recommended by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee.
Whilst it is true that there is overlap between the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Bill and those of the Fair Work Act, the provisions of each operate differently. Discriminatory conduct under clause 104 of the Work Health and Safety Bill is a criminal offence; the provisions of the Fair Work Act are subject to civil penalties only. The penalty in the Work Health and Safety Bill of $100,000 is substantially greater than the civil penalty under the Fair Work Act of 60 penalty units—that is, $6,600. In fact, the penalty to be paid to Fair Work Australia under the WHS Bill is 15 times greater.
In addition, a person found guilty of an offence under the Work Health and Safety Bill will have the stigma of a criminal offence conviction, which is not the case under the Fair Work Act's civil penalty provision. The provisions of the Work Health and Safety Bill do not replace or displace the Fair Work Act provisions. Discriminatory conduct for a prohibited reason under the Work Health and Safety Bill may also breach the adverse action provisions of the Fair Work Act. Proceedings may be brought under either act; however, a person cannot bring civil proceedings under both acts.
In relation to the amendments to the criminal offence aspect, in the context of imposing criminal liability it is appropriate that a prohibited reason be a dominant or sole reason for discriminatory conduct. Whilst the test is different to the standard required by the civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act, the dominant reason test is necessarily reserved for the more serious offences with significant penalties attached. The bill also recognises the right of a person to be presumed innocent of a criminal offence until proven guilty, but the amendments proposed today would in effect reverse that onus of proof.
The civil penalty provisions in the Fair Work Act and the civil proceedings provisions under the Work Health and Safety Bill operate differently. The Fair Work Act provisions are part of the compliance regime of that act. Under that act, a civil penalty is provided because a person has breached the law, but under the Work Health and Safety Bill breaches of the law are dealt with as criminal rather than civil matters.
The Work Health and Safety Bill civil proceedings provisions are not intended as punishment for breaching the law but rather to provide for additional mechanisms for the person who is the subject of the discrimination to remedy the breach. The Work Health and Safety Bill enables an eligible person—that is, the person affected by the contravention or their representative—to bring civil proceedings in relation to discriminatory conduct. The court can grant a range of civil remedies, including compensation and reinstatement, but unlike under the Fair Work Act it cannot order a civil penalty. The requirement in the model bill that the discriminatory reason must be the substantial reason for the civil cause of action was an explicit decision of the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council.
They are the reasons, but in effect this too would cut against what was recommended after exhaustive consultations. We oppose this group of amendments.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Schedule 2, page 14 (line 29), omit "12 months", insert "3 years".
(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 14 (after line 31), at the end of the item, add:
(3) For the period of 3 years after the commencement day, the following courses of training will be taken to be covered by paragraphs 72(1)(a) to (c) of the WHS Act:
(a) courses that were accredited under the 2006/2007 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's "Guidelines for the Accreditation of Occupational Health and Safety training courses for Health and Safety Representatives";
(b) courses that were accredited under the 2010 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's "Guidelines—Health and Safety Representatives training in the Commonwealth jurisdiction", and any later Guidelines for Accreditation of Occupational Health and Safety training courses for Health and Safety Representatives (as amended from time to time).
(4) Subitem (3) applies only in relation to courses covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that item whose content is updated to reflect legislation in force at the time.
The coalition's amendments to this bill concern training in occupational health and safety. The training of health and safety representatives is a key aspect of implementing existing workplace health and safety, particularly in moving to the new harmonised system that we are discussing in the House today.
The way this works is that the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, an agency under the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, is responsible and has delegated the responsibility for the accreditation of training to Comcare, as I understand. Comcare from time to time issues guidelines about what the accreditation will rely on. The bodies we are talking about are the training providers. The coalition's concerns are about the number of training providers and the fact that there seems to be a tightening of those accreditation provisions from the guidelines that were issued in 2006-07 and the guidelines that were issued in 2010. The guidelines on the commission's website make the point that health and safety representatives play a key role in improving health and safety in the workplace by ensuring that OH&S issues concerning members of the designated work group are communicated to the appropriate person for resolution. The role and powers of HSRs and the requirement for them to undertake a course of training relating to OH&S are outlined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The act provides that the training must be provided through a course that is accredited by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.
When we look at the people's opportunities for training, it is important that these are as wide as possible. The concerns expressed in a submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee inquiry into this legislation were that the availability of training has dropped quite substantially. This paragraph from the submission sums up the concerns we have:
Training in occupational health and safety is always an important issue. At this time of transition to new arrangements the availability of courses is vital. Unfortunately the availability of accredited courses has been reduced by 26% since restrictive changes were introduced by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission in 2010. In order to facilitate transition and ensure the availability of training courses, a transition enabling the continuance of courses accredited under the 2006/2007 guidelines should be provided …
The amendment we are moving is that we continue to provide the opportunities for those that were previously accredited to be training providers.
I went in search of where this initiative came from. I am not certain that I found it—perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations can illuminate the House—but rather breezily Comcare said new guidelines have been initiated in response to feedback from health and safety representatives in the workplace. Maybe that feedback is fine, but I would like people in considering this amendment to be aware that health and safety representatives in the workplace have a lot of power. In fact, they have considerable power under the 1991 OH&S Act. They can inspect the workplace, accompany an investigator during an investigation, represent members of the designated work group in health and safety consultations with employers, investigate complaints, initiate emergency stop-work procedures and issue a provisional improvement notice.
Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, you may know that I spent some years working as a shearers cook in western Queensland and New South Wales. We had HSR people there although they did not have such a fancy name. As a shearers cook, in the morning, somebody would make their way into the kitchen and say: 'Is everything okay, cookie? If a tin opener is not completely operational, the boys won't start and if you're worried any blowflies will get in the kitchen, the boys won't start.' I thought I had a lot of power over when the shearing commenced. Minister Crean mentioned the weight of wool bales. Unfortunately the HSR people were not able to prevent me from getting a hernia from pulling very heavy wool bales and the hernia had to be operated on. That is another story, but the point is that power that somebody in OH&S has over a workplace.
What year was that?
That is not an entirely appropriate question. The point is nobody was enforcing the safety provision concerning the weight of wool bales, but this is a discussion for another time. I do not want to cast aspersions on elements that may be controlling the types of people providing the training to the health and safety representatives who have the power to shut down workplaces, but I think that that training is vital. It is vital that that training be provided by as wide a range of organisations as possible. There is no problem with unions being represented in that line-up of training providers, but the coalition is concerned about the number of training providers. I think I found 13 bodies on the website, a 26 per cent drop in people providing training. This means the guidelines are very difficult to comply with and there is a bureaucratic maze in them. We are moving a sensible amendment that, at this time of transition, we continue with the accreditation of those 2006-07 providers. I do hope members will support me on that.
I know this is a debate on amendments, but in good faith I want to bring up one issue that I would like Minister Crean to hear, recognising that he represents the minister in the other place. This issue is the role of voluntary organisations. I am sure that members of this place all support their volunteers. We know what a great job they do. The senators on the committee were disturbed that there is still no clarification of the extent to which the Work Health and Safety Bill will apply to voluntary organisations. I take the minister's earlier point that we need to have the model laws in place then we will move to the tightening up or finalising of the draft regulations. It is absolutely critical that those regulations contain clear instructions to volunteer organisations. Obviously, we do not want them to be outside the provisions of OH&S but at the same time we do not want to load up our volunteer boards with incredibly onerous provisions. It is something that I know all members of this House would support. I thank the House.
We oppose both of these amendments. The effect of the first one is to increase the transition period for training from 12 months, which is in the bill, to three years. The second one is effectively deeming training courses previously approved by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission as accredited courses without the need necessarily to update. Let me deal with them in sequence and then I have a note on the volunteers, so I will briefly refer to that.
The government recognises a transition period is required for health and safety representatives to complete updated training on the new work health and safety laws. The current bill allows 12 months after which time, if representatives have not completed updated training, they will no longer be able to exercise their powers under the Work Health and Safety Act to issue provisional improvement notices and to direct that work cease. A period of 12 months is consistent with nationally agreed principles for transition to the new laws and strikes a balance between smooth transition and recognition that new laws mean some changes and updated training is required. I am unclear as to why the opposition is seeking to extend the period to three years while at the same time seeking to expand the pool of training courses recognised under the new regime beyond even those accredited under current arrangements.
The second amendment proposed by the opposition would allow training providers whose accreditation may have lapsed some years ago to provide training under the new laws without having to satisfy the current guidelines issued by the commission or any future guidelines developed and agreed by OH&S regulators. The Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission is currently responsible for the accreditation of training courses for health and safety reps under the current Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act. To assist training providers they have established clear guidelines for the accreditation of training courses.
The intention is for training courses that are currently accredited under the Occ Health and Safety Act to be recognised on a transitional basis following commencement of the new work health and safety laws to ensure the continued availability of courses. The accreditation process is an important safeguard to ensure health and safety representatives receive quality training at this vital time as we transition to the new laws. The government does not support an amendment that seeks to override decisions made by the independent Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission under the current OH&S Act. The proposed amendment would grant accreditation to training providers that do not hold current accreditation under the current guidelines issued by the SRCC in 2010 but which held accreditation under previous guidelines in regard to HSR training and undermine the integrity of the accreditation process.
If I can have the indulgence to deal with the volunteer question, the bill strikes a balance between protecting volunteers in the workplace whilst also not discouraging voluntary participation. Under the model work laws workers who are volunteers are afforded the same protection as any other workers. This is an important protection and ensures that volunteers are not treated differently to employees and contractors who are engaged in the same workplace. While the application of the bill to volunteer associations is not directly relevant to this debate because the Commonwealth bill before us today will only apply to Commonwealth public authorities and for a transitional period non-Commonwealth licensees, the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Bill does form part of a national scheme of harmonised work health and safety laws that recognise that there are some voluntary organisations that do not have health and safety duties. There are groups of volunteers working together for community purposes who do not employ any person to carry out work for the volunteer organisation who would not be covered by the laws. The engagement of contractors for one-off jobs, for example to audit the accounts or drive a bus for a day trip, will not affect a volunteer association's status. However, if a volunteer association has employees then it will owe health and safety duties to all workers including any volunteers who engage in the work of the organisation. (Extension of time granted) An officer who is a volunteer will have the duty to exercise due diligence but cannot be prosecuted as an individual for failing to do so. This is designed to not discourage voluntary participation as officers. We are opposed to the two amendments for the reasons I have outlined.
Listening to the contributions from the member for Farrer I understand a lot of her experiences, particularly of smaller organisations, drive some of her comments but I think the debate would probably also benefit—if I could put it that way—from perspectives of large organisations with HSRs operating in designated work groups across corporations. In particular, one that I am familiar with, that I made reference to in my contributions last night, is Australia Post where the training courses that were provided had to go through a formalised method of approval and then be rolled out across an organisation that has close to 40,000 employees dealing in situations where there are significant health and safety risks that have to be worked through.
I can tell you from their experiences HSRs do not always feel that they are in a powerful situation where they are able to completely shut down work and where provisional improvement notices, PINs, are taken very seriously and people recognise that it is not simply a case of filling out a form and flicking an off switch but that they do have to be very mindful about what that entails. There have been concerns, particularly in large corporations, where corporations do undertake difficult work or do bring in new methods of work where HSRs have been pressured into not moving to activate a PIN notice. Another concern, which I raised last night and which I hope the minister at the table or at the dispatch box will take into consideration, is that HSRs have an inability in some cases to investigate certain issues in exercising their powers under the Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act. In particular, Australia Post have an overhang of their overriding legislation under the Australian Postal Corporation Act where they are able to bring in principle determinations involving employee conditions. Principle determinations that have been used, I would argue, to the detriment of Australia Post employees have involved the use of facility nominated doctors. These doctors have been used to circumvent people's access to a GP when they have been injured at work—that is, the employee cannot exercise their right under previous arrangements exercised by Australia Post to go to their own GP; they were forced to go to a company doctor. HSRs were not able to examine this system of workplace injuries and to improve workplace process due to the fact that the principle determination exists outside the OH&S Act.
This oversight, legislatively induced, operates to the disadvantage of employees. It is something that needs to be picked up, because the OH&S Act does not allow for HSRs to investigate whether or not principle determinations may be detrimentally applying to people's health and safety in the workplace. This is a serious issue that has not been picked up and needs to be addressed. As was indicated in my contribution last night, the Commonwealth will no longer be able to have immunity from people taking up cases in terms of OH&S law. They certainly have a GBE in the form of Australia Post that exercises outside the OH&S Act in the way that it applies principle determinations. I would certainly ask the minister representing the minister in the other place, to take up the issue of a conflict between principle determinations and the OH&S Act, because I think there are workers who are employed by GBEs who are working in situations that are detrimental to their health and safety.
The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to, to which the member for Farrer has moved amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in her name. The question therefore before the House at the moment is that the amendments be agreed to. Does the member for Chifley seek to make a contribution?
I made a number of points that I was hoping the minister at the table would take up in reference to principle determinations as they apply outside the OH&S Act.
I of course will take them up on his behalf.
The House divided. [13:08]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will not delay the House long on this matter. I simply make the point that the government—having fought, for 2½ years against students from inner regional areas gaining access to the independent youth allowance, and having voted against it many times in this place with the support of some of the crossbenchers and in spite of some of the motions and amendments moved by the opposition—have backflipped on their previous opposition to including students in inner regional areas in the criteria for the independent youth allowance. I note that in order to do so they have dudded postgraduate students, ruining some students' lives while assisting others. But, because the opposition supports this bill and recognises that it is a complete backflip by the minister and the government to a bad decision that was made by the current Prime Minister some years ago, I will not delay the House any longer.
Once again it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of another education reform of this Labor government. It has been my great fortune to be elected to this chamber at such an exciting time for education. It is an exciting time for teachers, for lecturers, for parents and, most importantly, for students. As many in this place know by now, I have a very deep commitment to education—specifically, enhancing access to education for every Australian. I have made a point to take every opportunity to talk about the benefits of education, not just on productivity and the economy as a whole, but also on the individual.
Education leads to a better and more prosperous life and a better quality of life. I know my colleague the member for Fraser, who is here today, calls education a 'poverty vaccine', and I agree. Education is indeed the silver bullet to cure all manner of social problems. Better education leads to a longer, healthier and happier life. It leads to better opportunities. Most importantly, it leads to a life of empowerment—a life where the individual can choose for themselves and not have that choice made by others because of their background, relative wealth or careers of their parents.
In this I speak from experience. I am the daughter of three generations of women who were hardworking, industrious and intelligent—three generations of women who were more than capable, I believe, of taking on any task and any job. However, because of their background, their gender and their class, they had their futures forced upon them. They had no choice about the future that they had to endure. This cycle was something my mother was keen to end. She was determined that my sisters and I would be educated to get the life and future that we chose, not one that would be forced upon us because of our background. In doing this my mother had plenty of help. My sisters and I are the great beneficiaries of the dramatic education reforms of the Whitlam governments and John Dawkins. They introduced reforms that led to 6hnthe largest expansion of the higher education sector in this country's history—reforms that quite literally changed the face of education, leading not just to more students but to different kinds of students.
Thanks to these visionary leaders and to the commitment of the Labor Party to education and education reform, the upfront costs of university education are no longer a block to going through tertiary education. A student today, thanks to Labor, no longer pays upfront tuition fees and receives a subsidy on their education. It is a system envied by the world for its responsibility in terms of both budget impact and its ability to deliver education and social outcomes.
The major barrier to higher education today is not the cost of tuition fees but is, in fact, how a student can afford to live while studying. Basic items such as accommodation, food, heating and textbooks are all a source of serious financial stress for too many students. They are today a greater barrier to access to higher education than HECS fees. The National Union of Students estimates that as many as one in eight tertiary students miss a meal each week due to financial constraints and as many as half report that financial stress has impacted negatively on their studies.
Today's students are working longer hours to try to make ends meet instead of focusing on their studies and getting an education. One study conducted by NATSEM and the University of Canberra found that, while some level of employment was beneficial for a student's education outcomes, any more than 14 hours per week had a detrimental impact. I shudder to think just how many students drop out of university because they cannot simultaneously pay their bills and study. I shudder to think how many students, having completed school and made the decision and commitment to try to get a degree, have been forced to leave because they cannot afford to pay the rent. These are facts that do not sit well with me and certainly do not sit well with this government. That is why since being elected we have embarked on much-needed and overdue reforms to the higher education sector and to student income support—reforms that every university, student body and community organisation in the country called upon the Howard government to implement for 11 years.
The claims from those opposite that this government is neglecting students, especially rural and regional students, are completely spurious. Their commitment to student welfare is nothing more than an opportunistic policy devoid of any substance. We know already that more students are going to university under this Labor government than ever before. We know that an additional 100,000 students are attending university this year, with an increase of 22 per cent since we came to government in 2007. We know that more regional students than ever before are going to university, with a 10 per cent increase in regional students in 2010 over the previous year. And there are many more encouraging figures about the success of this government's policy in higher education. So I am not going listen to those opposite who say this policy is a failure. Unlike those opposite, who sat and did nothing on this issue for over a decade, we on this side always ask: can we do more? Can we do more to overcome barriers to education and to participation? Can we do more to overcome entrenched disadvantage? For this reason the government commissioned a review by Professor Kwong Lee Dow, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, to examine the impact of student income support. Professor Kwong conducted 20 round tables, including 14 in regional areas. His review received over 250 submissions from the sector, from community organisations and from parents and students.
The legislation before us today reflects the government's response to this review. This bill will further amend the Social Security Act to extend to inner regional students the special workforce participation and independence test arrangements that currently exist for outer regional, remote and very remote students. It will also change the value and distribution of the relocation scholarship, change the value of the student start-up scholarship and cease the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund. This package acknowledges the pressures and costs faced by students who come from regional areas. This reform will mean that a further 15,300 students will receive an additional $1,783 over four years, compared with current arrangements. It will also mean that a further 5,500 students will receive assistance as independent persons under these arrangements each year.
This legislation is yet another step in this government's plan to improve education outcomes, to improve education opportunities and to ensure all Australians can make the life choices they want. This legislation is yet another example of Labor's strong commitment to universal and quality education. I am proud to be part of a government that will never stop examining what more it can do to help Australian families get their kids the education they deserve. I commend it to the House.
I rise today to speak on this very important piece of legislation for families, the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011. The legislation affects families in my electorate of Bass and right across Australia. It is legislation that will make it easier for hundreds of students in my electorate to attend university, and this is very welcome news. As families who have students studying at university know, study can be a financial struggle. Course fees, text books, students often having to move away from home, paying for transport and day-to-day living all adds up. We know that students need assistance while studying and the government undertook a review into youth allowance earlier this year. The chair of the review, Professor Kwong Lee Dow, conducted discussions in both metropolitan and rural and regional areas, in each state and territory. Earlier this year students at the Launceston campus of the University of Tasmania invited me to speak to them about the youth allowance. They certainly welcomed the review and spoke about their need for support. The report was tabled on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 and I am most pleased that the Gillard Labor government is taking action. We are acting on the advice and eliminating the distinction between inner regional students and students from outer regional, remote and very remote areas.
The government will also increase the value of the relocation scholarships for eligible students from regional areas to recognise that students from regional areas also experience higher costs in relocating for study. From 1 January next year, eligible regional students will receive a relocation scholarship of $4, 000 for the first year of study, $2,000 for each of the second and third years, and $1,000 for subsequent years. The government's response partially adopts the recommendations of the review and builds on them to provide additional support for students from regional Australia who need to relocate to study.
The bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to implement policy announcements by the government on 14 September 2011, following consideration of the recommendations of the Review of Student Income Support Reforms by: extending to inner regional students the special workforce participation independence arrangements for outer regional, remote and very remote students; changing the value and distribution of the relocation scholarship; and ceasing the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund. The bill will also correct drafting oversights in: Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Other Legislation Amendment (Election Commitments and other Measures) Act (No.1) 2011 and the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Act 2010.
Over 15,300 higher education students from regional and remote areas each year will receive the higher rate of relocation scholarship as a result of this proposal. Resetting the relocation scholarship values for eligible students from regional areas means that dependent higher-education students from regional and remote Australia will receive additional assistance of $1,783 over a four-year degree, compared to current arrangements, not taking into account of indexation. This will be of great assistance to students and their families. Approximately 5,500 inner regional students will receive assistance as an independent person under the arrangements each year, following the extension of the special arrangements for independence through workforce participation to students from inner regional Australia. From 1 January 2012 the government will extend to students from inner regional Australia the workforce participation independence arrangements for youth allowance and Abstudy that currently apply only to students from outer regional Australia, remote Australia and very remote Australia, subject to the passage of legislation.
The extended arrangements will allow higher education and VET students from inner regional Australia to be considered independent for youth allowance and Abstudy if they are a full-time student and they are required to live away from home to study and they have combined parental income of less than $150,000 and they have either worked part-time—at least 15 hours each week—for two years since last leaving secondary school or had cumulative earnings totalling at least 75 per cent of the appropriate maximum national training wage award rate of $21,000 in 2011 over 18 months since last leaving secondary school. In addition, inner regional young people will continue to be able to qualify as independents for youth allowance or Abstudy under the existing full-time work criterion—that is, if they have had full-time employment of at least an average of 30 hours per week for 18 months over a two-year period. Inner regional students who left school 18 or more months ago may qualify under the new independence arrangements when they start from 1 January 2012. Employment undertaken over the period since leaving school will be taken into account, even if that work was done prior to 1 January 2012. This year, total support for the youth allowance for higher education will exceed $1.2 billion—an increase of more than 50 per cent on the $800 million outlay in the last year of the former coalition government. We are proud that more students than ever are now going to university. This is vital for our nation. We are proud that more students are receiving the support they need to attend to university. We are very proud that support is being targeted to those students who most need it. We recognise that the youth allowance provides really valuable assistance for students who are trying to get through uni. It is a vital investment for our government to make for Australia.
We need more students from regional areas to get to university, and getting access to the youth allowance really helps. When I attended the University of Tasmania forum on the youth allowance earlier this year, I heard from students that change was needed and how important the youth allowance is to ensure students can remain studying. So we have delivered on our promise to ensure that all regional students are treated equally for the purpose of the youth allowance. We have decided to make it easier for regional students to access independent youth allowance. Now all students from regional areas will have additional avenues to demonstrate independence and qualify for the independent youth allowance. We have also recognised that students from regional areas experience higher costs in relocating for the purpose of study.
Greater effort on education and skills development is one of the best ways to increase productivity over the long term. That is what our education revolution is about. Early childhood education, kindergartens, schools, TAFEs and universities have all had major funding increases since 2007, matched by major regulatory reforms to improve their quality and flexibility. Taken as a whole, these funding increases and regulatory changes comprise the most important economic and social reforms of recent decades.
In higher education our goal is to increase the proportion of young Australians with university qualifications to 40 per cent by 2025. We, the Gillard Labor government, are working hard to support young people while they are at university. I implore those opposite to support this bill. Labor believe in ensuring that the opportunity of high-quality university education is available to all Australians, regardless of their background or where they live. That is why, in April last year, we implemented landmark reforms to youth allowance payments to give more students the opportunity to go to university by targeting financial assistance to those with the greatest need. Just 18 months on, we can already see that these reforms, the Gillard Labor government's reforms, have succeeded in significantly improving financial assistance to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those from rural and regional areas.
In just 18 months, the number of dependent students from disadvantaged backgrounds receiving the maximum youth allowance payment has increased by 108 per cent, the number of rural and regional university students receiving youth allowance has increased by 22 per cent and there has been a 15 per cent increase in the total number of university students receiving youth allowance. A recent Skills Australia report forecast that by 2025 one-third of all jobs will require a minimum of a bachelor's degree qualification. We need to prepare for this now. The Gillard Labor government aims to ensure that everyone who is eligible can access a place at Australian universities and go on to be part of the high-skilled Australian workforce.
During the 2010 election the Liberals had a plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding designed to attract low-income students to attend universities. During the coalition's time in office, participation of young people from regional areas actually declined. Regional participation rates fell from 18.715 to 18.08 per cent from 2002 to 2007. I offer my support to this legislation and encourage those opposite to do the same.
It is always a pleasure to speak on financial support for our rural and regional students; indeed, for any students, for that matter. The legislation before us, the Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011, is the result of a review which we made clear would occur when we introduced our previous youth allowance and student support reforms. The review was led by Professor Kwong Lee Dow. What we have before us today brings about changes to the former legislation, which was agreed to by both sides of this House, contrary to what you may hear from those opposite.
I noticed that the opposition spokesperson for education was very brief in discussing these changes, not so much to help the changes come through but loath to give any time to giving positive support to what has been a massive change in the provision of youth allowance and financial support to families in Australia. Most importantly, the changes, both previously and now, have led to a massive increase in the number of students and families that have been able to benefit from this financial support. That is a great story, a great message, a good narrative—and we have got it to tell. Of course, I would not expect the opposition spokesperson to share that good story, hence their very brief contribution to the debate on this legislation.
As a result of the changes I mentioned in response to the review, some 5,500 inner regional students will be able either to access independent youth allowance payments or, indeed, to receive a higher rate of payment. From 1 January 2012, to be eligible for independent youth allowance under the workforce participation criteria, regional students—and I come from a regional seat—will need to satisfy one of three elements. These are, to give examples: working full-time for an average of at least 30 hours a week for at least 18 months in a two-year period; or, secondly, working part time for at least 15 hours a week for two years since leaving school, provided that they need to relocate to study and the combined parental income is less than $150,000 per annum; or, thirdly, earning in an 18-month period since leaving school an amount equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under the appropriate national training wage award, currently $21,009, or the rate as varied or replaced by Fair Work Australia, which you would expect, and provided that they need to relocate to study and the combined parental income is less than $150,000 per annum. Under the current system, inner regional students only qualified for independent youth allowance under the first of those three elements. Our changes today mean students from inner regional areas, such as those in my electorate, will have additional avenues to demonstrate independence and therefore qualify for independent youth allowance. In effect, it expands the options available to inner regional students to access youth allowance. The maximum rate for independent youth allowance is $388.70 a fortnight. Not only are we now including—
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
The House divided. [13:43]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
Last night revellers were causing havoc in the Glenferrie Road shopping strip in my electorate. Acts of violence and widespread littering are all too common. The local traders' association, local police and Boroondara Council, led by Councillor Phil Meggs, are united in their belief that something must be done. I was therefore delighted to hear the Assistant Treasurer and member for Maribyrnong say, when asked by Neil Mitchell last Friday about the mess in Glenferrie Road, 'Put in some closed circuit cameras on the Maccas because that will stop people.'
Well, Assistant Treasurer, here is your chance—show us the money! Unlike the Labor Party, the coalition had a policy at the last election to put CCTV cameras in major shopping strips across the country. In Kooyong I committed $70,000 for cameras in Burke Road. Now has come the time to put them in Glenferrie Road. It is estimated by local council that the installation of CCTV cameras will cost around $280,000 so today I have written to the Assistant Treasurer seeking a commitment for this amount. If the government are not prepared to pay for the CCTV cameras they should not be suggesting it.
But this was not the Assistant Treasurer's only faux pas in his interview with Neil Mitchell. He also claimed that the increased littering was due to the removal by council of rubbish bins: 'The other thing though is, have you ever noticed, I reckon councils are getting rid of bins.' This is simply not the case. The Boroondara Council has confirmed that there are 21 litter bins and 21 recycling bins along the shopping strip on Glenferrie Road and that this number has remained steady over time. So, Assistant Treasurer, you are wrong again. (Time expired)
Earlier this year I responded to the federal government's Our cities, our futurediscussion paper. The national urban policy that has followed is the first long-term national framework to guide policy development for public and private investment in cities. Unfortunately, it is not working fast enough for the electorate of Melbourne, which is experiencing increased development to house an expected 20,000 additional residents in the next five years. The national urban policy highlights the need to improve the planning of our cities by facilitating a whole-of-government approach and integrating planning systems and infrastructure delivery. Currently, the residents of the electorate of Melbourne are frustrated as they watch 17-storey apartments gain planning approval with scant regard for integrated planning.
I recently surveyed residents in the Docklands high-rise precinct and initial results show real concerns about the complete lack of parkland or community, sporting, educational and health facilities. Staggeringly for a major city CBD residential area, less than 20 per cent of residents said they had access to good reception for free TV. Something as simple as free TV reception has not been planned for in this residential development. There are multistorey developments across the electorate, including in North Melbourne and Abbotsford, where good planning is subservient to developer dollars. The broken planning system in Victoria shuts out the views of residents and ignores coherent infrastructure planning. In North Melbourne, for example, the Errol Street primary school and University High are at capacity and there is no planning for primary and secondary schools to accommodate planned population growth. Melbourne requires immediate attention under the national urban policy to ensure our liveable city grows in a sustainable way with integrated planning.
I proudly stand here today as a supporter of Australia's pre-eminent football code in the days prior to the Rugby World Cup clash between Australia and New Zealand. The Rugby World Cup is well underway and I know that all Australians support the Wallabies and wish them well in their quest to win this footballing icon.
If honourable members would allow me to be slightly self-indulgent, my nephew, James Slipper, is a prop with the Wallabies. My father tells me that his footballing ability is a genetic inheritance. I looked in the mirror this morning and I am living and breathing proof of the fact that fathers do not always tell the truth.
I think we ought to recognise all young athletes of all codes and all sports, because it is incredibly difficult for them to maintain the commitment and discipline beyond their years to rise to the very top of their chosen sport. It is important to recognise, as Bear Bryant, the American football coach from 1913 to 1983, said:
It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.
Go the Wallabies!
Yesterday, parliament approved the steel transformation plan, a $300 million package of assistance to the steel industry which runs from 2011 to 2017. It is funded from the budget and is not contingent upon any carbon price revenue. The purpose of the scheme is to encourage investment, innovation and competitiveness in the Australian steel manufacturing industry as it transforms into an efficient and economically sustainable industry in a low-carbon economy.
I note that the member for Gilmore opposed the bill. On Illawarra radio this morning she said she did not vote for it because she did not understand it. I have a copy of the explanatory memorandum here, which I am happy to provide to the member for Gilmore. I ask her: will she change her position; will she support the local steel industry? And will the opposition close the fund if they ever find themselves on this side of the House, which would cease payments to the steel industry and cease support for this vital industry. It is an important question because the industry is making long-term plans about its investment. If those opposite ever find themselves on this side of the House and close down the fund, it will mean jobs in the Illawarra.
I rise to table a petition which has been endorsed by the Petitions Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that the carbon bills were passed yesterday, I wish to record the protest of 766 residents of the Hinkler and Wide Bay electorates who object to the introduction of such a tax. The petitioners are concerned about the impact of the tax on the economy, jobs and the cost of living. They ask that the House reject the legislation. There were 409 petitioners from Hinkler and 357 from Wide Bay, and given the short time span allowed to garner the signatures this is a quite impressive result.
The fear of an additional tax resonates heavily in my area of Wide Bay Burnett where the unemployment rate is 12.3 per cent—the worst in Australia. Disposable income is drying up, as reflected in the number of businesses which have closed in Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, and the construction industry is at a virtual standstill, to say nothing of the tourism industry. The last thing we need is another tax. It is in this spirit that I table these documents.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens and residents of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the proposed legislation to introduce a carbon tax. We are concerned about the impact of the tax on the economy, jobs, and the cost of living, and therefore ask the House to reject the carbon tax legislation.
from 766 citizens
Petition received.
There are only five Australians who have ever represented their country at the highest level in three sports. One of them is Dick Thornett, a genuine local sporting hero who died yesterday at the age of 71. He was the youngest of three brothers in one of Australia's greatest sporting families and he was a truly inspirational sporting star. In the 1960 Olympics he represented Australia in water polo before becoming a Wallaby in 1961, joining his brother John, representing his country once again in the tour of South Africa.
A few years later he joined his other brother Ken at the Parramatta Eels. He played there until 1971, making 168 appearances for the club. A vigorous second-row forward, he toured with his brother Ken on the Ashes-winning 1963-64 Kangaroo tour. He played in all three of the future tests against Great Britain. He went on to earn a test cap against France in 1964 and Great Britain in 1966, as well as featuring in Australia's 1968 World Cup win. He was a genuine, masterful sportsman and he leaves an extraordinary legacy for many generations of Parramatta fans. His contribution may well never be fully comprehended. I send my condolences to his family and friends and his many, many fans.
This morning I attended the Every Australian Counts breakfast here at Parliament House. The Every Australian Counts campaign is in support of the concept of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The scheme has the potential to revolutionise the funding and support provided to people with disabilities. I formally pledged my support for the campaign last Friday in front of Gemma Holleran and her brother Adam from Ferntree Gully in my electorate. Adam suffers cerebral palsy and agenesis of the corpus callosum. He has learning difficulties and cannot speak or see clearly.
Gemma and her parents have been caring for Adam for 18 years, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They do so out of love and will continue to provide this care, but in a wealthy country like Australia we should be able to better assist people like Adam and his family with greater government support. The NDIS promises to do this. It would be a scheme that would provide assistance regardless of how the disability was obtained or where it was obtained. It will not be implemented overnight, but I pledge my support to work towards it. As the campaign motto says, 'Count on me.'
On 23 September I visited the Melba Men's Shed. Members of men's sheds come from all walks of life. The bond that unites them is that they are men with time on their hands and would like something meaningful to do with that time. Men after retirement often find that once the phone stops ringing and they are no longer called on to make decisions their social networks are not as extensive as that of women. There are many men's sheds across Australia for which 'first bloke' Tim Mathieson is a patron. They provide a place for men to meet and socialise. If you look inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture or restoring bikes for a local school, and a few young men working with older men, learning new skills and maybe something about life. The Melba Men's Shed has grown from six to 10 people, to 25 to 30 people. I would like to thank Stuart Allan the President of the Melba Men's Shed.
Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has expired.
With the indulgence of the House, I take this opportunity to make an announcement about the forthcoming visit to Australia by President Obama. As members will be aware, President Obama will visit Australia on 16 and 17 November. Last month I wrote to President Obama to invite him to address the parliament during his visit. I am pleased to advise the House that President Obama has accepted this invitation. His address will take place on 17 November.
The President's visit has historic resonance, as this year is the 60th anniversary of the Australia-United States alliance and the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. During his visit we will be firmly focused on the future: on our future alliance partnership, on the opportunities for our societies in the Asian century, on economic growth and on jobs. I look forward to making more announcements about the President's program in Australia in due course. I am sure all members and senators will warmly welcome the President to this place.
I rise to echo the Prime Minister's statement of welcome to the President of the United States. America is Australia's greatest friend and strongest ally and the President of the United States will always be our most welcome and our most honoured guest. I think it is particularly fitting that President Obama should be visiting Australia this year which marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the ANZUS alliance by Sir Robert Menzies.
Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Swan, will be absent from question time today as he is currently travelling to a meeting of the G20 finance ministers. The Assistant Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf.
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the conduct of her ministers in the chamber yesterday and I ask: how can a tax that will increase power prices by 10 per cent, increase gas prices by nine per cent and increase household bills by $514 a year be the subject of such wild jubilation inside the Labor Party?
To the Leader of the Opposition I say: what an extraordinary question in a week in which one of his shadow ministers has been named for gross disorder in this House. If he is interested in questions of conduct in parliament then he might address whether or not the member for Indi should be sitting on his front bench. While he is at it, he should make a series of other decisions as well.
Yesterday the clean energy legislation went through this parliament. I think it is a good thing that this parliament has decided to cut carbon pollution. That is the right thing to do. I think it is a good thing that we have decided to reach our bipartisan target of a five per cent reduction in carbon pollution in the cheapest possible way. I think it is a good thing that we have put a price on carbon so we can unleash $100 billion of new investment in clean and renewable energy. I think it is a good thing that this parliament yesterday decided to triple the tax free threshold so that secondary income earners going out to work—often women making the choice to return to work, perhaps part time after having a child—and people making a journey from welfare to work see more of the benefits of that work straightaway, that we see a million people out of the tax system, that we make it easier for them to get to work and to enjoy the fruits of their labours in their hands through their pay packets rather than being taken away by the tax system.
I think it is a good thing that we are providing extra assistance to pensioners. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the package has been designed so that on average pensioners will come out in front. They will have more money at their disposal than they do now. I think that is a good thing to help the pensioners of Australia. I also think it is a good thing that we are providing tax cuts to people who earn less than $80,000. Many of them will see a tax cut of $300. Some of them will see a tax cut of more than that. I think it is a good thing that we are providing those tax cuts.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition—because he has no policies that will work, because he always says no—will come into this parliament day after day and seek to continue to prosecute his fear campaign in the Australian community. But the one thing I say about the continued prosecution of that fear campaign is: Australians will ultimately be able to judge what it is worth as carbon pricing comes into effect on 1 July next year. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: whatever his words—having lived through the election promise of a rock solid ironclad guarantee and having seen that promise smashed by the Leader of the Opposition—no-one is going to believe him about taking carbon pricing away because he is not to be believed on this question.
The Leader of the Opposition will huff and puff about carbon pricing but he knows, as I know, that around half the people who sit behind him are in favour of carbon pricing. The people who sit on his front bench have been out there publicly in favour of carbon pricing. He has been out there publicly in favour of carbon pricing. Former Prime Minister Howard has been out there publicly in favour of carbon pricing. The Leader of the Opposition will find it hard to keep covering up the fact that the Liberal Party has absolutely no real intention to ever take this carbon pricing away.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How has this parliament moved from words to deeds in creating a clean energy future for the nation? How does this reform cut pollution and help keep our economy strong?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! It would assist if the House could contain its collective jubilation at the moment. The Prime Minister has the call. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I would say to the member for Deakin, as I say to other members of the government and other members with good will in this parliament, I know the focus of government members is on the jobs of Australians, the prosperity of Australians and making sure that we give Australia the best possible environment it can have for the future.
On the question of jobs, I think that we should note that today statistics have come out that show that the economy added over 20,000 jobs last month. That is on top of the 750,000 jobs created since this government came to office. Having a robust economy that can create jobs is not a matter of accident. It is not a matter of neglect. It is not a matter of autopilot. It takes careful and continued policy work and reform. It is no accident that our economy today is a resilient economy. It has been built painstakingly by reforms over generations, particularly the reforms to open our economy to the world under the Hawke and Keating governments, particularly reforms like embracing a pool of national savings through superannuation and particularly the work this government did to support jobs during the days of the global financial crisis. If we are to see jobs and prosperity in the future, then we cannot afford to say no in the face of the challenges of the future. We have to get out there and seize those challenges. Our climate is changing. Our planet is warming. That has risks and consequences—
No, it's not.
I thank the clearest spokesperson for the Liberal Party, who, when I say 'climate change is real', chants, 'No, it's not'! I thank him for outing the fact that the Liberal Party is in the arms of climate change sceptics and deniers. I think Australians need to know that. Obviously, the member for Tangney is being constrained now, by a parliamentary friend, from continuing to tell us about the climate change scepticism and denial of the Liberal Party. But our climate is changing, our planet is warming and that has consequences for our country. In the face of those consequences, we can say no and just drift into a future with more dangerous climate change or we can say that we will shape that future, we will cut carbon pollution, we will ensure that there are clean-energy jobs and we will do this in the fairest possible way, the Labor way—helping pensioners, helping families with kids, helping Australians who need tax cuts the most. We can seize this clean energy future, as this House of Representatives did yesterday, or we can do what that Leader of the Opposition does, which is work out on any given day where the political wind is blowing and what he believes in on that day. That is what he has consistently done on climate change. He has been in favour of putting a price on carbon. He has talked approvingly about a carbon tax. Now he has campaigned against a price on carbon. He has feigned concern for steelworkers' jobs. He has voted against steelworkers' jobs in this parliament. And, in the lead-up to the election in 2013, we will see the most ridiculous campaigning of all: the Leader of the Opposition trying to pretend that he seriously wants to take carbon pricing away—a hollow promise from a man that should not be believed, given the weathervane politics he has pursued.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her promise during the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' How can the passage of a tax that represents a total betrayal of the Australian people become a matter for wild jubilation within the Labor Party?
I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of her statement in September 2008:
The Liberal Party has a policy of both protecting the planet and protecting Australia. We support, in principle, an Emissions Trading Scheme …
That was the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. So what I cannot quite explain when she comes into this parliament with that question is: why did she vote yesterday against her position? Why did she betray the position that she said was the position of the Liberal Party? Why did she do that—betray the Liberal Party with her vote?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Order!
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Norman Lamont. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, representing the Treasurer. How will putting a price on carbon pollution reform Australia's economy, build our future prosperity and strengthen our international competitiveness?
I would like to thank the member for Petrie for her question, because she understands, like all of the government do, that the clean energy legislation package will provide prosperity for this nation into the future. It will build our future prosperity. We on this side of the House wish to reduce carbon pollution for a clean energy future. We understand that business needs certainty and that the largest polluters should pay the price of their pollution. But, because we are a Labor government, we understand that families need a fair go and that certain industries will need help on the path of transition. That is why the package that was passed yesterday will target only the biggest polluters, while nine out of 10 households will be compensated, and it is how we will cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020.
In the great tradition of Labor, we understand that change in our economy is inevitable. From the 19th century of gold and farming through to the manufacturing story after World War II and now our growing and prosperous services economy, we understand that we cannot resist the future and that to turn our back on the future is selling our people short. We want to move into a low-pollution economy with good jobs, clean technologies, powerful innovation and a sustainable future. We will still be an agricultural producer with the changes we have made. We will still be a manufacturer with the changes we have made. And we will still be producing services, but we will not be a rapidly-expanding carbon producer.
The Labor government will help people through this change. Not only are we delivering reform but we will be assisting the workforces and families with reskilling and new training. We will make sure that people do not get left behind in the process of economic change. As former Prime Minister Paul Keating remarked on 11 July this year, the pricing mechanism is 'part of the Labor tradition of change, the Labor tradition of the adaptation of the economy'.
Unfortunately the opposition are stuck in the past. The Leader of the Opposition is a modern-day King Canute who would say that you can turn back the tide. There is no credible plan for the opposition to address climate change. They have the famously misnamed 'direct action plan'. Not a single economist supports it and it will rip away the significant tax cuts and pension increases which are delivered to people under our plan. Former Prime Minister Howard understood the need to be internationally competitive. He understood the importance of getting on with it now. He said at the Melbourne Press Club on 17 July 2007:
In the years to come it will provide a model for other nations to follow.
Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them.
The shadow Treasurer tried to rewrite this history on radio this morning, but he got caught out. We have a problem in this parliament; it is called the opposition. They are crippled by philosophical contradictions. Former Prime Minister Howard supported an ETS. Brendan Nelson supported an ETS. The member for Wentworth probably still supports an ETS. In fact, I suspect that nearly half of those opposite support an ETS, but they are not brave enough or they have been gagged from voting with their conscience. The real issue for our prosperity is you can lie to the people and say to them that you cannot change. Only the conservatives would have you believe you cannot change. We are clear: change is inevitable and we want to help our people move on with it. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Before calling the Ninja warrior from Hume, his having shown his support for a worthwhile cause, I ask him to remove his bandanna so I can give him the call. I notice that others are also supporting a worthwhile cause. I was worried that the member for Chifley had not done his colours, but I realise it is the member for Shortland's pink bandanna.
Mr Speaker, thank you for your support of the Kids with Cancer Foundation. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the situation facing Sarah Jane Furniture, a manufacturer in Cowra that employs over 130 Australians and estimates there will be an increase in its weekly power bill from $13,000 to $21,000 because of the carbon tax. Why is there no compensation for this business when it has achieved a 36 per cent reduction in its carbon footprint over the last three years at its own expense?
In answer to the member's question, firstly, I would be very happy to work with the member to get additional information to the business that he identifies in his electorate because the power figures he has used and the anticipated increase are not right, cannot be right and if the business believes them to be right then clearly it does not have the full information. The figure he used was something like a 50 per cent increase. Of course, that is not right. I would be very happy to work with the member to get accurate information to that business about any cost changes it should expect to see. I would also be very happy to work with the member to make sure the business that he has identified as a manufacturing business is kept informed of the rollout of the more than $1 billion that has been set aside in the carbon pricing package in order to work with manufacturing for a clean technology future. I would be very happy to work with the member to make sure this business gets that information.
The member's question highlights that as a result of many, many months of a fear campaign there are many Australians who are anxious but who do not need to be anxious. They have been given the wrong information by the Leader of the Opposition. They have deliberately had their fear and anxiety stoked by the Leader of the Opposition. Those Australians have heard some of the wild and ridiculous claims made about astronomical increases in prices when the impact on households is less than 1c in the dollar or less than one per cent of CPI.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. I did not ask her about the veracity of the information I received from an employer of 130 people in my electorate.
The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
I am very seriously responding to the member's question because it does concern me that a business that employs 130 people is obviously anxious about a power rise of that magnitude when it will not occur. That does concern me. I am saying to the member that I am very happy to work with him so that he sees all of the information and is able to give it to the business involved. Of course, I would want the business to know about the assistance that is available for a clean technology future. I was going on to make a broader point about the anxiety and fear that has been stoked by false campaigning. I do believe that false campaigning should come to an end and that people should get accurate information about the package. I am very happy to work with the member on doing that.
Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that she knows more about the business of Sarah Jane Furniture than the member for Hume and the principals of the business? Is this Prime Minister arrogant enough to seriously believe that she knows more about the business than they do?
Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that a question couched in those terms, which is wider than allowed by the standing orders, has consequences. The Prime Minister has the call.
To the Leader of the Opposition, no, of course I am not suggesting that—how absurd. The proprietors of those businesses will always know more about those businesses than anybody else. I do say this to the Leader of the Opposition: I do believe that it is appropriate and proper to get full and accurate information to businesses about government policies and plans. He might feel that that is inappropriate. He might feel that it is not right for people to get to the truth. He might feel that people should be denied that information. He might prefer it if people never heard the facts.
I do not share that with him. I think this business deserves the respect of getting all of the information and all of the facts. I have just made a very open offer to the member in good faith and very genuinely to do that. He has used a figure about increases in power costs which simply seems to me to imply that there are some misapprehensions in that business about the imposition of carbon pricing and the way it will work in our economy. I am very happy to work with the member on that.
To the Leader of the Opposition I would say after this discussion that we had in the lead up to yesterday's vote, after this debate of over more than 10 years now, the vote yesterday was about this nation's future. It was about jobs, prosperity and clean energy. I know the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it was about politics and personal pointscoring. It was about something far more important than that. What I never hear from the Leader of the Opposition is him engaging with this national debate. He is there with a policy that everyone knows will not work. He is there with a policy that will take money out of the purses and wallets of families—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The member for Sturt is warned!
and give it to the biggest polluters. He is there with a policy he has no active belief in because he has said in the past that he is in favour of carbon pricing. He has supported in the past an emissions trading scheme and he is now trying to pretend to the Australian people that somehow he is going to act on pricing carbon if he is ever elected. He should stop this pretence and he should actually engage with this debate on the basis of what is in the national interest, not his political interest. It is time for the nation to seize this new clean energy future—that was what yesterday's vote was all about.
I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Lyn Breuer, the South Australian Speaker of the House of Assembly, who is accompanied by a parliamentary delegation investigating matters to do with parliamentary libraries. I extend to them a very warm welcome and extend to Speaker Breuer many tranquil question times.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Minister, you would be aware of concerns that have been expressed in the past in relation to the meat processing sector and the local government landfill sector. Could you outline the assistance that could be available to the meat processing sector and the local government landfill sector from the revenue streams available under the clean energy bills? What scenarios exist for these sectors to reduce their emissions below the 25,000 tonne CO2 equivalent level?
I thank the member for New England for his question. He has had a strong interest in this issue throughout the negotiations in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. The government is well aware of the issues raised by meat processors and landfill operators and particularly by local governments with landfill that are associated with the introduction of carbon pricing.
Recently in Melbourne I met with the Australian Meat Industry Council to discuss the meat processing sector in particular and the opportunities that do exist under the programs that the government has announced with the clean energy package. My department as well has also visited a number of sites, a number of abattoirs, including a visit to Bindaree Beef in Inverell and is going to be making a presentation to a meat industry workshop next week on these issues, so the department and the government are very well engaged.
Many meat processors have already investigated opportunities to become more energy efficient with the approaching carbon price and also to reduce emissions from their settlement ponds. There are opportunities to capture methane, in particular from the settlement ponds, to generate electricity that would then reduce the need to buy electricity off the grid and also provide the opportunity for those operators to create renewable energy certificates. Some meat processors will be able to take sufficient actions, in fact, we anticipate, to fall below the 25,000 tonne emissions threshold that the member for New England adverted to. In addition, the meat processors will be able to benefit from the $150 million that will be available under the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program which is co-contribution grant funding for food processors to reduce their emissions to improve their energy efficiency. So there are a number of opportunities in that sector to deal with this issue. In relation to local government landfills there are a number of similar issues that I could point to. In particular, one of the amendments that the government moved to the legislation two days ago in the House, and which was carried by the House, dealt with this issue and indeed means that many small landfill operators, particularly local governments, will not be liable under the carbon price mechanism certainly over the first three years of the scheme. That is something that has been welcomed by the Local Government Association.
Landfills will also be able to meet up to 100 per cent of their liability during the first three years of the scheme from credits created under the Carbon Farming Initiative—another thing that has been welcomed in recent days. In fact, the government estimates that the carbon farming credits created by landfill operators for their legacy methane will actually exceed their liability under the carbon price for their landfill emissions probably until the year 2020 and beyond. So there are some very good opportunities for local governments in the landfill area.
Yesterday, the president of the Local Government Association issued a press release welcoming all of these initiatives and had this to say:
ALGA welcomes the outcomes of the parliamentary process and the introduction of a market-based approach to carbon pricing. The amended legislation addresses local government's concerns about the impact of a carbon price on small landfills, many of which are owned by councils.
Finally, could I just say how important the contributions of ALGA, local governments and, in particular, the members on the cross benches—particularly, the member for New England—have been in bringing about this outcome.
Before calling the member for Kingston, and to show that I am sensitive to matters between parliaments and executive government, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon John Rau, the Deputy Premier of South Australia. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister outline to the House the significance of the support for Australian families and pensioners in the government's Clean Energy Future plan? What would be the impact on families and pensioners if this support was cut?
I thank the member for Kingston for her question and for her commitment to a clean energy future. She understands, as her South Australian colleagues understand, just how important it is for Australia's future—particularly for the future of our children—that this legislation is now through the House of Representatives and will mean that we will have a price on carbon from 1 July next year.
Of course, because we are a Labor government, we will make sure that pensioners and families get the support that they need to make sure they get help to balance their household budgets. We have made sure that before 1 July next year pensioners and families receiving payments will receive a lump sum—that will happen before 1 July next year—and nine out of 10 households will get help to balance their household budgets.
As the House knows, because of the actions of this side of the parliament, 3.4 million pensioners will not only get the lump sum before 1 July next year but also get an ongoing increase in their pension. What all of these pensioners and all of the families on payments need to know is that every single one of the members of the Liberal and National parties voted no yesterday to stop these increases in payments and to stop the increases in pensions that the parliament will now deliver.
And, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has told us that he is going to roll back these changes. The reality for families and pensioners is that this will mean that this Leader of the Opposition will be increasing taxes and clawing back pension rises and clawing back payments to families. Families also know that they are going to be slugged by the Leader of the Opposition, who is going to impose on each and every family another $1,300 that he is then going to pay to polluters. That is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do.
This has all been confirmed very loudly and very proudly by the member for North Sydney. This morning on Radio National he said: 'These are not real pension increases.' They might not be real pension increases to the member for North Sydney but they most certainly are for the more than 10,000 pensioners in North Sydney—10,000 pensioners in North Sydney who are going to have their money clawed back as a result of this Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the government's failure to bring the Malaysia people swap to a vote today—a matter the Prime Minister has said over and over again needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Doesn't this simply confirm what all Australians suspect—that the government has no plan to protect our borders or to stop the boats?
In response to the shadow minister's question, I draw his attention to the fact that the opposition has around 30 speakers listed for the debate. I presume he would be interested in listening to their contributions. I would also remind the shadow minister that initially when the legislation and the question of its progress through the House was the subject of public discussion the shadow minister was there saying they would work with the government, they would do everything, they would help, they would expedite and all the rest of it. Despite those assertions and promises from the shadow minister, when it came on for debate what we saw from the opposition was filibuster, filibuster and filibuster.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
So I think perhaps the opposition need to talk to work out what their actual position is, having seen every position that it is possible to have during the course of this debate.
Of course, the fact that they have had every position that it is possible to have is not limited to the procedural questions in this debate. Originally the shadow minister was there saying that, in terms of the opposition's policies and plans, it was completely irrelevant to them whether or not a country they dealt with was a refugee convention country. He was there saying that the Howard government dealt with countries—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question went to the government's lack of plans and their lack of ability to stop the boats.
The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
I was indicating that this lack of consistency on process has been mirrored by a lack of consistency on substance. I refer to the statement of the shadow minister on 27 July 2010, talking about his plan in relation to Nauru, where he said:
No it's not. It's not a precondition that Nauru is a signatory to the refugee convention.
Of course, because of the politics of all of this, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister have now adopted a completely different position.
Why are they doing that? Why have they moved from their original position to this completely different position? The reason they have moved is because they want to act in what they perceive to be their political interest, not the national interest. They want to deny this country the ability to process asylum seekers offshore. I remind the shadow minister that the government's amendment to the migration bill would enable this government and governments in the future to make appropriate choices in relation to the processing of asylum seekers, including that, should it ever occur that the shadow minister served on the government benches—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
as immigration minister, if he was of the view that Nauru was a good idea—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
he would be able to do that. But they are not prepared to vote for that: something that would give them legal authority for the thing they say is their own plan. They are not even prepared to vote for that.
Why is that the case? Why have the opposition adopted this position? We know why. It is because they want to see more boats. They want to put out a welcome mat. They want to see more boats. The Leader of the Opposition will never be more delighted than the day on which he sees a boat arrive, because he in this debate, every step of the way, has prioritised his political interest over the national interest. It is actually sad to see the Liberal Party in this state of negativity. So I say to the shadow minister: rather than talking about the processing of this debate, maybe he should think about his policy as a matter of substance and what is in this nation's interest. It would be the first time he has ever done so.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Malta led by the Hon. Michael Frendo MP, Speaker of the Kamra tad-Deputati, the House of Representatives. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the Steel Transformation Plan Bill? Why is this legislation important to the Australian steel industry and what would be the impact on workers and industry if the steel transformation plan is not established?
I thank the member for Cunningham because she certainly has a very keen interest in seeing the steel transformation plan implemented. Of course, it was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday along with the other clean energy bills and it was opposed—astonishingly—by the Liberal and National Parties. As is well known, the steel industry is facing very difficult times in this country. Global markets are struggling. The high value of the dollar has made steel exports less competitive and imports cheaper, and iron ore and coking coal prices are high. The two major companies have been losing money in their steel production and we are already seeing job losses and the closure of a blast furnace in Port Kembla because of these factors.
This government is committed to steel manufacturing in this country. We are committed to the workers that it employs and we are committed to regions like Whyalla and Port Kembla that depend upon the steel industry. That is why the government has worked very closely with the steel industry in developing the $300 million steel transformation plan, which is supported by Bluescope, OneSteel and the unions representing the steel workforce. The plan itself is designed to support the industry and its workforce through these difficult times, to help reduce the emissions intensity of the industry, to support innovation and to support research and development, the application of new technology and investment in the industry. Importantly, the plan and the fact that it will be legislated will provide confidence to the financial institutions that help the industry invest.
For the last six months the Leader of the Opposition has visited Australian steel towns and workplaces to emphasise his alleged commitment to the industry. He told Whyalla that he was so concerned that Whyalla would be wiped off the map, that Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town—an economic wasteland. He told steelworkers in Port Kembla, trying to terrify them, that he was concerned that they would lose their jobs to people in China and Indonesia. He told the Australian Steel Convention:
… steel is critical to our way of life—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On direct relevance, I fail to see how this unbridled attack on the Leader of the Opposition could be relevant to the question he was asked.
This gets us to an interpretation of direct relevance. I suggest to the minister that he reduces the amount of argument and reference to people in the answer. I am happy for him to discuss the policy matters, but this is a response that is bordering on those that I characterised last sitting week as what we were trying to avoid. The minister has the call.
Thank you. I was asked what would happen if the steel plan were not established. There has been a lot of commentary about the difficulties confronting the steel industry, and many, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made observations about the importance of the industry, its survival and its competitiveness. After all of the statements that the Leader of the Opposition has made you would think that he was a veritable man of steel; but, in fact, he is a cream puff. When the opportunity came—
The minister will now come to his conclusion.
the opposition voted against a $300 million plan to support the steel industry. It voted against the workers in the industry. It voted against the company's position in support of the plan. In addition, with the importance of this plan to investment confidence in the industry, the last thing that the industry needs is the Leader of the Opposition to be making a 'blood oath' that he will repeal the legislation. No-one believes that that will be lived up to.
The minister will now resume his seat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that on at least six occasions she has declared that the Malaysian people swap legislation will be put to this parliament. On at least three occasions she has declared that it is urgent that we have a vote. So I ask the Prime Minister: why is the government now filibustering to prevent the people swap legislation being put to a vote?
I am not sure how organisational arrangements happen in the opposition, but I presume that the whip's office keeps speakers lists and, if the Leader of the Opposition chose to view those lists, he would be able to do so. As it happens, I have one and I am able to draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to a large number of his members who have not spoken yet and have listed themselves as speaking in the debate. For example, they include the former minister for immigration, who has not spoken yet in this debate, and the man the Leader of the Opposition has identified as a future shadow minister for foreign affairs. He has not spoken yet in this debate. And so the list goes on. So I say to the opposition: if it is of the view now, as opposed to this speaking list, which is the speaking list that has been circulated—if it has completely changed its mind again on the migration legislation—then it might want to find a way of communicating that properly.
What we have had over the last period is the opposition saying it would work with the government to expedite the bill, the opposition saying that it would deal with the bill on its own terms—not purpose-specific to the preferred plan of either side of politics but on its own terms. Then, of course, they backflipped and said, 'No, no; we want to draw out this debate and have a lot of speakers.' Now the Leader of the Opposition appears to be saying that they are backflipping again. Then, of course, they backflipped on whether the assessment of the bill should be one on the merits of the proposition and dealing with the High Court case or whether it should be used just as a political device in their campaign.
All of this procedural carry-on by the opposition, at the end of the day, is a matter that will play out within this House, but what is much more important is the biggest thing the Leader of the Opposition has backflipped on: his slogan and promise to the Australian people at the last election that he would stop the boats. He has backflipped on his 'boat phone', acknowledging now that it was a stupid sham that would never have been put into practice, and now he is preparing to backflip again so he will be the man who ensures there is not in this country the ability to process asylum seekers offshore. So, to every Australian who ever heard the Leader of the Opposition say, 'Stop the boats', to every Australian who ever saw a piece of Liberal Party propaganda at the last election that said, 'Stop the boats', they should know that the Leader of the Opposition is about to trash that pledge to the Australian people and end the ability of this nation to process asylum seekers offshore. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that because he believes it is in his narrow political interest to see more boats.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That order of the day No. 4, Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011, be called on immediately and the question on the second reading be put forthwith.
Why is the Prime Minister who has just scurried out of this parliament, scared of putting her Malaysian people swap to the vote? A Prime Minister who cannot stay in the parliament to listen to a debate like this is a Prime Minister who does not deserve to stay in office. She does not deserve to stay in office. This Prime Minister is scared of this parliament. She is scared of putting her legislation to this parliament because she is scared that this parliament will no longer support her.
I have a news flash for the parliament: the caucus is meeting at 4:15 this afternoon. I wonder what they are going to be discussing. Could it be the people swap legislation? Could the people swap legislation be about to bite the dust? There will be some interesting discussion in the caucus this afternoon at 4:15. Senator Faulkner will want onshore processing, Senator Bishop will want Nauru, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will say, 'Let's not lurch to the Right,' the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship will say, 'I resign,' and the Prime Minister herself will say anything—anything at all—that will help her to save her increasingly desperate job.
I say to this parliament that on no fewer than six occasions this Prime Minister has said that the people-swap legislation will come before the parliament. It was so important that the people-swap legislation come before the parliament because she wanted every single coalition member's name to be recorded. Now she is frightened that the names of Labor members of this parliament will not be recorded because she knows that some of them are not going to support the government's legislation. She knows that if this government tries to put its legislation to the parliament it will be in crisis. She knows that if the government tries to put its legislation to the parliament what will in fact happen is that this parliament will effectively vote no confidence in this government. Bring it on.
Honourable members interjecting—
'Rubbish,' she says. Bring it on. If they are not scared of the result, bring on the legislation and bring it on now. For weeks this Prime Minister has been saying that the most important issue before the parliament was protecting our borders through the Malaysian people-swap deal, and what have we seen over the last 24 hours? We have seen the government debate everything under the sun, put votes on everything, but the one thing they do not want to debate or vote upon is the one thing they were saying was essential for days and weeks. Shame on this government. What has happened in the last 24 hours? Is border protection no longer important? Have the boats stopped coming from Indonesia? Has the people smugglers' business model suddenly been destroyed? What has changed? What has changed over the last 24 hours? I will tell you what has changed: the Prime Minister knows she lacks the numbers in the parliament to carry her legislation. She lacks the numbers in the parliament to do the most vital function of any government—to protect the borders of this nation. I say a party with no policy on border protection is a party with no right to be in government. A government that cannot secure its border protection policy from the parliament is a government which should immediately call an election. That is what it should do. It should call an election, which is what the last government that could not secure parliamentary support for a major piece of legislation had the courage, honour and decency to do.
What we now know is that this Prime Minister is so desperate to cling to power that she is prepared to limp on without the policy that just days ago she said was absolutely vital to secure the security of this nation. What a sorry record this government has: 220 boats, 12,000 people and every single one of those boats a sign of policy failure. We have had those boats and we have had those people. We have had the riots and we have had the drownings. We have had these things because this government was not magnanimous enough to leave well enough along. It was not magnanimous enough to leave in place a policy that worked. The Howard government's policy stopped the boats, and for more than a decade this coalition has been absolutely crystal clear and absolutely consistent. We have a three-point plan to stop the boats—we have always had it; we will always have it. It is offshore processing at Nauru, it is temporary protection visas and it is the option of turning boats around where it is safe to do so.
By contrast, since the Pacific solution was scrapped, first of all we had the asylum-processing freeze, the most discriminatory immigration policy since White Australia—shame on members opposite. Then we had the East Timor solution, which sank somewhere in the Timor Sea because this Prime Minister did not know enough about East Timor to understand the different roles of the President and the Prime Minister. Then we had the Manus solution, which did not get anywhere because the Prime Minister was not prepared to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to get involved lest the foreign minister succeeded and showed her up. And, finally, we have had the Malaysian people swap, which is about to be dumped by a caucus that knows that if it proceeds it will destroy itself in this parliament.
Let us be absolutely crystal clear: the Malaysian people swap is a dud deal. It is a dud deal because it is a cruel deal for boat people and a poor deal for Australia. No self-respecting country would engage in a one-for-five people swap. It is not only a dud deal but also a deal that has been demonstrated not to work. Since it was announced, we have had 1,299 illegal arrivals by boat. Since it was signed, we have had 732 illegal arrivals by boat. Everyone is against the Malaysia people swap. This parliament, both houses, have condemned it. The High Court of Australia has struck it down. Many federal Labor MPs are obviously against it, to the extent of not being prepared to vote for it in this parliament. The Victorian Labor Party has condemned it at its conference. The Western Australian Labor caucus, including the next leader of the Western Australian Labor Party, has condemned it. There are no fewer than 26 Labor branches that have passed motions condemning this deal. But I tell you what, Mr Speaker, this Prime Minister is not going to drop the people swap because it is wrong; she is going to drop the people swap because she knows she will lose—that is why she is going to drop it.
On every single aspect of border protection policy this Prime Minister has been inconsistent. She supported temporary protection visas, and then she opposed them. She opposed offshore processing, and now she says she supports it. She supported turning boats around, then she opposed it, now she wants a virtual turnaround. She opposed sending people to countries that had not signed the UN convention. Now she says we must send people to a country which not only has not signed the UN convention but wants to cane people.
What a shabby, miserable, divided and directionless government this rabble have become. Have your caucus meeting, but admit you do not know how to deal with this problem and call an election.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion, Mr Speaker. Today we learned that the government will not have the confidence of this House for their failed asylum and border protection policies. And what we have learned as the day has progressed is that this government does not even have confidence in itself to be able to bring its bill forward and allow it to be voted on today in this place. This is not terribly surprising because the Australian people lost confidence in this government a long time ago—and not only on this issue but on all of the issues we have seen come before this place, most significantly demonstrated yesterday as they patted themselves on the back as they introduced the world's largest carbon tax on the Australian people.
The only people who have confidence in the government's border protection policies are the people smugglers. They say they want to smash the people smugglers' business model. What they need to understand is they are the people smugglers' business model, and what they have put forward in this place over four years has underwritten that business model. Tens of millions of dollars have gone into the pockets of people smugglers as people have paraded themselves onto boats and put their lives at risk.
It is necessary to suspend standing orders here today to bring on the Migration Act amendment bill to give the government the opportunity to restore some credibility by supporting the coalition's amendments to the act to restore what they abolished. More than three years ago the government abolished offshore processing—that is what they did: abolished offshore processing. They abolished temporary protection visas. They abolished their own Prime Minister's pre-election promise in 2007 that he would turn boats around. The only person who has been processed offshore by this government is the former Prime Minister: the Minister for Foreign Affairs. And as the Minister for Foreign Affairs spends his time at the front of the plane reading Lazarus Rising, as we learned in this place this week, what we have also learned is that this government has absolutely no policy whatsoever when it comes to this area.
Offshore processing did not end with the decision of the High Court. It ended with the decision of this government back in 2008. Since then we have seen failure after failure from this government. What we have seen, as the Leader of the Opposition said, as they embarked on their 'anything but Nauru' strategy for the last four years is the Oceanic Viking debacle. We have seen with the failed asylum freeze that its only purpose and end, it would seem, was to produce another 12,000 people coming on boats from Afghanistan. We have seen the East Timor farce as regional leaders had to endure an endless polite conversation, listening to a Prime Minister talk about a policy she knew would never happen and that this government never believed in.
What we see from the government now is them coming into this place and seeking a blank cheque from this parliament for more failures. Well, we have got a tip for the government, and that is they should put back in place what they abolished. They have the opportunity to do that this afternoon by bringing on the Migration Act amendment bill and adopting the amendments that the coalition has put forward that would enable them to do this.
The price of their failure has been chaos, cost blow-outs and tragedy. Those failures should hang heavily on the heads of every single member on that side of the House. Those who encouraged the government to abolish the policies of the Howard government must now take responsibility for the cost, for the chaos and for the tragedy that we have seen occur as a result of their failures.
The coalition offers this government an alternative that deals with the issues that came up in the High Court to ensure that the protections that the member for Berowra put into that act in 2001 can be sustained. We can achieve that by ensuring signatory to the convention is a litmus test on those protections and we can create the legal certainty that is necessary. If the government does not bring this bill in this afternoon I think it is time to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to improve his quality of life. I think it is time for this minister, who does not enjoy confidence of this House, to do the honourable thing unless he brings this bill, which he has sponsored, into the House. He brought it into this place and he should now face the test of this place on his own bill, or he should do the honourable thing—and improve his quality of life, as he has so often said—and resign from his office. But that will only allow another to come and put more failed policy in place. Bring on the bill. (Time expired)
I am pleased to once again, on a daily basis, have the opportunity to speak on the procedural motion for the suspension of standing orders moved by the Leader of the Opposition—once again moved at 10 to 3 because Playschool starts on ABC TV at 3 pm. As Pollytics tweeted out before, 'If I was Playschool I'd be asking for a new support act!' That is what people out there are saying, because what we have heard is not up to the quality of Little Ted and Big Ted. What we have heard from those opposite is once again a concentration just on the politics, not on the substance. Let us have a look at the substance of what they are talking about here. When we introduced the migration bills we offered to the opposition a vote on it prior to question time on the day on which they were debated, the Thursday before last. What they did was stack the speakers list so that we had five hours and 13 minutes of debate. But they have gone further because today they have listed 29 opposition speakers to address this issue, for 15 minutes each. We know that maths is not their strong point, because they are searching for the $70 billion they have in that black hole, but let me inform them that that adds up to over seven hours of speakers just from the opposition. They know that on Thursday there are four hours and 45 minutes dedicated to government business, including the private members business that they insisted on. If you go through the Hansard of this morning, you will find opposition members seeking leave to address issues—many important issues. The member for Hughes gave a good speech, by leave, about the human rights of Coptic Christians in Egypt. There were a range of other issues.
During the bill on work safety the relevant shadow minister did not just speak once during the consideration in detail stage but spoke twice to the same amendments that she had moved. The opposition called for quorums to be formed three times. That took up 12 minutes of time. Then the Manager of Opposition Business had the hide to come into this parliament and move a point of order saying the parliament should have been shut down and asked the Deputy Speaker at the time to consult with you, Mr Speaker, about whether it was inappropriate that parliament be allowed to continue. Indeed, the very bill that is before the parliament right now on education is a bill in which the Manager of Opposition Business has carriage. He knows that we offered yesterday to refer it to the Main Committee because it is a budget bill and a bill they say they are not opposed to. But this man's fragile ego is so big he did not want to speak in the Main Committee. No, he wanted to take up the time of the main chamber. The hypocrisy is writ large. This is a budget bill that needs passage.
Yesterday, what we saw throughout the day from the opposition was speaker after speaker being added to the speakers list. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition says he is keen on a vote but he does not have a good record of turning up when votes are held. He missed the vote on health bills—despite being the former health minister—on 3 June 2008. He also missed votes on 8 September 2009, and on 3 February 2010. He slept through the economic stimulus bills. He missed a number of other votes on important broadband and electoral reform bills. He missed votes on the Nation-building Funds Bill and on the road charges bills. On 4 June 2009 he missed four votes on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
What we have seen all week is, once again, the opposition talking down the economy. We have seen that the Leader of the Opposition is all about the politics and never about the substance. Perhaps a quote that puts that best was when he compared losing office as a minister to losing a parent. He said:
We all need grief counselling ... It's like a bereavement. Not as bad as losing a child or a spouse but up there with losing a parent.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about losing office. That is how obsessed he is with the politics. It is always about the politics. What we are seeing today is the continuation of the longest dummy spit in Australia's political history. That would not be so bad except that the whole of Australia is having to put up with it.
Even when the Leader of the Opposition says he supports principles, he walks away. He says he supports offshore processing but he has walked away from that. He says he supports the rights of governments to have policies to control our borders but he walks away from that just like he walks away from everything because he is so determined to be negative and to say 'no'. No matter what the cost, he knows that the decision of the High Court means that the only place offshore processing can take place with certainty is New Zealand. That he knows full well. In spite of that, so short term is he—he is very cocky—he thinks he is almost there. That night in August, when he thought he had won the election, he thought he got what he saw as his dessert. He thought that he had a right to the prime ministership of this country. Ever since then, because of his incapacity to negotiate with people and to be someone who could be seen as being broad and capable of truly representing something other than his short-minded sectarian view, which is why he lost the negotiations as well as lost the election, we have been forced to put up with this dummy spit. He is all division and no vision.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House has placed a slur into this debate with the use of the word 'sectarian' and should be made to withdraw. I ask him to withdraw.
Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw.
I withdraw. Speaking about Liberal Party sectarianism! In terms of—
Opposition members interjecting—
I have withdrawn!
Order! The Leader of the House has withdrawn. The Leader of the House has the call.
Opposition members interjecting —
I'm half Italian-half Irish, mate—let's get real—so don't accuse me of anti-Catholicism, mate! Fair dinkum. Get real.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the House has the call. He will ignore interjections.
The fact is, one of the things I learnt at St Mary's Cathedral was about social justice, was about standing up for my principles, was about having conviction—which is why I am prepared to stand up on these matters of principle and not just say no. What the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do to politics in this country with his language, with his actions, with his motivations, is simply to be negative and to turn it into the sort of behaviour that we saw in the galleries yesterday. A lack of respect for our parliamentary processes, a lack of respect for democracy, because he believes it is all about him. Well it is not. This country is much better than that and they are much too good to have you in any leadership position.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.
Question put.
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
On indulgence, with a small friend, Wally the mascot, joining me; once every four years we reach a stage where Australians who do not normally follow rugby become instant experts and, of course, people from New Zealand become nervous. Once every four years that happens. The Wallabies are playing against the All Blacks on Sunday. I thought it would be nice, as this parliamentary day draws towards its conclusion, for us to wish them the very best on Sunday. I had the opportunity when I was at the Pacific Islands Forum to meet with a number of the players before they engaged in the sporting contests we have seen recently and, of course, the amazing match against South Africa last weekend. I particularly had the opportunity to talk to James O'Connor. It was amazing to watch that kick under incredible pressure last weekend. So, to all of them from all of us: go the Wallabies for Sunday!
I wish to join the Prime Minister and I am sure every Australian in wishing the Wallabies all the best for their contest against the All Blacks. It will be a very, very tough game, but tough games bring out the best in our team. They had a slow start in the contest but they are coming good at the right end of it.
On indulgence and in relation to sporting events, I notify the House that a former member of this House, Pat Farmer, is within 48 hours of reaching the equator on his run from the North Pole. He would have travelled about 13½ thousand kilometres. According to his web tracker, he is 0.8251 degrees from the equator. He is about 91 kilometres away and he is travelling at 40 kilometres an hour, according to the tracker, which even for Pat is fast!
Honourable members interjecting—
He is obviously off to a function! On behalf of the House, I wish him well, congratulate him and hope that all sides can applaud this achievement today.
On behalf of the government, all of our best wishes go to Pat Farmer. And whatever the speed he is travelling, what a remarkable achievement to literally run halfway around the world. It is an incredible effort. I send our very best wishes to Pat as he completes this very small bit of such a huge journey.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I seek to ask you a question. I rise in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network. The committee that was recently formed by this parliament is working quite well. It has come to my attention that at a whips meeting on the Senate side last evening the edict was given that no committee will be given permission to meet during the sitting of the Senate whilst they deliberate on the clean energy bills.
In my 21½ years in this place, I have been involved in a number of robust debates, including Mabo, Wik, the terror laws and the ASIO laws. Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance, together with that of the President of the Senate, to see if you can bring some sanity to this situation. The joint committee has hearings scheduled on 1 November and 22 November, each going in the vicinity of some six hours. To tie the debate on the clean energy bills to all of the sittings of joint committees of this parliament—those that occur at the same time as sittings of the Senate—would take a wrecking ball to the timetable. As it was, this committee has sought and received support for an extension of reporting, but I would ask you to talk to the President of the Senate and see if you can talk to the relevant officers so that some sanity prevails. We should not be punished as backbenchers doing good productive work on both sides of the House because there is a division about a particular policy.
Whilst the member has requested me to speak to the President about the matter, and I am happy to do that, we would have to understand that the decisions are a matter for the Senate. The Senate has different procedures to the House, but I am quite happy to convey to the President of the Senate the fact that the member for Banks has placed a position on record.
Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a matter relating to New Zealand and Australia's assistance with the laden container ship Rena which has run aground at speed on a charted reef off New Zealand's North Island. This week I have had a number of conversations with the New Zealand government, in particular my colleague the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce. We have 30 officials from Australia in place assisting our friends in New Zealand. Unfortunately, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and Australia's support staff gained some expertise with the Pacific Adventurer and Shen Neng 1 incidents.
I have been invited to go to New Zealand this weekend by the New Zealand government and I intend to have discussions with them. I have indicated on behalf of the Australian government—and I am sure it is something that is supported by both sides of the House—that any assistance that Australia can give to our friends in New Zealand in what is already its worst ever maritime disaster will be made available. Whilst we might be opponents at Eden Park on Sunday night, we are certainly good friends and always there to assist each other.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I am pleased that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and Australian officers are in New Zealand assisting with the maritime disaster that New Zealand is endeavouring to deal with. I made some comments about this issue in the Main Committee in debate on a bill earlier this week. This is the kind of situation where friends need to be able to help one another. This is already regarded as the most serious maritime environmental disaster in New Zealand's history and it sadly has the potential to get significantly worse. Some of the television pictures we have seen of the angles of some on the containers on board the vessel and of oil already on the beaches demonstrate that this has the capacity to become a marine disaster of substantial proportions.
Australia has had experience in this field, unfortunately. An incident not dissimilar in some ways occurred near Cape Moreton not very long ago. A large number of containers went overboard from a vessel there, which damaged the ship and led to oil leaks along the beaches of the Sunshine Coast. As a representative of that area, I was very conscious of the fact that this was a blot on the local communities and that it was most unwelcome in the holiday time. New Zealand is the centre of the world's attention at the present time. For that reason, as well as for our desire to be good neighbours, it is appropriate that Australian officials are there. I wish them well and hope they will be kept safe during what is potentially a very dangerous and difficult operation.
I present the report of the Selection Committee No. 36 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report will be placed on the table.
The report reads as follows—
Report relating to private Members’ business and the consideration of bills introduced 12 to 13 October 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 12 and 13 October 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members’ business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
Tobacco marketing (Ms Rishworth); and
Disability services (Mr Neumann).
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be supplementary members of certain committees for the purposes of committee inquiries.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Mr L. D. T. Ferguson and Mr Gibbons be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for the purpose of the committee’s inquiries into the Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011 and the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Horticultural Code of Conduct) Bill 2011;
(2) Mr Macfarlane be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011; and
(3) Mr Turnbull be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Community Consultation) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2010-11, incorporating report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Office of Financial Management—Report for 2010-11.
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2010-11.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2010-11.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Treasury—Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding—Report, 13 October 2011.
National Water Commission—Report for 2010-11.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Debate adjourned.
I have received letters from the honourable member for Menzies and the honourable member for Fraser proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Menzies, namely:
The failure of the government to understand the impact of the carbon tax on Australian families.
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—
Yesterday was a day on which the government of Australia betrayed the families of this country, and this week is a week in which the government of this country has severed the bonds of trust between it and the families of Australia. Indeed, this session of parliament is a session in which Australians have finally had revealed to them what a cowardly and dishonest government they have here in Canberra. Yesterday, this Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, at the behest of the Greens, revealed that she is more interested in her job as Prime Minister of Australia than in the jobs of ordinary Australians. Yesterday, it was revealed to everybody in this country that we have a government that is so out of touch that it came in here and applauded and congratulated itself for a measure that will increase the cost of living for every Australian, will bite and hit every business in this country and will destroy jobs for so many people right around this nation.
There are three enduring images of this government that history will mark. The first was of a Prime Minister who went on television a few days before the last election and said, as we all know—
Opposition members: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'
'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That is the first enduring image of this Prime Minister. The second one is of course the political marriage of convenience that we saw consummated in the signing ceremony and the smiling photograph of the Prime Minister, Senator Bob Brown and the other Greens after the election, after she did a deal, becoming beholden to the Greens, in order to retain the keys to the Lodge. That is the second enduring image of this government. The third image was of course played out yesterday: the arrogance and hubris of this government when those on that side stood up and applauded themselves and kissed each other and patted each other on the back for implementing a measure which is going to hit the livelihood of every person in this country.
What we have seen this week is 72 members of this minority government betray Australian families, and I tell you what: we will remind the constituents of each of those 72 members from this day until whenever the next election is called that those members betrayed the interests of ordinary Australian families simply in order to preserve their own interests and preserve their positions on the treasury benches in this chamber, remaining beholden to Bob Brown and the Greens in this place. Then, to add insult to injury, we had that clapping and cheering carry-on from them yesterday—even the Judas kiss from the foreign minister to the Prime Minister. I will wait and see how that plays out in coming days!
Were there 30 pieces of silver?
I am not sure whether or not there were 30 pieces of silver, but it certainly brought up images of another occasion on which a famous kiss was given.
We know that the Greens are not interested in ordinary Australian families. If you look at the whole range of measures that they put up to this parliament, you can see they are contrary, they are antithetical, to the interests of Australian families. Protecting the environment comes before protecting Australian families, as far as the Greens are concerned. The tragedy for Australians is that we have these measures because we have a minority government which is totally beholden to Bob Brown and the rest of the Greens. Was this something that was being proposed by the government prior to the last election?
Opposition members: No!
No. It was ruled out. Then, after the election, in order to retain government, the Prime Minister signed up to this deal with Senator Bob Brown.
This carbon tax is going to hurt Australian families; there is no doubt about that. I would just like to take the chamber through some instances of real people in this country who are going to be hurt by this measure. Now, these are not my constructions; I did not create these scenarios. These are taken from the government's own material. This is what the government is saying about the effect and impact of this particular tax. These are real people, like Melbourne couple Kirsten and Julian Finger. Kirsten is a qualified paramedic and Julian is a registered nurse. They have one child who is under four years of age and they are expecting a second child. They are a pretty typical Australian family, with two people in the workforce and two kids—one under four, one on the way. We are talking about ordinary Australian families that could be in any of our electorates right around this country. And what is the impact on them? They will be approximately $200 a year worse off under the government's carbon tax, based on the government's own online carbon tax estimator. If we go to the online estimator which the government has put up on the web and put in these figures, what do we find? After all the compensation that the government talks about, this ordinary, typical Australian couple are going to be $200 a year worse off.
Let me take another example, that of a police sergeant earning $80,000 a year, married to a clinic nurse earning about $80,000 a year, with two children, one five and the other six years of age—again, what I would call a relatively typical Australian family: two parents, two incomes and two kids, who in this case are in primary school. They will face a cost-of-living impact of $859 a year but receive compensation of only $31. That is $859 worth of additional costs offset by what? A measly $31. The family will be $828 worse off because of this government's tax. Let me take a third example, that of a storeman earning $38,500 a year who is married to a part-time retail assistant earning $16,500 a year and this couple has no children. The storeman's wage is not huge by any stretch of the imagination and nor is that of the part-time retail assistant by the measure of incomes in Australia; a lot of Australians are in this situation but they are hardly wealthy. This couple will have a cost-of-living increase of $440 a year, according to the government's own calculations. What compensation will they receive? They will get just $303 in compensation. Again, this is a relatively low-income working couple who are going to be $137 a year worse off under this government's carbon tax.
Yet we have the Prime Minister day after day when asked about the impact on these sorts of Australian families just laughing it off—giggling it off is perhaps a better description. She says: 'Don't worry about that; people are going to be better off.' The reality is in the government's own calculations. Do not trust my word for it; go to the website this government has put in place and do the calculations. You will find that, in situations like these, people are going to be worse off.
Take the situation of a single mother with two children aged three and 12 and who is working as a nurse earning about $80,000 a year. She will face a cost-of-living increase of $514 a year and yet the compensation she will receive is only $445 a year. She is going to be $69 a year worse off under the carbon tax. We have the government pretending all Australians are somehow going to be better off because of these changes. The reality is, as these examples illustrate, tens of thousands of Australians are going to be worse off because of this taxation proposals.
Let us consider an electrician earning $75,000 a year who is married to a stay-at-home mum and they have one child under five years of age. Again, this is a typical family constellation in Australia. They will face an increase of $491 a year, but they will only get compensation of $409 a year. This family with one person in the workforce and mum at home with a kid is going to be $82 worse off as a result of these proposals.
It is not just families who are affected. Consider an occupational therapist earning $80,000 a year who is single and without children. This person will face a cost-of-living increase of $441 a year, but receive just $16 by way of compensation.
That's an insult.
That's right, an insult. That person will be $425 a year worse off as a result of this government's great big new carbon tax. We know that 52 per cent of households in Western Australia, for example, will be worse off under this carbon tax.
This is coming at the worst time of all so far as Australian families are concerned. We know that no other country in the world is doing this. We are racing ahead of the rest of the world to the great competitive disadvantage of Australia. It is coming at a time when Australians are already facing increased cost-of-living pressures so far as their lifestyles are concerned. From the December quarter of 2007, when the Labor Party was elected to government in Australia, until the March quarter of this year—so measuring their term in office—what has happened so far as the cost of living is concerned? Electricity prices have gone up by a whopping 51 per cent on average across Australia. Gas prices have increased by an average 30 per cent. Water and sewerage rates have increased by an average 46 per cent. Health costs—that is, things like hospital, optical, dental, pharmaceutical costs—have gone up by an average 20 per cent across Australia. Education costs, school fees and other incidentals related to education and schooling, have increased on average by 24 per cent since 2007.
Interest rates have increased seven times since September 2009, increasing repayments on the average mortgage by over $500 a month in a little under 18 months. On top of these, we know that the costs of all sorts of other things have gone up. The price of bread—one of the staples of life for any family or any individual, for that matter—is up by 11 per cent. The cost of food overall is up by 13 per cent. The cost of fruit has gone up by 28 per cent. The amount of rent that people are now paying has increased by 20 per cent.
I cannot think of a worse time to introduce a carbon tax in terms of the impact that it is going to have on the cost of living of Australians and their job prospects and the job prospects of their children. That is the great tragedy of it. We have an out-of-touch government hell-bent on simply continuing the deal it has done with Bob Brown and the Greens. That is going to lead to ruination of not just this country but the standards of living of so many Australian families.
Let me remind you what a carbon tax means. It means a $9 billion a year tax. It means a 10 per cent hike in electricity prices in the first year alone. It means a nine per cent increase in gas bills in the first year alone. You will see higher marginal tax rates for many low- and middle-income earners. Of course, there is a $4.3 billion hit on the budget bottom line which will see every Australian slugged over $40,000 over the coming decades. That is the equivalent of a whole year's work for many Australians who are going to be paying year after year after year for Labor's broken promise. On top of that we have a $515 a year hit on the cost of living and that is just for starters under this great big new tax which is being introduced by the Labor Party.
What we have is a Prime Minister who has lost the trust of the families of Australia. There is one thing that a government cannot lose. It can lose all sorts of things and it can be unpopular for a time, but when the bond of trust between the people of the nation and the Prime Minister, in particular, and the government is destroyed then it will not be regained. That is why people have given up listening to this Prime Minister. That is why when you go around the electorates of this nation, people explain their great frustration about what is going on in this place at the present time. Promising commitments with no intention of honouring them is the greatest measure of all of distrust and that is what we have seen from this Prime Minister. Of course, now we have the foreign minister stalking, the backbench in disarray, the government in denial and this leaves the country without any real leadership for the future at a time when we need it.
At a time when the cost of living is increasing significantly in Australia, when the international financial situation is in crisis, when Australians are concerned about their job security—for example, we have seen 54,000 jobs lost in manufacturing alone in the last year, and we know that nine out of 10 workers in the manufacturing industry are not going to be in businesses that get one cent of compensation—so far as this tax is concerned we have a complete lack of direction from this government. We have a Prime Minister who is no longer focused on the concerns of Australian families. She is focused simply on her survival and whether or not the faceless men will do what they did to her predecessor and remove her at sometime in the future. What we have is a disjointed, dysfunctional disarray that pretends to be a government in Australia—they should do the decent and honourable thing and call an election.
I reckon most people listening today would be amazed by the hypocrisy and the irony of the shadow minister for families, housing and human services talking about jobs and job security. From someone who is out there carrying the spear for a reintroduction of Work Choices—and we all know what that meant for Australian families, their pay, their conditions and their job security—to be in here talking about jobs is the height of hypocrisy.
He talked about a typical Australian family on $160,000 a year. It might be typical of the people he is hanging around with but it is not typical of the two out of three households who will benefit at least to the amount that their prices are expected to go up under these changes or the nine out of 10 households who will receive some assistance because of the measures we passed yesterday. Typical, according to the shadow minister opposite is a family on $160,000 a year—how incredibly out of touch the shadow minister is.
The shadow minister talks about the jobs of Australian families at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was encouraging his members to vote against the jobs of steelworkers right around Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, who was in here crying crocodile tears about the steelworkers of Whyalla and Whyalla being wiped off the map of Australia, was in here yesterday voting against the jobs of steelworkers around Australia. When the shadow minister talks about going out and reminding constituents about what happened in here yesterday I hope he goes out and reminds the people of Australia that the opposition yesterday voted against a clean energy future for this country. I hope that he goes out and reminds the constituents in his electorate and electorates all around Australia that yesterday the opposition in here voted against pension increases. I hope that he goes out and reminds people right around Australia that yesterday the opposition voted against tax cuts for ordinary working families. I hope that he goes out and reminds people all around Australia that yesterday the opposition voted against increases in family benefits. I hope that he goes out and reminds people all around Australia that yesterday the opposition voted against protecting our environment, our beautiful natural environment—Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef—
What's a tax going to do for it?
the beautiful alpine areas of Victoria. You do not care about the Great Barrier Reef. Think about the jobs in your electorate that depend on the Great Barrier Reef—billions of dollars worth of tourism put at risk because of your vandalism in here yesterday.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The honourable member for Dawson will show a modicum of restraint.
To be in here talking about the family budget and jobs when we saw yesterday the vandals opposite voting against jobs and voting against the family budget strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. They are talking about who is going to be worse off and the family budget under pressure. What is their plan?
They don't have one.
There is a bit of a plan. They also say that they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am not sure why because half of them say—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
You do not want to? Are you saying that it is not your policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? There you go talking about policy on the run—
The minister will address her remarks through the chair.
and we heard it here first. It is no longer opposition policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent. It is no longer their policy. Let's talk about what used to be their policy until you heard this announcement first today in the House of Representatives. It used to be opposition policy until about a minute ago that they would also meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How are they going to do it? They are going to do it through the tax system. They say that they are going to do it by direct investment, by picking winners. They are going to go out to industry, they are going to pick winners and they are going to pour billions of dollars of taxpayers' money into picking those winners. They cannot tell us how much it is going to cost to reach the five per cent reduction target. But you know what? We have done the numbers. We know those across the chamber cannot actually add up but we have done the numbers of how much is actually going to cost them to meet their five per cent reduction target and guess what? It will cost every household in Australia $1,300.
We had a few cameos from the shadow minister opposite and I actually wanted to share a cameo of my own with colleagues. We have a typical middle-income family—I actually do not think that $160,000 a year is a typical family income so here is a family income that I think is a little more typical—mum, dad and three children aged four, seven and nine. Dad is earning $52½ thousand a year, mum is working part time earning $17½ thousand a year which gives a total of $75,000 a year family income. They will get $332 extra in government payments and a $982 tax cut. They will receive around $1,300 in carbon price assistance under our plan. The same family will pay $1,300 to the big polluters under the opposition's plan. So this family, even after any impact of carbon pricing on their cost of living, will be more than $700 a year better off. With that $700 they could invest in more energy efficient appliances—maybe replace their heater or the hot water system—and bring their electricity costs down some more.
There is something that I want to share with you about electricity prices. The shadow minister talks about the price of electricity going up—and it is quite shocking how much the price of electricity has been going up in some of the states and territories. The carbon pricing legislation has not been introduced yet. Could it be that the state and territory governments are not running their electricity systems as well as they should be and that those price effects are affecting ordinary working Australians? Could it be that this is not a pre-emptive price increase related to the carbon tax?
I think that it is important to put on the public record the fact that our economy and jobs will continue to grow strongly under these clean energy bills. We estimate 1.6 million more jobs will be created by 2020. Treasury modelling shows that average incomes will continue to rise and they will be around $9,000 higher in 2020 and around $30,000 higher in 2050. Would you ever hear that from the opposition? No; they are in the business of going around and scaring the daylights out of people.
It is also worth having a look, I think, at the average price impact on an ordinary family. Independent Treasury modelling shows that pricing carbon pollution is expected to have a 0.7 per cent impact on the price of living. That is less than 1c for every dollar spent—not even 1c for every dollar spent. The shadow minister was here when the Howard government introduced a GST. What impact did the GST have on the price of living? The GST had a 2½ per cent impact on the price of living—more than three times the impact that pricing carbon is likely to have.
So when this 0.7 per cent impact happens after 1 July—which, mind you, is after the time that people have received their lump sums to help with the price impact—what will the price of Weet-Bix increase by? It will increase by 0.00024c per Weet-Bix. An $11 packet of mince will rise by 4c. A $3.75 fillet of ocean trout will increase by 1½c. The shadow minister was banging on about the price of a loaf of bread. Let us look at how much a loaf of bread will increase. I was going to say 'rise' but that would have been a bad joke, wouldn't it?
Sounds pretty crumby to me.
Thank you—it sounds crumby. The cost of a loaf of bread will rise 0.016c—less than one cent. Tim Tams will increase—
Government members interjecting—
I know some of my colleagues are very interested in this one. Tim Tams will increase by 0.012c per Tim Tam. So I think the colleagues are still going to be able to afford their Tim Tams.
I now need to turn to the impact that some of the opposition's previous policies had on ordinary working families, because this is a very serious matter. Those opposite have been crying crocodile tears—when every single day they were in government they were screwing down the wages and conditions of ordinary working families, taking money out of health care and undermining our public education system. The hypocrisy of that! Studies show that casual and part-time sales assistants lost an average of 12 per cent of earnings under Work Choices. AWAs were especially bad for women, with women working full time on AWAs taking home $87.40 per week less than workers on collective agreements. In 64 per cent of AWAs, annual leave loadings were cut; in 63 per cent, penalty rates were cut; in 52 per cent, shift work loadings were cut; in 51 per cent, overtime loadings were cut; and in 46 per cent, public holiday pay was cut. The hypocrisy of those opposite talking about how they feel about ordinary working families when everything they did in here was against their interests is astonishing.
And I remind people of their opposition now. They are opposed to pension increases that come out of the clean energy bills. They are opposed to family benefit increases coming out of these bills. They are opposed to investment in steel jobs, coal jobs and industry jobs that come out of these bills.
But, at the same time, what are they supporting? They are supporting the big mining companies against the mining communities that will benefit, against the workers who will get an increase in their superannuation and against the small businesses that will see their taxes cut because of the minerals resource rent tax. Who are they supporting when it comes to poker machines? They are supporting the big gambling interests against ordinary working families. Who are they supporting when it comes to tobacco advertising? They are supporting big, wealthy, multinational tobacco companies against the 15,000 Australians who die of smoking related illnesses every year. Do you know that the cigarette companies kill more people in Australia than they employ here every year? Guess whose side the opposition are on on that one! Every single time they are for the interests of the big guy against the little guy. What we saw yesterday continues their opposition to a clean environment and continues their opposition to investing in our clean energy future. And what will happen if they get in and reverse—as they say they will—these tax cuts? They will reverse the pension increases; they will reverse the industry assistance. They will put a million people back into the tax system who have had their tax-free threshold tripled. They will drop their tax-free threshold. We know they will not do that. We know that they will never have the courage to do what they claim they are going to do, and reverse this carbon tax. That is a good thing, because we need this clean energy future. (Time expired)
I think the title of the minister opposite who gave that atrocious speech is 'minister for inclusion'. She began by abusing families who are in certain sections of the community, saying that they were not considered because of her perception—and if I counted together her salary and that of her husband's I think she would be so way outside of an average family I do not think she would know what one is. But the point that I want to make here and now is that yesterday we voted against a carbon tax which was placed upon the Australian people and will penalise families.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on an objectionable comment by the member for Mackellar. It is the practice in this place that we do not bring ministers' or any other members' partners into the public debate. I ask that it be withdrawn.
I advise the honourable member that there is no point of order. I was not aware that there was actually a disparaging comment made with respect to the minister's husband.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Order! The member for Mackellar will remain silent. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.
Yesterday we voted against a big, harsh, punitive, toxic tax which will implicate and impact on every family in this country. Unlike the goods and services tax, which the government likes to compare their carbon tax to, we took that tax to an election and asked the people for a mandate to implement it.
Before the election, the Prime Minister, who runs away from every censure motion like a coward, in fact said that there would be no carbon tax by any government she would lead. Six weeks after being elected, she announced we would have a carbon tax—not because she was intending to take it to the Australian people as we did with the goods and services tax, but because she had stitched up a deal where the Greens were very much part of her decision to implement this tax. She will hang onto power at any cost to the Australian people.
We have said that we will abolish that tax—and we will. The carbon tax is for the Labor Party what Work Choices was for us. The Labor Party said they would abolish Work Choices, and they did. We have said we will abolish their carbon tax, and we will. The important point to make is this: the carbon tax has no exemptions. It is a cascading and compounding tax which gets into the nook and cranny of every aspect of everybody's life.
The fact of the matter is that unlike the GST, which is a value added tax whereby with the tax that is paid on transactions between the creation of a good or service and its final consumption there is a refund of the tax paid. This carbon tax will have the tax paid at every transaction and it will be a tax paid on a tax paid on a tax paid on a tax. It compounds and it is cascading.
It will affect everybody every time they turn on a light switch, turn on air conditioning, buy ice cream at the supermarket, use the sewerage system, use the water system or get on a train. It will impact on every form of public transport. It is said that there is no carbon tax on petrol for the family car, but the tax will be the electricity that is used to run that petrol station. It is a tax on electricity because it is an artificial hike in the price in the energy source which produces electricity in this country for 90 per cent of our needs.
Coal fired power stations are the cheapest way of producing electricity. The market says so. The market has said this is the price. That is why so many other countries around the world want to buy our coal. It is because they too want to have cheap electricity. What this tax does is put an artificial domestic tariff on the cost of coal to force up its price to attempt to make other forms of energy sourcing competitive.
To call it a market based mechanism is to distort the language beyond belief, but the facts that we are seeing are that the government says that by its tax it will injure the Australian people; it will injure Australian families. It will particularly injure senior Australians because they are on fixed incomes, where the latitude for disposable income shrinks every time the cost of the essentials rises. Electricity, gas and food are all part of those essential costs.
The government, in its printed documentation, says that it will injure families to the tune of $9.90 a week. That is what their modelling shows. And then they come in with some other modelling and say, 'We will compensate you for the injury we cause you $10.10 a week.' Twenty cents is what this government, who cannot even get its projections on a budget accurate, says it can model down to for compensation to make you so-called 'better off'.
And that is on a price of $23 a tonne, but in fact it will rise to $29 a tonne and $36 a tonne. Ultimately it will go to $350 a tonne in 2050. It will require $3.5 billion to be spent overseas buying abatement certificates. That is $3.5 billion every year that will not be available in this country for manufacturing, retail or the jobs that Australians can normally expect would be created. By the time we get to 2050 it will be $57 billion annually. This is money that belongs in this country for our people. It is our obligation under our constitution to give the Australian people peace, welfare and good government. That is our responsibility—not to penalise people because the government of the day thinks that it somehow can create a tax which it says will then keep it in power.
If we look at how people are going to be affected, you heard my colleague the member for Menzies outline in his address examples—cameos—of families and how they will be impacted. They were not high fliers like the Minister for Social Inclusion. These were ordinary folks. She scoffed at them because they were a family who worked hard and could earn up to $160,000 a year. That is somehow outrageous, according to her. It could be a nurse and a policeman. It could be a teacher married to another teacher. It is ordinary families who are scoffed at as not counting by the minister for so-called 'inclusion'. If we are to be truly concerned about inclusion, which is where we come from, then everybody in our community is to be considered valuable and part of our community. Every opportunity should have the right and the opportunity to aspire to a better life, and it is our obligation to set the scene whereby through their hard work and their effort they can maximise the result of their hard work and their effort. It is not to be scoffed at by the minister for inclusion. I think she would probably be more aptly named the minister for exclusion.
But let us go back to what we did yesterday. On the vote on the second reading of the tax bills it was 74 to 73. When we went to the final vote we were missing one vote on our side because we had had somebody suspended for one day. But the fact of the matter is that, of the people who were elected in this chamber, all but the Green went to the last election saying there would be no carbon tax. The only way we can have any honesty in this place is for the government of the day to take this to an election and let the people speak. When the people came into this chamber yesterday, they were the people who the Leader of the House called 'the people of no consequence'. They were the people who came and showed their willingness to stand up for what they believe in. Let's have an election. (Time expired)
Yesterday we in this parliament did what parliaments before had been singularly unable to do. After 35 parliamentary inquiries, after scientific evidence had said for years that we needed to do something in relation to climate change, presented with a bipartisan climate change target of cutting emissions by five per cent by 2020, we had been able to do something that had eluded both sides of politics: set in place a series of measures that would deliver to this country a cleaner energy future. We would do it in a way that would ensure that the biggest companies in this country, with the biggest—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put. The House divided. [16:24]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
As the House adjourns today, and as members from the government file out to the caucus to determine where they may now go in terms of their failed border protection policy that they did not have the courage to bring into this House today, I think we all reflect on the absolute mess that the government have created of asylum policy and border protection policy in this country. As they file away to their government room to sit there and work out where to go next, the question that they have always had before them is: where could they ever go at all?
This is the government that just over a year ago ditched its former Prime Minister and put in a new Prime Minister who said boldly that Labor had 'lost its way'. What we have seen in this place today is that not only has Labor not found its way but it has lost its compass and has no hope of finding its way at all. This is incredibly disturbing because this is a very significant issue. This is an issue that this Prime Minister staked her prime ministership upon. And after failure and failure and failure, this Prime Minister now scurries out of this House for the second time on a Thursday afternoon when the Migration Act amendments were to be considered in this place.
Last time we were in this place on a Thursday a few weeks ago, the same thing happened: the government had the opportunity to have a vote and they scurried away. On this occasion they have the same opportunity and they have scurried away. They have collapsed their tent because their policy has collapsed and now they sit huddled under a blanket in the government party room just looking at each other and going: 'What next?' And if it is anything like what has gone before, the Australian people can be very concerned because what has gone before has been an abysmal failure. It has been cost, it has been chaos and it has been tragedy under this government's failed border protection policies.
The Prime Minister wanted to take the name of every single member who sits in this House and record how they voted on the Migration Act amendments. No names will be recorded today. All the names are there to be recorded on this matter. All said they wanted to have their names recorded. They are all huddled in the government party room, just sitting around looking at one another saying, 'How did we get here?' I will tell you how they got here, Mr Speaker. They got here because when this government was elected around four years ago it was egged on to abolish the proven and successful policies of the Howard government. That is what happened. They were egged on to do that and they thought they had got themselves into a position where they could right the wrongs of the Howard government's policies. In so doing they have brought on more than their worst nightmare.
I think it is important that we understand in this place that, as culpable as the current Prime Minister is—who just over a year ago took on the mantle of solving this problem and has only made it worse—we must acknowledge that it was the former Prime Minister that set this whole ball rolling. That was a Prime Minister who likes to parade himself around this place and all around the country, trailing his coat in defiance of his own leader, as the new Lazarus of Australian politics. He is no new Lazarus of Australian politics; he is the Freddy Krueger of Australian politics. And if he returns to the prime ministership the nightmare will continue with the Freddy Krueger of Australian politics, who is the former Prime Minister—a nightmare that just rolled into another nightmare when the current Prime Minister took over the reins and was unable to get to a position of remedying any of the ills of the former Prime Minister. So it does not matter who is in charge of Labor. It does not matter how often you shuffle the Labor deck, you always pull out a Joker.
We on this side of the House are ready to vote on the Migration Act amendment bill. We are ready to have our names recorded for good policy, not bad policy; for proven policy, not failed policy. We are here to have our names recorded to ensure that the protections that existed in the Migration Act are preserved and the offshore processing that we successfully put in place as a government can be done again. We know that we will be able to do that regardless of what happens with this bill.
The government today sit in shambles, huddled together in their government party room, hiding from this chamber, hiding from the Australian people. Yesterday they were in a fit of self-congratulation. Today they are in a fit of despair because they have not only lost their way, they will never find it. (Time expired)
I rise to speak this afternoon about the Bell Bay port, which is situated in my electorate of Bass, and the decision by TasPorts and the former Burnie Port to restrict shipping out of Bell Bay. A deep water port in George Town is vital for business confidence and TasPorts needs to give a firm commitment to the Bell Bay port. The operation of the Bell Bay port is essential for the survival and growth of numerous northern Tasmanian businesses and, for that matter, Tasmanian businesses generally. Having to transport goods to Burnie to be shipped out adds great costs to businesses, especially those in areas that are already suffering from things such as the forestry downturn in Tasmania, thus affecting their viability. I recently met with mayors and general managers in my electorate and the Bell Bay port was one of the main issues that they raised with me. None of them wanted to see the shipping stopped out of Bell Bay and all felt strongly that the long-term viability of the port and commitment by TasPorts for Bell Bay is vital for the business community of Tasmania.
International shipping out of the port ceased in March this year, causing a sharp increase in costs for Tasmanian businesses. They now have to ship goods via Melbourne and from there internationally. This recent move has now seen a greater increase in costs for businesses who are being forced to freight their goods to Burnie, then to Melbourne, and internationally via the international port in Melbourne—a very long and expensive business. The continued operation of the Bell Bay port is vital for the redevelopment and redirection of north-eastern Tasmania. This region has been hit hard by the forestry downturn, associated closures and job losses and, prior to this, the closure of Bonlac dairy manufacturers in 2000, the Simplot vegetable factory in 2003 and the Auspine sawmill after that.
For the businesses in north-east Tasmania that remain competitive, the operation of the Bell Bay port is vital. They cannot be hit with yet another setback. To transport goods to Burnie for shipping adds a huge cost, and one that a lot of these local businesses cannot financially bear. Shipping from Bell Bay must remain for Tasmania's future. Imagine the extra cost of sending containers, as some do now, from Bell Bay to Burnie and then on to the mainland. This is a burden that manufacturers should not have to bear.
As a result of the Burnie Port Authority deal with Toll, the fairness of shipping in Tasmania has gone out the window. I have in the past called, and I do so again, on TasPorts to give the same deal to any shipper who wants to use the port at Bell Bay. Unfortunately, due to the distorted market caused by this artificial deal, the whole shipping industry in Tasmania has to pay for this unacceptable deal. There should be two major container ports in Tasmania—that is, Burnie and Bell Bay. I call on TasPorts to offer Toll and any other shipper the same deal at Bell Bay as they have at Burnie. TasPorts needs to contemplate the future of shipping for Tasmania and plan for optimum shipping both internationally and nationally, and they should acknowledge that Bell Bay has the potential for greater volumes and better business for manufacturers in Tasmania. Unfortunately, this is unlikely given the present commercial arrangements TasPorts inherited with Toll. There is only one viable solution and that is to provide the same deal at Bell Bay as is provided at Burnie.
The Bathurst 1000, one of the nation's biggest sporting events—in fact, one of the world's great car races—was held in Calare last week. The annual V8 supercar racing event this year saw nearly 180,000 people pass through the gates over the week and injected over $50 million into the local economy. The great race gives our region a significant boost in both money and tourism, and we are extraordinarily lucky to have such a magnificent event.
This year I again had the pleasure of attending the race courtesy of the Bathurst Regional Council. I would like to thank them not only for their hospitality but also for their work in organising all the off-track events. They really put on a great show in a great background. I would also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, for coming to the Bathurst 1000. Mr Abbott had nothing but praise for the event and the way it was held. He was extraordinarily impressed. Mr Abbott and I went up to the top of the mountain where the very serious race goers go. I have never in my life seen the sort of reception he got. The racegoers were lining up to be photographed with the Leader of the Opposition. I am talking about people who are not normally politically involved, but I can assure you they were very politically involved and lined up to shake the hand of the leader of the coalition. We need to understand that those racegoers realised that the carbon tax legislation passed yesterday is going to have an effect on all their lives.
It is a sad day when members feel that they have betrayed their electorates. As I said, the voting on the carbon tax yesterday will be remembered as the day that the Gillard Labor government broke faith with the Australian people. They cheered themselves over a broken promise. I can assure the House that the people who went to the Bathurst 1000 will remember that broken promise.
With the onset of a carbon tax, the staging of an event such as the Bathurst 1000 will increase significantly the costs to Bathurst Regional Council, the race organisers, the participants and the spectators. The cost of fuel, which is a somewhat essential input into the event, will particularly go through the roof. Everyone has to drive to the event—and, by and large, they do. This tax will be a real threat to one of the nation's biggest events. The passing of the ridiculous tax will threaten the livelihood of many in my electorate. Calare is an electorate of producers. We are not bludgers; we do things. We do not shuffle paper. We do not run around in circles. We makes things, we grow things, we mine things and we produce the energy everyone uses. We mine the coal, the iron ore and the gold. We are doers and we are going to suffer because of the tax. The people of regional Australia will be belted under this tax, families and business will be slugged, the cost of living will soar and jobs will be forced offshore. It will severely threaten the industries Calare relies on: mining, power, agriculture, forestry, transport and small business. It was strange to see the Prime Minister unable or unwilling to answer the question yesterday when asked, 'What was the effect on small businesses? There was no recompense for them.' And there is not.
It is a sad week for the people of Calare. Now they do not know where the government stands on immigration either, as they refused to put forward their own bill. In fact, one assumes they are off in caucus wondering how to get themselves out of a position that only Rudd and Gillard put us in. I can assure the people of Calare that I will not let this rest. The coalition—and the National Party—will not let this rest. The next election will be a referendum on Labor's carbon tax, even if it is in retrospect, and political integrity. The coalition will rescind this toxic tax in government and the people of Calare can rest assured about that.
It was interesting to hear the member for Cook, who spoke earlier, trying with the most distorted logic possible to justify the coalition's adherence to Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Brown with regard to the immigration policy. We have seen in the last week the way they have attempted to ensure that there will be more boats coming to this country. This is because of the desperate belief by the Leader of the Opposition that the more boats that come the longer that we do not have an effective policy to deter people. It is in the opposition's interest. People will become frustrated with the number of people claiming asylum in this manner. This is much, of course, in detriment to those people waiting in camps overseas. Unlike those who have onshore processing and can fight the government—Labor or Liberal—for two decades, with totally fallacious claims, people in offshore processing basically get a review by a departmental person. They are either rejected or approved and that is the end of the story.
Today I turn more particularly to the question of volunteers in my electorate in the context of the government's recent announcement of $50,000 worth of grants to local organisations. These drive home the reality that our society depends on volunteers, with people moving more frequently, relationships collapsing more quickly, people being affected by casualisation of the workforce et cetera and many organisations that are at the cliff face.
Among those who received money are the Prestons and Robert Townson schools' parents and citizens organisations, respectively led by parents Raymond Roscue and Christine Wright. From the federal government's funding they received materials such as filing cabinets, coolers, eskies, thermos flasks, et cetera. They both work towards special needs children—in the case of Prestons in particular—and community participation by Robert Townson. Amongst other groups that have received money are the Vietnamese Drug and Alcohol Professionals Incorporated, who seek to respond to local drug and alcohol problems and to foster a dialogue about the causes and impact of drug addiction in the Vietnamese community, most particularly. The Macquarie Fields Swimming Club, established in 1973, which provides opportunities for young people and families from three to 70 years of age received $5,000 for outdoor furniture.
Amongst other recipients were the Australian Uyghur Association—significantly refugees, fleeing suppression in China, of the Turkic minority—which received $4,800 towards a computer laptop and external hard-drive. The Eaglevale community centre—the speaker has been to that local school—and their Community Development Association received $5,000 towards a video camera and projectors. They are community based and their volunteers deliver a range of community services to benefit local residents and, more particularly, organise recreational activities. Glenquarie Anglican Church has a number of local initiatives—a men's shed, a community garden and community focused programs in general—and they received money towards a public address system. I particularly recognise Reverend Swanepoel.
Liverpool Titans Junior Rugby League Club was established in 2001 through the efforts of Darcey Brown and Scott Baverstock, who wanted to have rugby league in that region. They introduced to it a significant number of young people who earlier had no options in that direction and they have a number of people such as Kerri Booth, a Department of Education worker, Paul Doyan, Phil Dodd and Sandra Baverstock. They had to suffer a one-year preclusion period so they would not take children from other local clubs. They have certainly been very active in that sport in the Liverpool subregion.
Macarthur Triathlon Club was given $1,600 towards a barbecue. The club provides competitive swimming, cycling and running facilities for local people. The Liverpool Genealogy Society has a name that is a bit of a misnomer because they work beyond genealogy and into general local history of the Liverpool region. For those not from New South Wales, Liverpool was a very early settlement on the fringes of the city of Sydney. They are amongst those who received money. The Junction Works received about $4,000 for chairs and training courses et cetera.
I want to recognise these local organisations, the volunteers, who are all the more necessary in our society when we see our schools having to contract-out tuckshops, and we see difficulties in obtaining trainers and coaches of teams. Our society is only held together by these people and it is crucial that governments at all levels support their efforts.
The state of health services in my region is woeful. The Caboolture Hospital is the only health service in the region providing 24-hour care and it is simply not keeping up with the demand. I have spoken many times about the need for increased health services in our region. My electorate is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and our community has every right to expect adequate access to quality health services. Yet my office is contacted daily by people who have waited hours in the emergency department at Caboolture Hospital—people who are older, people with babies and people with mental illness. It is simply not good enough. Access to affordable health care is required, and required urgently, in order to relieve the pressure on the public health system.
I am looking forward to speaking in the debate about the reduction in the private health insurance rebate legislation. I am looking forward to speaking in more detail about the detrimental effect this policy decision by this Labor government will have on the hard-working Australians in my community. People need choice. It is this choice that is being denied through a series of woeful ideologically driven policy decisions made by successive state and federal Labor governments. The decisions being made on George Street in Brisbane and here in this place are not helping my community access the health care they need. In fact, they are making it much worse.
My community has directly raised their concerns about health with me at many public forums and listening posts I have regularly held around my electorate and with my office. I undertook to bring the concerns of my community to Canberra and I am keeping that promise by raising these issues again today. Most of the issues raised relate to the shortcomings of the Caboolture Hospital. My community is full of admiration for the great work that the doctors and nurses at the hospital do. However, they understand that they are under-resourced. Waiting times, unrealistic nursing workloads, insufficient funding, the services available to mental health patients, hospital administration and an onerous bureaucratic system are matters that are continually raised with me.
As I have mentioned before, the Department of Health and Ageing predicts that by 2026 this region's population is expected to reach some 200,000 people. Our region is a great place to live and people want to come here. We want to encourage that; we want to encourage growth. We want our community to be an attractive place to live. However, the services we have available need to keep up with the fast pace of growth. At present there are 187 beds available at the Caboolture Hospital and 21 bays in the emergency department. An estimated 600 beds and 52 emergency bays are required to service the region by 2026. The AMA Public Hospital Report Card states that last year the Caboolture Hospital 'operated on average at over 100 per cent occupancy, showing significant overstressing of capacity'. A safe occupancy rate is on average only 85 per cent. It is clear that even now the Caboolture Hospital is unable to cope with current population demands on its services. This needs to be redressed immediately.
It is in the context of being committed to the improvement of access to health services in my community that I would like to provide in principle support for the establishment of a small primary care facility on Bribie Island. It is great to support a community driven solution to a community problem. I wish to share a story about some locals who are taking action into their own hands. I was recently contacted by an organisation that is seeking to establish a facility that will provide a range of services. These services include the provision of day surgical applications, such as that for skin lesions; a wound management clinic; palliative care services through cooperative relationships with community groups and/or the Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local; rehabilitation services; short-term, acute care monitored by local GPs; and, most importantly, after-hours care.
I am happy to support a service designed to increase the access of the community of Longman to medical services. On Bribie Island in particular, there are many elderly people who would benefit from such a service. The drive from Bribie Island to Caboolture Hospital takes approximately 30 minutes. I am sure that many residents of the island would be reassured by having access to such care closer to home. I am pleased to hear about the initiatives of locals. No doubt, this will be a fantastic service to our community. Our local community desperately needs better health services, and we need to start planning for the future now.
Sometimes I worry a little bit about the levels of freedom and democracy that are taken for granted in this country. We are often caught up in the trappings of political debate and the trivialities that are sometimes associated with that. We fortunately live in a country that has basic human rights. We live in a country that respects democracy and celebrates freedom. Regrettably, that is not something that all countries honour or respect.
Many of the constituents in my electorate come from a refugee background. Many fled their homelands on the basis of persecution, deprivation of human rights or because the freedoms that they previously enjoyed were trampled by incoming regimes.
Today it would like to draw attention to one of those groups: the plight of the Laotian community. They have faced a dreadful ordeal over the last 35 years. I was made aware of their issues when I recently received a letter from the Royal Lao Government in Exile. This incredible organisation stands for the independence and liberty of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, formally known as the Kingdom of Laos. They are an incredible group of people who are unwavering in their commitment to restoring democracy and peace in Laos and seek to protect and liberate the citizens of their country from the oppressive regime of the Communist Party.
The Lao People's Democratic Republic has a tragic and distressing history. In April 1947, the national assembly passed the democratic constitution that stresses that all who are born in Lao are free citizens and have equal rights. Despite the Lao National Assembly never declaring war on a foreign country, in April 1953, 6,000 North Vietnamese troops invaded the eastern borders of the country and since 1975 have enforced communist rule. Under this tyranny, the peaceful people of Lao have not only had their right to self-determination and personal freedoms trampled but have been forced to witness the brutal murder of their beloved king, queen, prince and all members of the royal Loa family, alongside at least 200,000 innocent people. These events are, by any standards, truly horrific.
The Royal Lao Government in Exile works to lead Lao back to a true future that upholds the democratic constitution. In addition to this phenomenal work, they do what a real government should do: they support and facilitate the development of the Lao people's health, education, culture and economy. It is groups like these that inspire and empower us to fight for human rights. This group has not cowered under the threat and fear of death that continues to prevail in their society. They work tirelessly for the restoration of democracy in their homeland. This is a group of inspirational individuals. I am very proud to work closely with the Laotian community living here in Australia. It is terribly troubling that these issues sometimes go unreported, given the fact that these are very serious issues of human rights abuses.
House adjourned at 17:00
This year the Australian Red Cross has launched its campaign to raise awareness of the horrific humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. It is a campaign of great consequence, as we all know of the absolute destruction these weapons can cause. One of the most iconic images from history is undoubtedly the ruined Hiroshima peace dome standing alone amid the destruction of the city.
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have been at the heart of the issue of nuclear weapons from the outset of the debate. By continuing to raise their grave concerns, and through their role in developing international humanitarian law, the movement contributed to the creation of additional protocols to the Geneva conventions in 1977. These protocols strengthen the distinction between civilians and combatants and reaffirm a commitment to no unnecessary harm being caused to civilians during times of war. Of course the destruction caused by nuclear weapons means that they fail to meet this principle.
There is a growing global interest in nuclear disarmament, with the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom reaffirming their 'responsibility to take concrete and credible steps toward irreversible disarmament' at a United Nations conference on nuclear weapons in May last year. This is positive, and the International Committee of the Red Cross and other bodies associated with disarmament should be commended for their work in both helping to ensure increasing interest as well as capitalising on the commitment from the P5 of the United Nations Security Council.
Our world does not want to contemplate nuclear war. It must have faith that diplomacy can overcome such a threat, as it did during the Cuban missile crisis. Our leaders must focus on the devastating humanitarian costs, as the Red Cross does, and remember that a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. Its path of destruction includes civilians, hospitals, doctors, land for farming, food and water. A nuclear bomb not only wipes out a city; it also wipes out so much more. As the Vice-President of the ICRC, Christine Beerli, noted;
... the debate about nuclear weapons must be conducted not only on the basis of military doctrines and power politics but also on the basis of public health and human security.
Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.
These are compelling words. We cannot have this debate without considering the humanitarian costs, but neither can we ignore the world in which we live—the instability, uncertainty and threats which lie within our anarchistic international system. Should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation willing to use it, the consequences would be devastating. That is why the reaffirmation of the P5 last year was important and why I commend the International Committee of the Red Cross for continuing its cause. The sentiment among nations is against the threat or use of nuclear weaponry, and this has been increasing for some time. From the International Court of Justice decision in 1994, which said:
There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control
to the five-point plan on nuclear disarmament submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2007, we see the recognition and abhorrence of nuclear war. I commend the ICRC and other bodies associated with this cause and I too hope to see nuclear weapons become part of our past, not of our future. (Time expired)
Recently I had the opportunity to talk with representatives of the councils of Kingston, Frankston, Dandenong and Bayside in Melbourne's south-east about the Gillard government's clean energy future plan. Many municipalities, including the councils in my electorate, Greater Dandenong, Frankston and Kingston, have already undertaken detailed planning on the implications of climate change for their communities and are taking measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Councils across Australia understand that they need to protect assets and infrastructure in the event of sea level rises and with the increased risk of bushfires. They are giving excellent service to their ratepayers by strategically planning for the future.
This is a particular concern for residents living in Kingston, from Mentone to Carrum, with many residents living within a few hundred metres of the sea. Councils understand that the time for talking about climate change has long passed and it is time to take action. If we do not act on climate change, the implications will be significant. It is time for the opposition to treat the bipartisan target of a five per cent reduction in the 2000 level of carbon emissions seriously and give local governments some certainty. It was great to join with councillors of all political persuasions, council staff and executive officers to answer questions about the Clean Energy Future plan and talk about what councils are doing on the ground. It was also an opportunity to clear up the misinformation spread by the opposition and detail the assistance that will be provided to ratepayers through the Household Assistance Package, the support for businesses across the country and the opportunities available to councils under the Carbon Farming Initiative, the Community Energy Efficiency Program and the Low Income Energy Efficiency Program. Local government has shown tremendous leadership in taking action on climate change. I would like to thank Kingston, Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Bayside councils for participating in the discussions on climate change and for taking the initiative to work towards a clean energy future for their ratepayers.
Last week I also conducted the first of my 2011 seniors morning teas. The morning tea was held last Wednesday at the Mentone RSL and it was a fantastic opportunity to catch up with many constituents. A feature of my seniors morning teas is the fact that politics is usually left at the door and community members have the opportunity to get together for a cup of tea and be entertained by students from nearby schools. The students also valued the opportunity to entertain the older members of our community. The next morning tea I am holding is tomorrow, at the Lyrebird Community Centre in Carrum Downs, with Chelsea, Edithvale and Noble Park morning teas not too far away. I would like to particularly thank one of my volunteers, Graham Malcolm, for attending the Mentone RSL and assisting members of my electorate staff to conduct what was an excellently-held morning tea, and I thank the staff of the Mentone RSL as well.
It has been 1,936 days since Israeli Army staff sergeant Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas raiders coming across the border from Gaza—1,936 days as a bargaining chip in the hands of terrorist murderers. Gilad was taken whilst on Israeli soil, but only the delusionally naive would expect such technicalities of international law to matter to Hamas jihadists who reject the very existence of Israel. Gilad was captured while in uniform and, at the very least, should have been accorded the rights of a bona fide prisoner of war, but only the delusionally naive would think that Hamas jihadists who send suicide bombers to blow up cafes would care about the Geneva conventions. So throughout his long captivity, Gilad has been denied visitation by the Red Cross and regular communication with his family. He has been denied the privileges and protections that are his right under international law.
Yesterday, we finally heard of some great news. We heard of a prisoner swap deal that should bring Gilad home within a few days. Jerusalem will release 1,027 Hamas terrorists in order to gain the return of this lone Israeli captive. Think about that for a moment: that is a ratio of over 1,000 to one. Think about what this deal says about the respective value placed on human life by the two sides of this conflict. On the one hand you have jihadist terrorists who deliberately try to murder the innocent; on the other you have a society that will let over 1,000 of those same terrorist murderers go just to bring home one of its own soldiers. Hamas is dedicated not only to Israel's destruction but to the slaughter of every Jew on the planet. It is a barbaric movement whose terrorist tactics are only exceeded by its genocidal strategy. So while Israel can do a prisoner swap deal with Hamas, as it is right to do, it should never be pressured to negotiate with terrorists who have shown that their definition of peace with Jews is the peace of the graveyard.
I rise today to pay tribute to Lyndhurst Secondary College. Recently they were named Victorian secondary school winner in the Australian government's 2011 Anzac Day school awards. Lyndhurst Secondary College is one of only 18 schools around the country to be awarded. I congratulate Lyndhurst College on its excellent achievement. These annual awards are a great way for schools to showcase initiatives and honour the service and sacrifice of our veterans and current serving members each Anzac Day. Recently the school celebrated this achievement with a whole-of-school assembly, which I attended. I presented the school with a commemorative plaque and an award which included $1,000 in prize money. The awards are funded under the Australian government's Saluting Their Service commemorations program. Receiving the award on behalf of the school was Nicole Scott. Dandenong-Cranbourne RSL representatives John Richardson and Barry Rodgers were in attendance, as was Phil White from the Vietnam Veterans Association of Victoria.
The outstanding entry featured a wide variety of learning activities that included writing letters to ex-students currently serving in the Australian Defence Force, a visit to the Shrine of Remembrance and a talk from a member of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Victoria.
The year 11 students also organised a respectful and traditional Anzac Day service, with guests from the Cranbourne RSL. It should be noted that Lyndhurst College sends students to remembrance ceremonies at the Cranbourne cenotaph on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day; they are always noticed.
The event was particularly significant for year 12 house captain Jayden Lynch-Cooper. Jayden presented the Ode for the ANZAC ceremony and helped the year 7s write letters of support to active members of the Defence Force. According to Jayden, 'it was great to see people from all walks of life at the ceremony, including veterans who have demonstrated the colourful aspects of service life'. Jayden plans on joining the Australian Defence Force Academy next year, and I wish him and all graduates who are joining the defence forces the very best with their endeavours.
Manmeet Kaur, another school captain, said that the ceremony was a very patriotic one: 'Learning about the significance of Anzac Day is important. This award is great for Lyndhurst Secondary'.
I would encourage all local schools in my electorate of Holt to consider sharing how they honour our past and present service men and women and to enter next year's Anzac Day Schools Awards. In closing, again I would like to again congratulate Lyndhurst Secondary College for their efforts in this year's Anzac Day School Awards.
I have said repeatedly in this place and elsewhere, particularly in my electorate, that young people in my area are often criticised in the local papers. If something incorrect is done, they are front and centre, but very often the service that students like those at Lyndhurst Secondary College do and give to the community is never appropriately acknowledged. I hope that this statement in this place goes in some way to rectifying that imbalance.
Recently, I met with members of Blue Mountains veterans groups, who raised with me the challenge they face in finding and funding premises suitable for meetings, training, administration and advocacy on behalf of the veterans community in the mountains.
Many veterans organisations, and even the DVA itself, currently use Legacy House at Springwood for meetings, training and a variety of purposes. These organisations have combined under a hub arrangement through a memorandum of understanding with Legacy to meet the criteria for funding under BEST. Legacy House in Springwood is ideal as a veterans meeting and advocacy hub, but there are urgent lease issues which need to be resolved. They have been told they cannot have money for an operating lease but that the department is happy to pay out the lease. It seems incongruous to me that the DVA is happy to provide funds to pay out the lease so that the veterans groups can move to other premises—if they could find them—but are not prepared to pay to secure the premises for the next few years, a more effective use of limited funds.
As at March 2010 the Blue Mountains veterans community includes 2,208 DVA beneficiaries, two RAAF bases—several thousand personnel—and many ex-service personnel and their families who access the services that the veterans groups provide. The Blue Mountains veterans, ex-service personnel and serving personnel constitute a defined community of interest. Much of the funding support for veterans organisations comes from the Department of Veterans' Affairs program Building Excellence in Support in Training, BEST, but funding has been progressively scaled back by the Labor government. The government justifies the reduction in funding by saying that there are fewer veterans every year and, therefore, funding is being reduced proportionately. Perhaps if the Labor government were not so reckless with their spending there might have been adequate funding available to assist veterans. A review into BEST and TIP funding was undertaken, and I note that on page 25 of the 2010 review report it states:
Of course, the Review team acknowledges that there will likely always be the need to provide BEST support for smaller ESOs in more isolated areas where limited local funding or other support is available.
In the Blue Mountains there are limited opportunities for meeting room accommodation and limited opportunities to raise local funds. I call on the minister to consider the Blue Mountains veterans community on a case-by-case basis and to assist them with adequate, long-term funding to secure tenure in Legacy House at Springwood. This will give the veterans community somewhere permanent and suitable to conduct their services. They do the work in the community that the government does not do, and they should be supported. Why should these veterans, after making such sacrifices, now have to battle with the Labor government to achieve something so simple?
During my time as shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the coalition committed an additional $7.5 million to BEST. The Labor government cut $8 million from the funding, making it so much harder for veterans organisations in the circumstances I have described above to continue their outstanding work on behalf of veterans, ex-service and serving personnel and their families.
I rise today to speak in support of those people in McEwen who have contacted me in relation to the government's plan for pollution reduction. From Woodend to Warburton, from Epping to Eildon and all points in between, many people have contacted me supporting the idea of protecting our environment and giving our kids a cleaner future. No matter where I travel across the electorate, I am very proud to see people looking beyond the ranting headlines that we see in some newspapers, and instead looking at the legislation that we passed in the House and at what we are doing and what we are aiming to achieve. I think this speaks volumes for the intelligence of the people of McEwen, who take the time to actually look and plan and see what we are doing about ensuring we get a better, cleaner future for our kids.
Many of the people I have spoken to are quite perplexed that both sides of politics have the same target in emissions reduction but that only one side is actually doing it by making sure that those who pollute pay; versus taking money from families to support the polluters. They know that nine in 10 households will receive assistance through tax cuts or payment increases and that everyone earning up to $80,000 a year will get a tax cut. For most people it is quite substantial: $300 to $400.
We also know there are issues for young people who live in rural areas having access to decently paid jobs. The government lifting the tax-free threshold gives these young people an opportunity to earn more money and invest that money in helping them travel—as we need to do in regional areas to find good paid work closer to places like Melbourne.
The pensioners we have spoken to and sat down with and gone through the clean energy website with have all been very impressed with the way they are going to be supported by this government. To some people, earning an extra $500 a year helps them, while they know that they are doing their bit to ensure that Australia's future is cleaner and that their grandkids and their great-grandkids are going to have a better future and a more stable environment. As I said, it speaks volumes for the intellect of the argument.
I really must put on the record how shocked I was when I was watching the television last night—at some of the people who were ejected from the parliamentary galleries yesterday and the language that was used about our Prime Minister. I think it shows that these intellectually bereft people have got no idea what they are talking about. To attack the Prime Minister—the words that were used on the news last night—was an absolute disgrace and does nothing for the argument that they are putting forward.
I was appalled to see this orgy of self-congratulation amongst the Gillard government and Labor members as the carbon tax package of bills passed through the House of Representatives. It was quite startling to see the joy, the cheering, the self-praise being shared amongst Labor ministers and Labor members of parliament on the back of assuring the Australian public that there would be no carbon tax under a government the Prime Minister led. The lack of reflection or regret from the government about the vivid contrast between what was said to the Australian public and what actually occurred was a sight that I had not seen before in my time in public life. I have never seen a betrayal of that character.
What about when the GST went through?
Order! The honourable member for Shortland will have her opportunity if she seeks the call.
The GST actually went to the electorate. The GST was outlined in great detail. Its impact was analysed to within an inch of its life. It was taken to the Australian public. There was an election campaign fought on that very issue and the electorate actually had a chance to have their say.
Yet yesterday not only were the bills passed by a Labor government against their explicit assurances to the Australian public but Labor members and government ministers also chose not to offer some shred of credibility back to their electorates by supporting the opposition's amendment, which would have seen those bills not enacted until after the next election and the sitting of the parliament. The proclamation would, therefore, have been deferred until after the Australian public actually had had a vote. So they told people the wrong thing, did something completely different and then denied the people a chance to actually have their say. That seems to be the Labor way.
But it gets worse, and adds insult to injury. The harm and hardship that Australian small businesses will face has been captured in this Castalia report, which is an independent analysis of the Australian approach to reducing carbon. Other countries in the world that are taking action—and most are not taking action—have government sponsored direct action initiatives, very much like what the coalition proposed, rather than concentrating on the SME sector, as would be the case in Australia. The report makes the point that the hardship and harm of this carbon tax, the financial pain, will land on small- to medium-sized enterprises.
To add insult to injury we now have the government tasking the ACCC to gag small businesses from informing consumers about the impact of the carbon tax. The parliamentary secretary opposite, who is responsible or at least is the figurehead of the ACCC, has under-resourced the ACCC and told them to tell any small business that puts their prices up by more than 0.7 per cent that they are price gouging. They are threatening them with a $1.1 million fine while not ever doing the actual analysis to evaluate the impact and make sure they have facts on which to wave this big waddy around. (Time expired)
I want to talk about a very successful community cabinet that was held in my electorate last Monday evening. The community cabinet was held at the brand-new Kingston High School. Twelve government executive members were in my electorate. It was a fabulous event. More than 350 people turned up to the community cabinet. I am proud to say that we also hold the record for the fastest registrations and fill up. My understanding is that we had 150 registrations for the community cabinet in the first three hours. This goes to show how keen members of my local community are to engage with government.
Certainly the one-on-one meetings were a sell-out. Members of my community and the broader southern Tasmanian community had a great opportunity to have one-on-one meetings on specific issues with the ministers. During the broader forum we were also able to ask questions of the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers. A broad range of questions were asked on the national road toll to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, education for children with disabilities, foreign affairs, overseas aid, immunisations, Regional Development Australia projects, thermal pools, climate change, health issues and the NBN. A whole broad range of issues were raised with ministers.
I want to thank the ministers who did that day in the electorate and stayed the next day to do a range of community events. A broad range of events were held in my electorate and the neighbouring electorates over those two days. I am pleased about two in particular. The NBN was rolled out in Kingston with the Prime Minister. To hold the fibre cable and roll it out along one of the streets in my electorate was a fabulous experience. I was really pleased to be able to do that.
I also did a great event with the Assistant Treasurer and Anglicare on payday lenders. That is obviously a big issue, particularly in low-socioeconomic areas in my electorate. We were able to talk about what the government are doing in relation to payday lenders and in my own portfolio what we are doing in terms of other options and finance options for people who find themselves in difficult situations and having a cash flow issue. The next day, with Minister Roxon, we were able to open the PET scanner at the Royal Hobart Hospital. It was an election commitment that I made in 2007, with then member for Denison Duncan Kerr, to have a PET scanner—the first PET scanner in a public hospital in Tasmania. It was fabulous to be there for that. That obviously did take some time to build, because they needed a new lead-lined bunker and it has taken a long time to get all the lead in to build this specific facility at the Royal Hobart Hospital. So thank you to all those ministers who came to my electorate.
I rise to highlight the kind of issue you would expect to find in the Third World. We have charitable and humanitarian Australian organisations working in various parts of the world to supply safe drinking water to less fortunate citizens. That is how unfortunate the citizens of Bowen must feel in my electorate of Dawson. This North Queensland town was once supposed to be the capital of Queensland, but Brisbane beat it to it. Now it is the capital of filthy, dirty, disgusting and unsafe drinking water. I have with me here a small sample of water from Bowen. This is not some sludge dredged up from a sewer or waste from an industrial site. This is the drinking water that the Whitsunday Regional Council and its mayor, Mike Brunker—who was a Labor candidate in the 2010 election for the electorate of Dawson—are pumping through homes in Bowen. It is not the kind of water that you would want to wash your clothes in, it is not the kind of water that you would want to make a cup of tea with, and it is certainly not the kind of water you would give your kids to drink. This is a sample from a household tap in Bowen.
The owner of the Bowen Village Caravan Park, Mr Russell Cook—who gave me this sample—is deeply concerned about the repeated supply of this disgusting liquid. His customers who have the misfortune to visit during a dirty water event go away with a bad taste in their mouths, whether they drink the water or not. He refers to these incidents as 'dirty water events' in an email to me, and I quote:
A significant "dirty" water event on the 21st September … occurred throughout the day. Samples taken from taps at 5:00am, 8:30am and 4:15pm showed that the drinking water breached the health limits of Australian Drinking Water Standards by 12,980 per cent, 2,720 per cent and 6,680 per cent respectively. All tests were carried out by a reputable NATA certified laboratory.
He goes on to say that the council knew that they were supplying unsafe water, as they rang him the night before to warn him of this event. So the Whitsunday Regional Council and Mayor Mike Brunker are in absolute denial. They claim that the water is not unsafe, just dirty. But it is unsafe. It is very unsafe; the bottle shows that. I would challenge anyone to actually drink that. The fact that they are trying it is reprehensible. I am advised that supplying this water to residents could be in breach of several pieces of legislation in Queensland, so I am writing to the office of water supply to ask that they investigate this matter to see if there have been breaches. The council need to answer for this disgusting water that they are giving residents.
While Mr Speaker has discouraged the inappropriate use of props, I do not consider that the honourable member for Dawson has breached that ruling when he held up what looks from here to be a half-consumed bottle of Coca-Cola.
On 2 September, the city of Penrith was 'painted REaD', with over 600 local children gathering to read, rhyme, sing and talk with the most famous kangaroo in Penrith, Rooby Roo. This occasion marked the Paint Penrith REaD initiative's second annual reading day, which began with a show at Centrebet Stadium followed by a reading hunt at Centro Nepean, where I happily read a book to an excited young audience.
The Paint Penrith REaD initiative aims to highlight the importance of supporting the early literacy skills of children from birth through reading, rhyming, singing and talking. Paint Penrith REaD has had a short but powerful presence in the Lindsay electorate, taking us by storm in just two years. Rooby Roo is now a household name in our local community, synonymous with bringing reading, imagination and interaction into the lives of our youngest and most impressionable community members.
I am extremely grateful that Rhonda Brain, creator of the Paint the Town REaD initiative, has shared her vision with our local community. Rhonda started this initiative 14 years ago, following her career as a primary school principal in Parkes. During that time she noticed a trend of delayed language development amongst young students. Since then, she has built this very successful literacy project, which operates widely throughout New South Wales. I would like to recognise the hard work and dedication of the Paint Penrith REaD team and the army of volunteers who support this cause. Firstly, I acknowledge Barbie Bates, who has played an instrumental role in building the presence of this project both in Penrith and throughout the Western Sydney region. Barbie and her team have spent countless hours hosting reading days and pyjama parties and visiting various community events. I thank them for their tireless dedication.
I acknowledge Mission Australia and in particular Families NSW team leader Julie Jasprizza-Laus and services manager Neryl Liston, who each play important roles supporting this project through the strategic working group and coordinating events. I also thank Penrith City Council and the board of the Children's Services Cooperative, in particular board director Janet Keegan and Karen van Woudenberg. Their strong support and commitment to this initiative has been invaluable.
Ahead of the annual reading day, I was also fortunate enough to MC Paint Penrith REaD's conference dinner, affectionately known as the Annual Bugs Convention. This year's function featured fantastic performances from Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School, the Riverland Harmony Chorus and an address from Dr Matt Finch, an impressive speaker with a passionate commitment to literacy development.
The sky is the limit for this fantastic community initiative. In such a short period of time, Paint Penrith REaD has had an enormous influence in my local community and I am confident that in time this influence will spread right across Australia. I look forward to working with Rhonda Brain and her team to help further promote and expand this project, with a possible event to be held in Parliament House next year already in the works.
I once again thank the dedicated team behind the Paint Penrith REaD initiative and I look forward to seeing them, along with Rooby Roo, hopping throughout Penrith and nurturing early literacy skills in my community into the future.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill has nine schedules within it. As is always the case, they relate to a variety of changes to the taxation law. I can say at the outset on behalf of the opposition that we are not opposing this bill. I will very briefly run through each of those nine schedules and the changes that they will effect to the taxation law after the bill receives Royal Assent. The Assistant Treasurer on 21 September introduced this bill into the House. He outlined in great detail each of those schedules and the effect they will have. I will in brief summary give the coalition's perspective on each of them. As I said at the outset, we will be supporting this tax laws amendment bill.
Schedule 1 effects some tax changes with respect to special disability trusts. Essentially it provides some more favourable treatment by removing income tax barriers, particularly with respect to capital gains tax. The Assistant Treasurer outlined this in great detail just a few weeks ago, but the special disability trusts which were established in 2006 enable immediate family members and carers who have the financial means to do so to make private provision for the current and future care and accommodation needs of a family member with a severe disability. This schedule removes some of those capital gains tax barriers that might exist for those families. We welcome those changes. Schedule 2 relates to specific seasonal workers. The tax change that is being effected in this schedule is to change the lowest marginal tax rate for participants in the scheme from 29 per cent to 15 per cent.
Schedule 3 relates to TOFA, the Taxation of Financial Arrangements. There have been many tax law amendment bills that have dealt with these highly technical issues. You will probably be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this morning I will not reiterate every single aspect of the TOFA reforms that have occurred over many years but will just comment very briefly on schedule 3. This schedule makes some changes to the pay-as-you-go instalments and also some technical amendments with respect to them.
Schedule 4 of this bill gives the Commissioner of Taxation some discretion that will enable the extension of time for notifying transitional elections in financial arrangements. Essentially, this will provide the Commissioner of Taxation with the discretion to extend by up to three months the time in which a taxpayer may notify the commissioner of a transitional election under division 230 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 197—the TOFA provisions.
Schedule 5 relates to farm management deposits in a couple of respects, and they are positive changes. They will allow farmers affected by a natural disaster to withdraw deposits within 12 months with no tax penalty. Also, they will make provision for more information. They are positive changes to remove some unintended barriers, as I would see them.
Schedule 6 relates to superannuation. It extends temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds. As the Assistant Treasurer outlined in the House on 21 September, it will extend the end date for temporary loss relief for funds that are merging by three months from June of this year until September of this year.
Schedule 7 relates to penalty notices. It is essentially an integrity measure that will preserve the validity of penalty notices that the Commissioner of Taxation has issued. It needs to do this as a result of a recent case in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Some 17,000 penalty notices would be in doubt without this amendment. So without it there would be a risk of litigation, and obviously revenue implications as well. This schedule seeks to rectify the intention of the law.
Schedule 8, the second last schedule, relates to public ancillary funds. It essentially makes some changes that I believe were announced by the government in last year's budget. It will rename trust funds that qualify for deductible gift status. It will give the Treasurer some powers to make guidelines and a range of other administrative changes.
Schedule 9, the last schedule, relates to film tax offsets in each respect. It will provide for more generous treatment for the producer offset, including by amending the qualifying expenditure threshold—on my reading, reducing it to $500,000—and a range of other changes. I make the point on behalf of the opposition that these changes are very similar to the arts policy commitments made by our shadow minister, Senator George Brandis, at the last election, and we offer our support for this schedule.
As I said at the outset, I on behalf of the coalition support this tax law amendment bill and each of the schedules within it. We commend the bill to the House.
In December 2009 the then head of Treasury provided to the Treasurer a copy of what is colloquially known as the Henry tax review and formally known as Australia's Future Tax System report, a comprehensive review of our tax system and its sustainability into the future. At page 11 of that report the review committee made this observation:
Australia has too many taxes and too many complicated ways of delivering multiple policy objectives through the tax system. The capacity of the legislative and operating platforms of these systems and their human users to deal with the resulting complexity has been overreached. To a large extent, this is a reflection of a compartmentalised and incremental approach to tax policy that has been weighted towards achieving finely calibrated equity and efficiency outcomes at the expense of simplicity.
It is observations such as this which have driven the Gillard Labor government to ensure tax reform is at the top of its economic reform agenda. It is what underscored the desire to hold a summit in Canberra last week, in which we brought some of the leading thinkers in the area of economic and tax reform to Canberra to discuss what we needed to do over the next decade to reform the tax system to ensure it was fit for use for the remainder of the century.
I observed in a debate yesterday that taxation has a number of objectives, including raising revenue and regulating behaviour in the public interest. We have had both of these things in mind as we have set about the task of reforming the Australian tax system to ensure it is fairer and more equitable and that we will have revenue streams to provide the essential government services that Australians expect now and into the future. We understand—and I think there is bipartisan understanding of this fact—that by the time my children, who are now very young, enter the workforce the ratio of people of working age in the workforce to those who are outside the workforce and not of working age will move from 1:5 to 1:2.7. This will place an increasing burden on those who are in the workforce and those who are paying tax to deliver the services that Australians expect. So it is incumbent on all sides of politics to ensure that we are spreading the taxation base, that it is administered in the most effective way, that it drives and incentivises the right sort of behaviour and that it creates the revenue needed to deliver much-needed services.
The amendments put forward by this bill are in part driven by those objectives. Schedule 1 to the bill is important. This morning many of us from all parties attended in this place a parliamentary breakfast for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. At the breakfast we heard from carers and people living with disabilities about the importance of government doing everything in its power to ensure that we are providing financial sustenance and other service arrangements to meet the growing needs of people in that position. Schedule 1 is not the whole game but it does some work in this area. It extends the capital gains tax main resident exemptions to special disability trusts. Removing these barriers makes it more attractive for families to provide for the long-term care of a family member through the trust system to enable them to make financial arrangements for loved ones, for a family member who has a severe disability. I commend this particular schedule to the House. Schedule 2 of the bill reduces the lowest marginal tax rate that applies to non-resident workers employed under the government's Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme. It reduces this from 29 per cent to 15 per cent. Not only is this of benefit to those working under the government's Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme but it also provides an indirect benefit to the agricultural sector, that has been crying out for many years for arrangements and assistance from the government to provide much-needed workers during the picking seasons—the peak work seasons. It provides an indirect benefit to employers at the same time as providing a direct tax benefit for those in our near region who wish to come to Australia and work under the scheme, so everyone benefits from this.
Schedule 3 amends the pay-as-you-go instalment provisions to ensure that the concept of instalment income interacts appropriately with the concepts of gain and loss in the taxation and financial arrangements provisions. In essence, the amendments ensure that the interaction does not impose a significant administrative or compliance cost whilst maintaining the objective of ensuring that the pay-as-you-go instalment provisions are made.
Schedule 5 amends the tax law and the Banking Act 1959 to make four changes to the farm management deposits, or FMD, scheme. Essentially these amendments are to the benefit of our farming community to ensure that there is more flexibility at their disposal in the case of natural disasters to access their farm management deposits within 12 months of making a deposit while still retaining concessional tax treatment for those arrangements. Again, this is an important arrangement for the benefit of our farming community.
Schedule 6 is concerned with the superannuation and taxation arrangements for superannuation schemes that are in the process of merging. This fulfils a number of objectives. It is a policy objective of this government to ensure that our superannuation schemes are of a sufficient scale and size to enable them to gain the benefits of scale and have access to a capital base that will enable them to make the right sorts of investments at the right cost and be involved in the right deals to provide a profit to the fund and a benefit to the members. The specific provision here will provide additional time for those funds when they do merge to take the benefits of loss relief. It extends that by three months. The fund is the immediate beneficiary, but obviously the account holders, the superannuation beneficiaries, are the indirect and ultimate beneficiaries of this schedule.
Schedule 7 is essentially a remedial provision that addresses the consequences of a recent court of appeal decision. In essence, it ensures that if directors, when they receive notices advising directors, do not cause their company to take certain actions with respect to debt then they will become personally liable. As I said, this is a remedial provision which clarifies the law as a consequence of a recent court of appeal decision.
Schedule 8 is the fulfilment of the Gillard government's 2010 budget commitment to provide a regulatory framework to improve the integrity of public ancillary funds similar to that which has applied to private ancillary funds since October 2009. This framework will provide the trustees of such funds with greater certainty as to their philanthropic obligations. Schedule 9 is aimed at ensuring that we are providing greater incentives to our domestic film industry. It goes to changes to the film tax offsets, and these changes affect producer offsets and the location and post-digital and visual effects offsets. They will apply from 1 July 2011 and are estimated to increase expenditure on the film tax offsets by around $8 million over the forward estimates—that is a tax expenditure, of course. These amendments to the film tax offsets are aimed at reforming and strengthening the Australian film production industry, something that I know is very dear to the hearts of all members in this place.
The schedules in this bill are an important part of the government's taxation reform agenda. The reform agenda does not end with this bill; it is far-reaching to ensure that we have a sustainable and equitable taxation system which creates the right sorts of incentives for economic activity, is administratively efficient and generates the revenue necessary now and into the future to ensure that the Australian government, whoever occupies the Treasury bench, has the revenue necessary to deliver the services that all Australians expect. I commend this bill to the House.
I would like to take up two points that the member for Throsby raised. Firstly, like him, I attended the national disability insurance breakfast this morning, where we heard a most gracious speech, I have to say, by the Prime Minister in relation to the Every Australian Counts campaign. This has bipartisan support and needs to be brought forward sooner than the seven years suggested. Like the member for Throsby, I am signed up to the cause, and I am proud to say that I was the first New South Wales parliamentarian in this place to put my name to the campaign.
The member for Throsby also said that Australia has too many taxes, and again I find myself in agreement with him. But on this point I do say that his Labor government—the federal Gillard, Greens, Independent, Labor government—has not yet seen a tax it does not like. It has not yet seen a tax it will not impose on the people. Yesterday we saw the carbon tax, the misnamed 'clean energy' bills, foisted on the Australian nation. In the electorate of Throsby I am sure that people are going to be very angry with the fact that these carbon tax bills have been put through the lower house and that they will possibly pass through the upper house, where I am sure that New South Wales Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and John Williams will be doing their utmost to prosecute the case against the carbon tax. I want the member for Throsby to know that people in his electorate will be angry. I want him to remember that word 'angry' because that is what people are certainly going to be in his electorate.
The coalition has no issues with some schedules of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011. Overall we agree with the amendment, but there are some aspects which are of some concern. Looking at the amendment in its entirety, it seeks to alter the tax treatment of special disability trusts, which, as we have heard, takes into account the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It reduces the lowest marginal tax rate for Pacific seasonal workers; makes changes to the taxation financial arrangements; seeks to give the Commissioner of Taxation limited discretion to extend time for notifying transitional elections in financial arrangements; alters farm management deposits to allow for withdrawal within 12 months when affected by natural disaster; extends temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds by three months; validates directors' penalty notices invalidated by New South Wales Court of Appeals decisions; defines public ancillary funds and allows the Treasurer to make guidelines to their establishment; and makes various alterations to film tax offsets. All in all, these are some worthwhile amendments.
The coalition has no problems with schedule 1, tax changes for special disability trusts, nor with schedule 2, regarding Pacific seasonal workers. Seasonal workers such as fruit pickers, always difficult to find, will have their lowest marginal tax rate adjusted from the too high—we accept that—29 per cent to 15 per cent. We agree with schedule 3, which deals with the taxation of financial arrangements, as well as schedule 4 pertaining to the limited discretion to extend time for notifying transition elections in financial arrangements.,
Certainly the coalition is in support of schedule 5 relating to the farm management deposits. This schedule allows farmers with farm management deposits to withdraw deposits within a year when affected by natural disasters without incurring a tax penalty. The farm management deposits scheme allows individual farmers to set aside pre-tax income in good years for use in low-income years. This will greatly assist food and fibre producers in regional areas who are so prone to the vagaries of commodity prices, the weather and especially over the past four years, poor Labor government policy. Our farmers are a resilient lot. They can cope with drought, fire, flood, frost, plague locusts, mice and a whole host of other setbacks. But they find it difficult to cope with bad policy from this bad government, which has ignored agriculture and does so at its and the nation's peril. We are best placed to meet the future global food task, but Labor's policies do not, sadly, reflect this.
The government has not acted on the recommendations in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. A year on and regional communities are still wondering if they will be able to use the water productively—if they have a future. I acknowledge today we have the Griffith mayor, Councillor Mike Neville, in this place to talk about what future his community and communities around him may well have with the water debate continuing to go on. This government has failed on the Asian bee incursion; the live cattle export trade issue; and the importation of New Zealand apples, thereby placing our sustainable industry at risk of fire blight. Yesterday they voted in the lower house, despite having no mandate to do so, a carbon tax which will hit rural and regional Australia the hardest. Then there is the scrapping of the wheat export marketing system; Labor's inability to deliver the AQIS inspection reform; the European house borer in Western Australia, myrtle rust; the exit grant fiasco; Labor's inability to manage the grasshopper and mouse plagues; its inability to deliver reforms on the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority; its slow reaction to floods, particularly in New South Wales; the scrapping of exceptional circumstances, leaving farmers in financial and emotional despair; its inability to deliver appropriate labelling for Australian produce; and the milk price debacle, turning its back on our wonderful dairy farmers. Put simply, the Gillard-Greens government, propped up by the three Independents, has failed the regions and the people who grow our food and the fibre to help clothe us.
As far as this amendment is concerned, farm management deposits provide tax benefits if retained for at least 12 months but if withdrawn before 12 months an amended tax return for the year of the deposit must be lodged. There is currently an exception to this 12-month rule for farmers in exceptional circumstances but this exception excludes those events covered by natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. This measure extends this exemption to include those areas covered by an applicable natural disaster, that is where NDRRA are declared. These measures were announced in the 2012 budget.
Schedule 6, the extension of temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds, requires this amendment to avoid capital gains tax being imposed on recent fund mergers. Industry would prefer this relief to be made permanent to remove the significant barrier to the merger of some smaller funds. But overall the coalition supports this amendment and does commend it to the House.
Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Australian government's two-day tax forum. When I mentioned to a couple of friends that I had been spending two days talking about tax, they rolled their eyes. To many of us, I think, the tax system is something that is too complicated, too tricky to understand, too involved with interest groups and too detailed. But every now and then we need to step back from the minutiae of the tax system and remind ourselves of the simple maxim that with taxes we build society. I was reminded of that this morning in speaking with Ken Neilson, who I am pleased to say is here in the gallery. Ken was a good friend of my paternal grandfather, Keith Leigh. Keith passed away the year before I was born. Through Ken I have had the privilege of getting a bit of an insight into what my paternal grandfather was like and into the values that drove him—of Methodism, of a fair go and of making sure that Australia was a generous country with a social safety net that befits our affluent society. I was reminded of the same values this morning while attending the Every Australian Counts morning tea in support of a national disability insurance scheme, speaking there with Estelle Baines and her daughter Scarlett about the challenges that children with disabilities, adults with disabilities and their carers face under the current system.
It is important for us all to recognise that we need a strong tax system to fund the social services that Australians demand. At the same time, that tax system should not take in more revenue than it needs to do its job. This year the tax share is expected to be 21.8 per cent of GDP, less than the 23.5 per cent we inherited. That is not a bad thing. Those of us on this side of the House do not strive to increase the tax take for its own sake. Our aim is to keep taxes as low as they need to be to fund the social services that we support.
As part of the Tax Forum there was a broad discussion of how Australia's tax system can be improved and a broad recognition that it is important to move from mobile tax bases to immobile tax bases. That is why this government is working to bring down the rate on company taxes. We recognise that, in a world of mobile capital, if we have high company tax rates our companies will not get the investment that they need to grow employment and boost wages. That is why we are putting in place a minerals resource rent tax, recognising that, by their very definition, Australia's minerals cannot travel, they will always stay here, and that Australians should get a fair share for the minerals that are their birthright.
We recognise that taxes can be used to bring about better environmental outcomes. That is why we put in place reforms to put a price on carbon pollution and reforms to change the old fringe benefits tax system, which created perverse incentives to get a bigger car and drive it further. We have recognised that complexity is a major challenge in the tax system. As part of that, we are raising the tax-free threshold, tripling it from $6,000 to $18,200. Phasing down the low-income tax offset is the right thing to do. We recognise, through that, that we should have people filing a tax return as seldom as is absolutely necessary. My constituents, I can assure you, do not enjoy filing their tax returns. They are not alone in that. I have been suffering through my own over this past weekend. Anything we can do to take complexity out of the system and ensure that fewer people have to file is a good thing.
We also use the tax system to implement important social policies, like the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and the arrangements put in place under the Hawke government for the collection of child support obligations. Our tax system is also used to collect compulsory superannuation contributions. In a week in which we have heard those opposite say that people's eyebrows will fall off when the carbon price comes in, it is important to recognise that many of those opposite said similar things when universal super was put in place by the Keating government in 1992. But of course universal superannuation was a great boon to the dignified retirement of many Australians. Universal superannuation is not something which any party now goes to an election claiming to abolish. It will be the same with putting a price on carbon pollution. Indeed, this government is now committed to raising the universal superannuation contribution rates. We are doing so within a context in which the Australian retirement savings system is recognised to be one of the best in the world. A recent report from the 2011 Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index rated Australia's retirement system as being the second best in the world, after only the Netherlands. The Mercer report noted that there is no perfect retirement system, but it said that the Australian system did particularly well, due in large part to universal superannuation. The Mercer report did, though, note that raising the level of mandatory contributions would be an important way of improving Australia's overall index value. And that is exactly what this government is doing in moving the universal superannuation contribution rate from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011 puts in place a number of important amendments. The removal of income tax impediments affecting special disability trusts means that now the trustee of a special disability trust can sell the primary residence of a person with a disability without incurring CGT. As a result, that provides more money to assist in the future care of a family member with a disability.
We are reducing the marginal tax rate of Pacific seasonal workers, recognising as we do that the sensitivity to marginal tax rates is particularly high for low-wage workers. Just as we have sought to reduce effective marginal tax rates by lowering benefit withdrawals, this is a reform in the same spirit. We are dropping the marginal tax rate for participants in the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme from 29 per cent to 15 per cent.
We are putting in place technical amendments regarding the taxation of financial arrangements and pay-as-you-go instalments. There are similarly uncontroversial amendments regarding the commissioner's discretion to extend the notification time for taxation of financial arrangements and farm management deposits.
We are extending by three months the temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds. That is being done in recognition of some of the ongoing difficulties certain funds are facing. We are also introducing a variation on penalty notices, in response to an adverse New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in the case of Deputy Commissioner v Soong. Another reform is the improvement in the integrity of public ancillary funds. Finally, we are putting in place reforms to the film tax offset, amending the location offset in such a way as to increase the incentive to invest in films in Australia.
I end where I began with an acknowledgement of Ken Neilson and my late grandfather Keith Leigh, who I believe would be proud of the work this government is doing to put in place a tax system that is efficient, equitable and simple and that raises the revenue we need in order to put in place the social programs that Australians deserve. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011. In doing so I will outline that there are nine schedules to this bill. The bill is a very significant piece of legislation and I am pleased to see that the opposition supports it. The schedule that I would like to particularly comment on is schedule 1, which relates to disability trusts. When disability trusts were established I do not think that proper mechanisms were put in place. Schedule 1 removes the income tax barriers that impede families from making financial contributions to disability trusts. These changes include extending the capital gains tax main residence exemption to SDTs and provide a CGT exemption for assets transferred into the special disability trust for no consideration. By removing these barriers, special disability trusts become more attractive for families looking to provide long-term care for family members with severe disabilities. In my electorate, I have been working with a constituent who had set up a special disability trust to care for her disabled son and who had made her other son the trustee in charge of this special disability trust. The more she looked at it the more she found that it would not work and would have enormous implications for his financial security into the future. Therefore, it was not achieving what she wanted for her son with a disability. I would like to put on record my thanks to the minister for this change that he has made to schedule 1. It will benefit a number of families throughout Australia. I commend the legislation to the House.
I would like to thank those members who contributed to this debate and in particular the member for Shortland for her contribution. Schedule 1 amends the income tax law to make it easier for families and carers to make a financial contribution to a special disability trust in order to provide for the future care and accommodation needs of a family member with severe disability. These changes will enable families and carers to donate assets to a special disability trust without facing a CGT liability and will ensure that a special disability trust can access the CGT main residence exemption.
Schedule 2 reduces the lowest marginal tax rate for Pacific seasonal workers, improving remittance outcomes for participants in the government's Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme. It will also help alleviate the relatively high effective tax rates that these workers are currently subjected to. These changes help support the government's broader Pacific engagement strategy, which is designed to improve the economic development of our Pacific neighbours. Australian workers and other nonresidents will not be impacted by this change. Further, as nonresidents, Pacific seasonal workers do not have access to the tax-free threshold or the low-income tax offset.
Schedule 3 amends the pay-as-you-go instalment provisions to ensure that the concept of instalment income and the concepts of gain and loss in the taxation of financial arrangements, the provisions in stages 3 and 4, interact appropriately and in a way that does not impose significant compliance costs for affected taxpayers or administrative costs for the ATO.
The amendments in schedule 4 provide some administrative flexibility so that affected TOFA taxpayers are not prevented from obtaining the compliance benefits of the transitional election. Schedule 5 makes a number of changes to the farm management deposit scheme. The amendment to exempt primary producers from the 12-month rule will remove the existing situation whereby primary producers affected by drought are treated more generously than those affected by natural disasters such as floods and bushfires. This schedule gives effect to the government's 2011-12 budget announcement.
Schedule 6 amends the application provision of the temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds to extend the end date by three months to 30 September 2011. This will benefit affected funds by providing additional time for mergers to take place before the loss relief expires. The requirement that affected mergers are completed in a single income year is relaxed to permit funds to benefit from the extension. Schedule 7 ensures that certain director penalty notices remain valid. These retrospective amendments will help preserve the integrity of the tax compliance framework by clarifying that certain penalty notices remain valid and the penalties attaching to these notices will remain recoverable.
Schedule 8 honours the government's 2010-11 budget commitment to improve the integrity of public ancillary funds and to provide the trustees of such funds with greater certainty as to their philanthropic obligations. Following a thorough public consultation process, this schedule amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 to improve the integrity of public ancillary funds.
Schedule 9 makes a number of changes to the film tax offsets. The amendment to the producer offset will refine delivery of government support to screen producers, reduce the financial and administrative burden on applicants and improve operational efficiency. These amendments to the film tax offset will reduce the compliance cost for affected taxpayers and this schedule gives effect to the government's 2011-12 budget announcement.
The bill deserves the support of the parliament. I thank those members who have contributed and I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
In the last two years I have had the opportunity to see the excellent work of Ngala, the well-known Western Australian provider of early parenting and childhood services. Ngala is known for its support and guidance for families and young children through parenting programs. On this occasion, I would like to pay tribute to them for their Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters—HIPPY. HIPPY is 'a two-year home-based parenting and early childhood enrichment program', targeting families with young children living in disadvantaged areas. Ngala runs a HIPPY program based in Girrawheen, a suburb within my electorate of Cowan. I thank them for their excellent work.
Fifty-one HIPPY sites are run around Australia through funding received in the 2007 federal budget. I understand that full federal funding is due to expire at the end of 2012, with the amount halved for next year. Ngala have recently applied for interim funding to enrol 25 new families in 2012-13 but that is 10 fewer than their usual target, and they are awaiting a response from the government.
Aligned with the National Early Childhood Development Strategy, Investing in the Early Years, HIPPY works with vulnerable families to improve outcomes for children and their parents. The HIPPY approach develops the foundations for learning in the home during children's crucial early years. HIPPY recognises the significance of children's early learning experiences and that parents are children's first and most important teachers. Families start HIPPY when their child is between 3½ and four years old and continue during the first year of formal schooling.
A key component of HIPPY is regular home visits. This emphasises the value of the home as a place of learning. The program operates within the local community, employs community members and utilises the strengths and skills that already exist within each family. Regular group meetings for parents foster a sense of belonging, reduce the sense of isolation and increase families' awareness of community services and support.
The Age 4 program is based on simple activities, while the Age 5 program also includes Parent Packs with information about child development. Delivery is tailored to meet each family's literacy level and English-speaking ability, while acknowledging other issues that may be impacting on the family. A storybook is included as a basis for some activities. These books have now been translated into several languages.
The impact of the program reaches beyond simply enhancing children's school readiness. The activities offered in the program provide opportunities for positive interactions between children and their parents around learning and literacy. In turn, this enhances parent-child connection and bonding. Overall, the program increases parents' knowledge of child development and developmentally appropriate activities as well as awareness of their child's learning style. This improved understanding and parent-child connection has a positive impact on family relationships and the self-confidence of parents. Current HIPPY Girrawheen enrolments total 69 families, with 22 from Cowan. HIPPY Girrawheen covers the suburbs of Girrawheen, Balga, Koondoola, Westminster and Mirrabooka. These five suburbs have low socioeconomic assessment scores and have a significant number of residents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. This is shown in HIPPY Girrawheen enrolments, with approximately 80 per cent born overseas, from a total of 15 different countries, with the majority of those being from Somalia, Sudan and Burma. The five target suburbs are marked by high unemployment levels, a high proportion of single-parent families and a high proportion of rentals. In Girrawheen, 24.5 per cent of households earn less than $500 per week. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of enrolled families face complex issues. These issues may include isolation, financial stress, unemployment, housing insecurity, maternal depression, low parental education levels, poor English literacy, having a large number of young children, family discord and sole parenting. All of these are known risk factors in terms of optimal early childhood development. The presence of multiple risk factors in the early years significantly reduces children's chances of healthy development, often leading to suboptimal outcomes.
Just as multiple risk factors negatively impact on children's development, accumulative protective factors can also help change a child's developmental pathway, promoting good outcomes. In recent quantitative and qualitative research conducted on HIPPY, there is clear evidence of the positive impact of enhancing protective factors within enrolled families, particularly in building social networks, reducing social isolation and improving family relationships. Further, HIPPY has been demonstrated to be effective and appropriate for disadvantaged families in both culturally and linguistically diverse and Anglo-Celtic communities.
Although there is a chance of receiving interim funding for 2012-13, there is no commitment of federal funding for the program beyond that. I am certainly drawn to the program through a sense of providing parental responsibility and playing a role in providing leadership in children's lives. I think this program is a good thing and that it deserves federal government support. I thank the HIPPY Girrawheen team for its great work. (Time expired)
On Saturday, 8 October the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Leymah Gbowee, a key organiser of a non-violent campaign in Liberia; President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, the first woman to be elected president in modern Africa; and Tawakkul Karman, of Yemen, a journalist and pro-democracy campaigner. These three women were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their activism in fighting for women's rights and political rights in Africa and the Middle East.
In a week when we should have been celebrating these three incredibly brave women and, indeed, all women and all people who have fought and who continue to fight for democratic rights we have been shocked by reports that an Iranian actress Marzieh Vafamehr has been sentenced to jail and 90 lashes for being in a film critical of Iran. Marzieh Vafamehr appeared in the 2009 Australian film My Tehran for Sale, which, ironically, is about an actress whose work is banned.
And if we thought that lashing was uncharacteristic of the treatment carried out in Iran, a political science student Payman Aref was jailed for a year by the Iranian regime and, just before he left jail he was, shockingly, administered 74 lashes for criticising President Ahmadenijad. You can see the footage on YouTube.
The Iranian government's degrading and abhorrent treatment of Ms Vafamehr and many more like her, seeking to voice their own views, is typical of the thuggish behaviour of the Iranian regime. It is an ugly regime. Thousands of people are executed regularly. Gay people are hung in public squares by cranes. Women and under-age people, 16-year-olds, are executed, despite Iranian law expressly forbidding this.
The attack on Ms Vafamehr's rights follows two years of oppression placed on journalists, bloggers, filmmakers and opposition party supporters since the 2009 Green Revolution protests in response to the 'stolen' Iranian election that year. In June 2009, more than 6,000 people were arrested by Iranian security forces for demonstrating against the 'stolen' election results. We all remember the grainy mobile phone footage of Iranian protestor Neda Agha Soltan, who was stabbed in the back by the regime's Basij street thugs for participating in the protests against the 'stolen' election. The US has recently voiced concern at the continued repression of the Iranian people. US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said on 30 September:
The United States is deeply concerned by reports of the Iranian government's continued repression of its people. Despite statements from Iran's Supreme Leader ... claiming support for the rights and freedoms of Iranian citizens ... the government continues its crackdown on all forms of dissent, belief, and assembly.
Of course, we all know about the terrible persecution of the leaders and members of the very gentle Baha'i religion in Iran. It is quite shocking. Hillary Clinton further said:
Iran's government continues to arrest journalists and filmmakers. They are restricting access to information by jamming incoming satellite broadcasts ...
The power of the Iranian regime is garnered not only through stifling opposition at home but through stifling opposition in countries where they have a great influence. We saw their outrageous behaviour in the last couple of days in Washington and, hopefully, it will not become an international crisis that spins out of control.
It has been six months since more than 3,000 people were killed in nearby Syria, which is very strongly supported by the Iranian regime. Iran has senior commanders Brigadier General Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam, the head of Iranian security forces, and his deputy, Ahmadreza Radan, in Syria, helping with the repression of those people. But, like Ms Vafamehr, the women of Syria are standing up to the regime and are illuminating the atrocities.
Razan Zaitouneh, from Syria, won the 2011 Anna Politkovskaya Award, which is given to a woman human rights defender standing up for victims in a conflict zone. Ms Zaitouneh, a lawyer and journalist, won the award for her extraordinary contribution to human rights over the past decade, and particularly for her role in the anti-government movement in Syria since protests began in March this year in Daraa.
The decision of Russia and China, as expressed by their foreign ministers, to veto the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that the Syrian authorities cease their human rights violations is a terrible blow to those who believe that, through peaceful action, we can stop these kinds of atrocities. Like Yelena Bonner and Aung San Suu Kyi, these women's careers should be celebrated, as should Ms Zaitouneh's. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, Australia stands with the Syrian people at this grave moment, as we do with the people of Iran. (Time expired)
This weekend I will take part in the 2011 Walk for Sarah, in Camden. Sarah Hilt is a courageous local from my electorate who was struck down by meningococcal septicaemia in October 2004. Meningococcal septicaemia occurs when bacteria enters the bloodstream and multiplies uncontrollably, damaging the walls of the blood vessels and causing bleeding into the skin. The illness is usually associated with a purple rash and can lead to death within hours, or permanent disabilities such as scars and amputations.
To help raise awareness of this condition I would like to share Sarah's story with you today. According to her parents, Gary and Jillian, Sarah was one of those people who could make a success of whatever she put her mind to. She was born at Camden Hospital in 1985, and a few years later started kindergarten at Cobbitty Public School. Sarah loved school and became involved in dance, choir, band and anything that resembled a sport. She left her mark at Cobbitty Public School as a very popular school captain. She spent her high school years at Macarthur Anglican School, where she played flute in the school band and sang in the jazz band. She also made her parents proud by playing soccer at school, club and state levels—a very talented young lady. In year 12, Sarah became a school prefect and house captain and studied hard to achieve her place at Sydney University to study a Bachelor of Arts degree.
But on 4 October 2004, Sarah was struck down by meningococcal septicaemia and was rushed to RPA Hospital. There, her life teetered on the edge for a few weeks as she fought the ravages of the disease. At the end of those traumatic weeks, doctors announced that Sarah was going to make it. Against all the odds she had survived, but her survival came at a cost. She had spent nine months in hospital fighting for her life. The bacteria ravaged her kidneys and body. Her left forearm, the fingers and thumb of her right hand and both legs were amputated. Sarah has since undergone countless operations and skin grafts and put up a brave fight against infections and kidney failure.
Despite what she had been through, Sarah refused to let this disease stop her from achieving her dreams. She had a successful year at university in 2006; her results were great and she excelled in all her subjects. But, sadly, early in 2007, her kidneys failed and she was forced to start dialysis and prepare for a kidney transplant. Sarah managed to continue her uni studies throughout 2007, despite needing four dialysis sessions every day. What a brave young lady. To make things worse, Sarah also suffered from bone infections and had to have her left leg amputated below the knee and her right leg further amputated through the knee. The surgery took place and, due to many life-threatening complications, Sarah was in hospital for all of January 2008. After a torrid year of ups and downs and medical tests, Sarah had a kidney transplant in November that year. Her dad, Gary, gave Sarah one of his kidneys, a beautiful gift that resulted in his daughter's health improving tenfold within two hours of surgery.
Sarah is a quadruple amputee. There are only five other people in her situation in New South Wales. She faces many problems, especially the ongoing need for artificial limbs. The Macarthur community comes together each year to walk with Sarah and help her raise awareness of the condition. The walk also raises money to help Sarah and her family cover costs associated with her treatment and her prosthetic limbs, which wear out every eight years. These prosthetic limbs are very expensive. A prosthetic hand on its own costs around $70,000 to buy and maintain. About $50,000 was raised in 2008 to buy Sarah a computerised leg, and it was well worth the money. The new leg gave Sarah a level of mobility that she had not experienced since the disease ravaged her body in 2004.
The Sarah Hilt Walk is organised by the Sarah Hilt Foundation Trust, a charity which helps Sarah to achieve her goals and assists other sufferers of meningococcal disease. The trustees of the foundation should be very proud of themselves for setting up this charity so that Sarah can overcome the impact of this disease. Through her brave fight against the physical and mental effects of meningococcal disease, Sarah has tackled new obstacles and has overcome adversities that the rest of us would find impossible to comprehend.
I am proud to say that the compassion of the Macarthur community has shown Sarah that she is not alone in her battle against meningococcal disease. She is a courageous young woman who loves her family and her community. She has become a great role model for young people in my electorate. She has proved that no matter what adversity life throws at you it is important to stay true to yourself and to fight to achieve your dreams and goals.
I am looking forward to walking with Sarah and her family this weekend and I wish her all the health and happiness that she deserves. She is one hell of a brave woman, who is bringing this awareness of meningococcal disease to my community and the broader community of Australia. We do not know how lucky we are with our lives, in relation to the impacts that occur with young children in our communities. This young lady is one of the bravest women I have ever come across. I am looking forward to having an enjoyable weekend with her to bring this awareness to my community.
I thank the member for Macarthur for that very inspirational story.
I have spoken on a number of occasions in this parliament about human rights and particularly human rights abuses as they occur in Vietnam. As you are aware, my constituency largely consists of former Vietnamese refugees. On this occasion I would like to speak more specifically about the allegations of the International Labour Rights Forum concerning forced labour centres that are operating in Vietnam under the guise of drug rehabilitation centres. I believe this is an area where greater international investigation must be made, as the state of the treatment of these people is unclear. I have made representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, in relation to this, asking the Australian government to also be part of inquiring into these allegations. Whilst I believe that organisations such as the International Labour Rights Forum certainly do a fantastic job in identifying and pursuing issues of human rights, I do acknowledge that both the World Bank and the United Nations agency deny any knowledge of these forced labour camps existing.
In this speech I will refer to the claims of the International Labour Rights Forum. If these claims are true, I believe that as parliamentarians we have a duty to inquire into, speak up about and particularly take a stance against any abuse of human rights, particularly under the guise associated with these allegations. Today the International Labour Rights Forum records 40,000 men, women and children being held against their will in forced labour centres in Vietnam under the guise of rehabilitation. The conditions are difficult with the impossibly high quotas to work under and very cruel penalties, I am advised, are exerted for failing to meet these quotas. I have been advised that people are forced by the government to work for little or no pay, are beaten and are denied food or held in isolation cells while work targets are not being met. I have been advised by the International Labour Rights Forum that the centres are disguised as providing treatment for drug users.
By the way, most of the victims are brought on the basis of a single positive urine test and are picked up during street sweeps. These people can be detained in these forced labour camps, as I understand it, for anything up to five years without receiving any trial before the appropriate courts. The Vietnamese government, as I understand it, argue that this is therapy and they believe that by having them processing things such as nuts or by sewing garments this type of activity will move drug users from the streets and into these rehabilitation centres where they can get the help that they need. Having looked at the conditions associated with these allegations, you would have to conclude that they are certainly issues which would mainly be associated with our notion of sweatshops.
These centres receive a large amount of funding. They certainly receive funding from the US government in respect of the presence of an emergency plan for AIDS relief and from the US Agency for International Aid; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the World Bank; the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; and the Australian Agency for International Development, AusAID. It would be devastating if these allegations from the International Labour Rights Forum were true and that these so-called rehabilitation centres were, in fact, exploiting the funds that they receive from their various donors who generously provide the funds thinking that they are targeted to help people reform from drug induced problems. The Vietnamese government state that their compulsory drug rehabilitation is humane, effective and beneficial for drug users, the community and society in general and that their practices are in line with drug treatment principles set by the US, the UN and the WHO. (Time expired)
If there is one thing that I think all of us in this place can agree on it is that we as a nation will be judged on how we care for those who cannot care for themselves. Today, of all days, being the day when we see the Every Australian Counts campaign launched here in Parliament House, I think it is appropriate for us to reflect specifically on this particular issue and on the importance of caring for those Australians who cannot care for and support themselves. I am very pleased to associate myself with that campaign because I think there is now a recognition on both sides of the House, by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, that there is a huge problem when it comes to disability services funding and support and that it is, as the Prime Minister has quite rightly said, a cruel lottery as to those people who will receive support and those people who will not. Part of the reason that it is such a cruel lottery is that there has been over the years a dispute between the state and federal governments as to who will be supported and how. It is simply not good enough.
The carers in our community are the unsung heroes, looking after their family members and loved ones. They do it out of love for their family members and know that we need to provide them with every support possible—and they are telling us that they do need support. Recently I have sat in my office with the ageing parents of a disabled woman who is now 51 and they have told me of their concern that once they are gone their daughter will not be able to receive the same level of care and support that she has received over the past 51 years. They have pleaded with me that it is important that the government and the opposition support the implementation of a national disability insurance scheme.
I have sat down with a father who has told me that, after a very fateful night, his son, who was attacked when out celebrating, is now permanently in need of care. While he himself, through the support of his friends and family, has been able to put together a fund so his son will be cared for for the remainder of his life, he asked me: what will happen for all those other parents who do not have the same support? He again pleaded with me to take action now to put in place a national disability insurance scheme.
The Productivity Commission has done some great work on these issues. The Productivity Commission, as most people in this House will know, delivered its final report into disability care and support to the government on 31 July 2011. That report was publicly released by the government on 10 August 2011. It recommended the implementation of a new national disability insurance scheme to provide for long-term care and support for people with a disability. Shockingly, it found that the unmet need in the Australian community for Australians with a disability is about $6.5 billion. It is very serious and very important that we get this right. I cannot help but reflect that the current interest bill we are paying each year is about the same figure. It is important we get our finances right so we can address these issues that should be a priority for any government and certainly a priority for us on this side of the chamber.
If we can get this right, about 410,000 people will receive funding support through this scheme. We need to do something urgently. I am pleased, as I said earlier, to associate myself with this campaign. I believe it is important that we bring into effect a sustainable national disability insurance scheme, and I will be a strong advocate for it.
I would like to put on the record my agreement with the member for Higgins and her contribution. I agree it is important that we as a parliament deal with this issue and put in place a sustainable national insurance scheme to deal with disability. Today though I rise to thank the Barwon south-west region of Regional Development Australia, which covers not only my seat but the federal seat of Corio and most of the federal seat of Wannon, for the hard work they have put in over the last 12 months or so in developing a pipeline of projects that have agreement across the region. These projects are important for the ongoing economic development and sustainability of south-west Victoria.
After some significant time working up projects and working through with the community they have been able to establish a list of projects that have the backing of the region and have secured funding from other levels of government and the private sector. They were successful with the regional infrastructure money that Minister Simon Crean announced a couple of weeks ago. They were that successful that they got the first two projects up. I was very delighted to have worked closely with them. They were successful in getting $10 million towards the ongoing redevelopment of the Geelong Football Club's stadiums and lights. This is certainly a project that has strong support across Geelong and south-west Victoria. They were also successful in a second project: a further $10 million to redevelop the Geelong City Library and Heritage Centre. The library was built in the 1970s, I think, and had not been redeveloped since then. The major library of the broader Geelong region was a lot smaller in floor space. I would like to congratulate them on that.
They of course do have other projects that they will be pursuing in following rounds. That will depend on the mining taxation arrangements being passed before this parliament to put in place the necessary funding mechanisms. I look forward to working again in the years to come with the Barwon south-west region to pursue projects that are in the interests of the whole region.
Both of the projects that I referred to are in the federal seat of Corio, not Corangamite, but they are projects that support the whole region. I had great delight in announcing the outcome of both of these projects three days before the AFL grand final. I was able to go down to Kardinya Park and meet with the CEO of the Geelong Football Club. I also met the Geelong Football Club captain, Cameron Ling, who went on and starred in the grand final. In the last week or so he has announced he will be retiring from football. I wish him all the best in his retirement. He is deeply admired across the whole Geelong region, and I think he will have a lot to contribute to our community post-football.
I recently received an email from a young constituent of mine. It read as follows:
Dear Sir, My name is Sophie Alcorn and I am nine years old. I would like to inform you about the lack of safe road crossings at Ellis Beach Surf Club/ shops. Yesterday my friend and I tried to cross the road near Ellis Beach shops. We stopped in the middle of the road then we tried to cross the next lane. My friend was accidently hit by a car. She bumped the bonnet and bounced off. She hurt her two knees and got gravel rash on one leg. She had to go to hospital in an ambulance to make sure everything was ok. We all felt sad that my friend was hurt and knew that we were very lucky. I think that it is important to have a zebra crossing or pedestrian lights to make it safer for everyone to cross the road. Can you please help me fix the problem? Each Sunday there are lots of children at the beach for nippers. I don't want any of them to be hurt or have any of their friends hurt if it happens again. Yours Sincerely, Sophie Alcorn.
As a member of parliament, you get lots of letters and lots of emails with people raising all sorts of issues but when you get something from a nine-year-old who has taken the time to sit down, put pen to paper and raise that issue, you really need to take notice of that and treat it with a level of seriousness. I took the time to ring Sophie and congratulate her for making the effort to raise the issue. She said to me that her young friend was very fortunate that she was not badly hurt, but she was very concerned that the next time she might not be so lucky. I also explained to Sophie that advocacy like this—people who are prepared not just to complain about a situation but to raise it as an issue and pursue it with people like me—is one way of achieving an outcome.
Since then, I have spoken to the Cairns Surf Life Saving Association, which is based at Ellis Beach. They told me that this has been an ongoing problem for quite a considerable period of time. They said that every Sunday from May through to November during the surf lifesaving season the Ellis Beach Surf Life Saving Club hosts Nippers. Up to about 100 of these kids compete and the clubrooms and what have you are on the opposite side of the highway. This is the main highway to Port Douglas and on Sunday it can be very busy. It is not just that the kids are crossing the road backwards and forwards; they are carrying their gear, surfboards and everything else that they need as they participate in events. There have been numerous close calls over the years and there is no doubt that there is a desperate need for not only a zebra crossing but a set of traffic lights, even if they are used just on a Sunday, when you have this large congregation of people crossing the road and a lot of tourists using the highway who are not so familiar with our local area. I think it is very important.
Sophie is nine years of age and has been a member of the Nippers for quite a few years. For her to take the time to raise the issue is very impressive. I have written a letter to the state Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, Craig Wallace, raising the issues that Sophie has and asking him to give serious consideration to this. The investment in a set of traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing really would not be that great. I have been pleased to get a response from Sno Bonneau, who is a local councillor and has come out and been very supportive of this initiative and will support me on it. Doug McKinstry, who is the president of the Cairns Surf Life Saving Club, has told me he is very aware of the risk and also congratulated Sophie on her initiative.
I am hoping that the letter that was initiated by young Sophie Alcorn will see some outcome and at the end of the day we get the opportunity to open these traffic lights and pedestrian crossing. I think we should acknowledge Sophie Alcorn and the outstanding work that she has done. I know that her mum and dad are very proud of her and I would encourage any young people who identify issues not to just sit back and talk about them; take the time to send an email, because it can make a difference.
Yesterday I was pleased to launch the Women Die Waiting campaign, a campaign initiated and supported by AngliCORD and aimed at raising awareness about the lack of adequate breast cancer screening and treatment for women living in the Gaza Strip. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world and its residents, the Palestinian people, live under the Israeli blockade that severely restricts their freedom of movement. A woman with breast cancer has to obtain a permit in order to leave the Gaza Strip and receive medical treatment abroad. Obtaining a permit is almost impossible and many women die waiting. Women in Palestine have only a 40 per cent chance of surviving five years after being diagnosed with breast cancer—half that of Australian women. Lack of access to diagnosis and treatment, as well as delays caused by the security obstacles for women seeking care outside Gaza, contributes to the higher mortality rate for women living there. Attending the breakfast yesterday were parliamentarians, faith leaders and cancer awareness advocates, who came together to help shine the spotlight on the women of Gaza, who do not have the same access to screening, treatment and support that we have here in Australia.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death amongst women and is prevalent at a rate of one in nine women. It is common knowledge that early detection of breast cancer leads to greater chances of survival. That is why we put so much effort into raising awareness and supporting preventative measures that have, in Australia at least, increased survival rates significantly. In addition, we have here in this country some of the best medical services in the world, so women diagnosed with breast cancer can expect immediate attention and the very best of care. With all the advances in research and treatment, women should not die waiting for access to breast cancer screening or treatment—but in Gaza they do.
I have participated in many events in my electorate aimed at spreading the breast cancer message and today I also want to acknowledge that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many activities take place, in particular the iconic practice of illuminating public places in pink and, of course, Pink Ribbon Day.
I had the privilege to launch this campaign to fight breast cancer among women in Gaza on 27 September in my electorate. AngliCORD has been involved in helping people in the developing world for over two decades. In Palestine, AngliCORD's partner, the Anglican Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, continues to provide emergency medical treatment for people living in this poverty-stricken and war-torn region. It also provides the only mammogram screening service for women in Gaza and advocates strongly for the plight of those women who are diagnosed with breast cancer.
I believe strongly that, in the case of the women of Gaza, the political endgame that dictates the trajectory for Palestine should never be extended at the cost of humanity and human life, which in this instance renders treatable cancers fatal. Women should not be a part of the collateral damage in Palestine. So I proudly join AngliCORD in launching the Women Die Waiting campaign here in parliament.
I also note that at this time in the UN General Assembly the Palestinians are seeking recognition of a Palestinian state by the international community. I urge the Australian government to support recognition of a Palestinian state, in the same way we supported the creation of the state of Israel. There are many Australians who feel the same way. For the benefit of the House, I would like to make reference to a statement calling on the Australian government to vote yes at the United Nations to a Palestinian state. It was signed by many prominent Australians, including former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. The statement highlighted that:
One hundred and thirty member states of the United Nations have so far committed to recognising a Palestinian state. If Australia's longstanding commitment to a two-state solution is genuine and meaningful it is time for us to join those 130 member states. As a member active on this issue in this place for so many years, it would be a great privilege for to stand here at some point soon and hopefully thank the Australian government for recognising the Palestinian state.
Today is Every Australian Counts day, but for the 269,000 people living with dementia it is not always the case. Dementia, which includes Alzheimer's Disease, is a disease that robs people of their memories, their intellect and their ability to manage daily life. In 2005 the coalition made dementia a national health priority, committing $320 million over five years to help fund the Dementia Initiative. But earlier this year the Gillard government scrapped this initiative, and with it the guarantee of funding for services and support desperately needed by people living with this condition. Today, when every Australian should count, many people with dementia do not. They face a future of desperation, struggle and isolation, and they deserve better.
Alzheimer's Australia warns that within 10 years the number of people with dementia in this country will increase by nearly 50 per cent. Already, Australia has 1.2 million carers, who save this country $5.5 billion each year. Many of them have given up their own dreams, careers and lives to care for partners or family members affected by this disease.
The coalition recognises the debilitating impact this disease has on our community and the growing challenges it presents. At the last election the coalition committed an additional $50 million over four years to expand the Dementia Initiative to include other chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's Disease. To prepare the health system for the 58 per cent increase in dementia cases over the next 10 years is paramount. The coalition remains committed to improving the level of resources dedicated to fighting dementia. Urgent action is needed now to address this epidemic, in the same way that we tackle cancer and heart disease. Alzheimer's Australia also warns that dementia is one of the fastest-growing chronic diseases. It is already the third-biggest killer in Australia. Alzheimer's Australia put forward a five-point action plan that leads the way. They say we need to: (1) raise the awareness of the impact of this devastating disease; (2) speed up the diagnosis so that people can prepare earlier; (3) improve the quality of dementia care, especially outside the main urban areas; (4) invest in dementia research to find the cause and a cure; and (5) importantly, tell people what they can do to reduce their risk of developing dementia—that is, what is good for the heart is good for the head.
Today hundreds of concerned Australians are gathering outside parliament to raise awareness of the plight faced by people with dementia and to demand more from the Gillard government. They are being led by Ita Buttrose, the new national president of Alzheimer's Australia. They are determined to be heard and, with that formidable lady at the helm, I have no doubt that they will be.
I have also met with a number of my constituents who have shared their stories about living with dementia. While they remain stoic and determined to live well, the impact of dementia on them is undeniable. For example, today I learnt that, in my electorate of Wright, more than 1,200 people have been diagnosed with dementia, including nearly 300 who are under the age of 65. When you add their families and carers to that figure, there are more than 7,500 people in my electorate facing the reality of living with dementia. Their lives will never be the same. Even worse is that the number of people with dementia is growing. By 2050, nearly one million Australians will be grappling with dementia and, as decision makers of this nation, we will all be dealing with the health, social and economic impacts of this disease. I am told that, by 2050, the incidence of dementia—that is, new cases—will rise by 735 per cent in my electorate and that, in terms of the prevalence of dementia, my electorate will be in the top 10 federal electorates—a very sobering thought. On a day when every Australian counts, I am thinking of them and I will not forget them. I repeat: I will not forget them.
Briefly, I want to take the opportunity to speak about some neighbours of mine, Jack and Bernice McNevan. Bernice suffers from dementia. Bernice was in the early stages of her dementia when I went there to catch up with them. Jack said that Bernice was really getting bad and that she may not remember me. As I met her at the house, she said, 'Oh, I haven't seen you for a while.' I jested with her and said, 'Bernice, I was here yesterday.' She said: 'I'm not that far gone. I know if you were here yesterday there would be no food left in the house.' So I wish Bernice well, although she is now in a care facility. It is a struggle. I encourage all members here to be aware of Alzheimer's and its impact on their communities.
Last month, I had the pleasure of hosting a briefing in Parliament House for members and senators—and, if I may say, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, you were among them—to introduce them to a new and very vibrant group called Welcome to Australia, which is based in my electorate of Hindmarsh.
Welcome to Australia has a simple goal: to make all newcomers, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Australia feel very welcome in their local community, no matter where they are from. The group encourages all Australians to make simple but powerful gestures of welcome toward all newly arrived migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in their neighbourhoods, in their schools and in their workplaces. It gives people the chance to publicly declare their desire to be seen as a welcoming Australian, to celebrate diversity and to recognise the fact that human-to-human contact is one of the best ways to change attitudes and perceptions.
Welcome to Australia, as you would have heard at the briefing, began in April this year. Their first initiative was to encourage people to host 'welcome parties' to help bust some of the myths about refugees and asylum seekers and to celebrate diversity. Over 70 parties were registered across five states of Australia and they took on numerous shapes, including: a film festival in Brisbane; a welcome walk in Newcastle, New South Wales; and an outdoor party hosted by the Fremantle city council in Western Australia.
In my own electorate of Hindmarsh, the Director of Welcome to Australia, Brad Chilcott, gave out free coffee all day from his shop, handed out fact sheets and also showed a movie co-produced with Amnesty International about refugees. Brad is a very hardworking and active member of the local community, who has a wide range of involvement with social justice issues and campaigns. Last month, he came to Parliament House to brief members and senators on the work that Welcome to Australia has been doing and what lies ahead for the organisation.
Sitting suspended from 11:35 to 11:36
As I said, Brad was a very hardworking and active member of the local community who has had a wide range of involvement. Last month he came to Parliament House to brief members and senators on the work that Welcome to Australia was doing and has been doing and what lies ahead for the organisation. It has certainly been an impressive start, underpinned by grassroots community support and supported to date by 35 non-government organisations. Welcome to Australia also boasts lists of distinguished ambassadors, including World Vision CEO Tim Costello, Father Bob Maguire, Adelaide Crows player Ivan Maric and multiplatinum award-winning musician Katie Noonan.
I believe that the community has been asking for a long time for cooperation and collaboration on issues surrounding refugees and asylum seekers and that this is a small but significant step towards it. With many new migrants and refugees set to arrive in Australia this year, boosting our skills, enriching our culture and enhancing diversity, I think that there has never been a better time to refresh and renew the welcoming spirit than now. Let us not forget that here in Australia we have been welcoming people to our country for a very, very long time. In more than 64 years of planned postwar migration, Australia has welcomed more than seven million people, 10 per cent of them refugees, to Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, among the thousands and thousands of people who arrived from war-torn Europe after World War II, of course, were your parents and my parents, who arrived from Greece in the mid-fifties. They have never forgotten those people who welcomed them with open arms and offered them the spirit of friendship as they settled into life in Australia. Now there is nothing better I can do as the member for Hindmarsh than to give back and continue that culture of welcome for those people arriving now, and there will be plenty of opportunities for all of us to get involved in doing that. This financial year, 185,000 people will arrive to start a new life in Australia. Many of them will be our work colleagues, our neighbours, our shopkeepers or our fellow students. As I said, they will become part of our communities. I know that we, as leaders in our communities, will do all that we can to help to make sure it is a smooth start. I know that there are many Australians who want to do all that they can do.
One thing that was really interesting to hear during the briefing was how many Australians are already demonstrating their willingness to welcome people to this country but just need some tips on how to do it. A welcoming gesture might be as simple as going over to say 'hello' to a family who have moved in next door or in the neighbourhood and finding out a little bit about them. It might be about asking a new classmate or colleague out for a coffee or a meal. It could be taking time to learn how to say 'hello' in another language. Whatever it is, you are sure to learn something new, make a friend and be better for the whole experience, because multiculturalism enriches us all. Whether through food, music, language or culture, there is always something new to discover or explore. Many people would remember the good neighbourhood councils that were set up after World War II, which helped newly arrived migrants and refugees settle into Australia, and this is very, very similar. Because of the debates that we are currently having on this particular issue, I think it is really important to ensure that Australia still is a welcoming country and that we get that message out to people. Welcome to Australia brings a fresh perspective to that goal by offering all Australians these sorts of practical tips on how to make simple but powerful gestures of welcome— (Time expired)
We have heard a lot from the Labor government, and from the Assistant Treasurer in particular, about reforms to the superannuation system. Some of the reforms recently announced are clearly sensible and uncontentious, such as improving paper flow and streamlining the back office. But there has been suspicious silence on a central issue, and that is the privileged role that the union movement has in the governance of much of the superannuation sector. There are a series of questions which really deserve further scrutiny. I want to speak about the role of the award system in feeding volumes of compulsory superannuation contributions into industry funds. I want to ask why it makes sense to give unions a privileged role in the governance of a large part of the retirement savings pool and comment on transparency and disclosure.
APRA reported that as at June 2010 there was around $1.2 trillion in superannuation, of which $226 billion was held by the industry funds. The Parliamentary Library calculates that, based on the APRA reported statistics, industry funds had investment and operating expenses of 0.8 per cent of assets under management, which equates to a revenue stream of $1.8 billion a year which the industry fund segment is receiving.
Let me speak firstly about the role of the award system. By law, employers must pay a nine per cent superannuation guarantee charge on behalf of the employee into a superannuation fund. Under the modern award system there is a standard superannuation clause, which all modern awards must contain, which says that unless the employee actively exercises a choice, the payment will go into the default fund specified under the award. The vast majority of default funds are industry funds. According to a paper prepared by the Institute of Public Affairs in 2010, of the 166 modern awards examined there were a total of 530 funds listed as default funds and 477 were industry funds.
Given the reality that most employees tend to not pay much attention to their superannuation arrangements, being appointed as a default fund under an award is of considerable value as it leads to a stream of contributions being received by the fund and in turn increases the value of the pool of assets to which the expense ratio applies. Retail super funds have highlighted their concerns that the union officials who negotiate awards will tend to appoint industry funds as the default fund under modern awards, and the statistics I cited earlier show that that concern appears to be well founded.
Let me ask therefore about the privileged role of the union movement in the governance of the superannuation system. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 18 per cent of Australians in full-time work are union members. In other words, the vast majority of Australians are not union members. Despite this fact, unions continue to have a remarkably privileged role in the governance of the superannuation system. The industry funds typically have an arrangement in which the trustees are 50 per cent appointed by a union and 50 per cent appointed by employers, with a nominally independent chair. Typically, the arrangement appears to be that the relevant union simply nominates the trustees to the fund and generally the fund members do not get a say. This raises a number of questions: why should unions have a dominant role in appointing trustees when many members of the superannuation fund are not union members? What are the qualifications and financial experience of these trustees? Indeed, is there any requirement for them to have relevant financial experience?
A more general question is: if you were designing a system from scratch, why would you allocate retirement funds into a series of pools which happened to match the structure of union coverage of particular industries? And another obvious question: how are conflicts of interest to be disclosed and guarded against? For example, the Sunday Telegraph recently reported that Bernie Riordan, secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, is also a director of the Electricity Industry Superannuation Scheme and the chairman of FuturePlus Financial Services and Chifley Financial Services. Mr Riordan has been lobbying electricity industry employers to lift superannuation contributions to 15 per cent. It is easy to see how that might be in the interests of the superannuation fund and indeed of Unions New South Wales, which receives a dividend from Chifley Financial Services. Is it necessarily in the interests of employees? If employees were asked, they might very well prefer to have more cash in hand rather than a higher superannuation contribution.
The last point I want to want to raise is that I have been surprised, looking into this area, at the relatively limited degree of disclosure by industry superannuation funds. Their annual reports are substantially less detailed than those issued by publicly-listed companies, even though many of them are very large ventures, such as AustralianSuper, with assets of $43 billion.
I rise to today to voice the concerns of the many Coptic Christians that live in my electorate of Greenway—and, indeed, of members of the community generally—and to condemn the atrocities being committed on the Coptic community in Egypt. I do not think anyone could not be appalled by the footage of citizens being attacked in an environment where there was so much hope for change and improvement to create a democratic society in Egypt. The January revolution saw many Egyptians of all faiths come out and risk their lives for change, freedom and peace. The reign of former President Hosni Mubarak was tyrannical for the vast majority of Egyptians. The Coptic community continually suffered due to the inability of the government to provide legitimate protection as well as enforcing the rule of law. It has even been reported that the former regime was involved in attacks against the Coptic minority, an issue on which I have received many representations from local residents. So the revolution was a period of hope for all Egyptians but, as my Coptic friends have told me, this sense of hope has unfortunately quickly diminished for those in the Coptic community. Earlier this week, a reported 24 people, mostly Coptic Christians, were killed in clashes with security forces, with more than 200 people injured in fighting that erupted during protests in Cairo. The horrifying footage of speeding army vehicles running down fleeing protesters is sickening and is not reflective of a free country. It is certainly not the result that the Coptic people or indeed the international community had anticipated.
This week's violence follows an increase in sectarian tensions and violence affecting Coptic Christians since the beginning of the year. During that period a number of attacks on Copts and Coptic churches have taken place, reportedly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Copts. I condemn these attacks on religious institutions and citizens. The electorate of Greenway has a strong and proud Coptic community, who have expressed their deepest concerns over the current situation in Egypt. In the Blacktown Local Government Area alone there are an estimated 2,430 people who adhere to the Coptic Christian faith. Earlier this year I made representations to the foreign minister on behalf of a number of Greenway residents, including Mr Ahdy Hanna, who highlighted the degenerating situation in Egypt for the Coptic community. Last night my office was contacted by Mrs Eugenie Youssef of Lalor Park, who expressed the same concerns around the situation currently facing Copts in Egypt.
In August this year I had the privilege of officially opening the St Abanoub Youth Centre in Blacktown. At the opening Reverend Father Pavlos Hanna was present and he reaffirmed his commitment and responsibility for the Coptic people here in Australia and abroad. I share his desire for the protection and liberation of all people of Coptic faith. I understand the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has expressed his own concern over the situation in Egypt and has encouraged Egyptian nationals in Australia affected by recent events in their home country to contact the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for assistance. I also recognise the encouraging words of the minister regarding providing visa assistance to those affected by the unrest in Egypt and that their cases would be treated sympathetically. I express my condolences to the families and friends of those killed or injured and echo the words of our Prime Minister and our foreign minister in calling for calm and for clear respect for religious freedoms, human rights and the rule of law in Egypt. If Egypt is to transition to a free and democratic country, as everyone has hoped, now more than ever is a critical time for peace and stability. I condemn the attacks on the Coptic people in Egypt. These acts of terror must cease immediately. The Egyptian authorities must guarantee the effective safety and protection of Copts and all other minorities in Egypt. I reaffirm my commitment to this cause of the Coptic Christian community in Egypt and abroad.
I begin by acknowledging the words of the member for Greenway about the treatment of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. In my view, she is utterly correct that there have been human rights abuses and that there are still significant restrictions on freedom of worship, so I simply want to acknowledge that and say that while Egypt has removed a dictator it is still not yet a democracy and there is a long path along which it must travel.
I want to address more specifically two items relating to the improvement of health care in Australia. The first involves Phillip Island within my electorate of Flinders and the recent Gippsland South Coast Health Services Plan, which was carried out by the previous state government and not released by that government. That plan found what everybody on the island knows. Firstly, the current arrangements for emergency after-hours medical care on Phillip Island fall well short of what are needed. Secondly, the Bass Coast is the fifth fastest growing area in regional Victoria and, while there are now just under 10,000 people living on Phillip Island, that is set to grow to just under 12,000 people over the next 15 years. With the closure of Warley Hospital, medical care on the island has gone backwards. That is a view I have had since just after the last federal election, when the current government let Warley Hospital go. It failed to stand up and implement the plan which had been agreed upon by the Howard government. There is now no emergency medical care available on the island after 10 pm. In that context, I applaud the recent announcement by the state government of an expanded, 24-hour ambulance service for Phillip Island. That was a first step. Now it is time for the federal government to support plans to give Phillip Island a hospital which is part of the broader Bass Coast health network. It should be a satellite, in my view, of the Bass Coast health network and, in particular, the Wonthaggi Hospital service. I am not prescriptive of the form in which it is to occur but I am absolutely committed to working until such time as it does occur.
I now want to turn to a broader national health issue, which is Indigenous eye health. I have the good fortune of having as a friend and mentor Professor Hugh Taylor, the Harold Mitchell Chair of Indigenous Eye Health at the Indigenous Eye Health Unit at the University of Melbourne. Through work we have done together, Professor Taylor and the Indigenous Eye Health Unit have prepared a critical plan for eradicating avoidable blindness in Indigenous Australians by 2020. The plan will prevent about 3½ thousand people becoming blind from cataracts and another 3,000 becoming blind from diabetes each year. Six and a half thousand people who potentially could avoid blindness each year—that would be a deep and powerful human impact of deep and powerful benefit to Indigenous Australia, and it is a deep and powerful commitment that this parliament can and should make. It is one to which I am committed, and I will work for bipartisan support for the Indigenous eye health plan.
In addition to the 6½ thousand souls who could avoid blindness each year, there are another 16,000 or so who would be able to obtain the glasses they need to see clearly. So we would be reducing dramatically the number of people with poor vision. We cannot solve everything, but through a concerted plan for eradicating avoidable blindness in Indigenous Australians by 2020 we can make a dramatic difference in quality of life, in community facility and in reducing disadvantage in Indigenous Australia.
This plan I endorse, this plan I support and this plan I will back until such time as it is implemented. I do not care whether it is the current government or the next government that does it; I do care that the plan to eradicate avoidable blindness in Indigenous Australians occurs. It has been a year in the making and since I first spoke with Professor Taylor. I congratulate Professor Taylor. There is now an affordable plan to eradicate avoidable blindness in Indigenous Australians by 2020.
I take this opportunity to update the House on circumstances surrounding the steel industry in my electorate of Throsby, in particular the circumstances surrounding BlueScope at Port Kembla.
It would be known to members in this place that nearly two months ago the company advised the stock exchange and the government that it proposed to restructure its operations and exit the export market for steel and that, as a consequence, it would be closing down the No. 6 blast furnace and significantly reducing its workforce. In the time since that announcement and last week, representatives of the workforce, principally the Australian Workers Union, the metalworkers union, the Electrical Trades Union and others, have been engaged in negotiations with representatives of BlueScope management, and I am very pleased to say that those negotiations have resulted in an outcome that is acceptable to both parties. I would like to pass my congratulations to the officials from the AWU, particularly the Port Kembla branch secretary, Andy Gillespie, and his assistant secretary, Wayne Davies, on managing to save 93 jobs as a result of those negotiations with management. Their work has ensured that, although approximately 920 workers will be facing redundancy, there will be no forced redundancies. An enhanced redundancy package was also put in place for the benefit of those workers. This is a sensational outcome. It is worth noting that this was all possible because of the reform to the industrial relations system that the government put in place upon winning office in 2007. These arrangements were all put in place without a day's work lost through strikes or stoppages under the Fair Work Act. So I would like to congratulate the steel industry unions in particular but all parties to the negotiations on that outcome.
Of course, it now falls to BlueScope to restructure its operations to ensure that, as it focuses on the domestic market, it has a viable steel production and fabrication business here in Australia. We are all familiar with its world-famous Colorbond product. BlueScope is investing now in research and development into new products. Of course, this underscores the importance of the steel transformation plan, which passed through this House yesterday, regrettably not with the support of those who sit on the opposite side of the chamber. It is a $300 million package.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
Order!
The member for Wannon makes a lot of noise on this—empty drums make the most noise, Madam Deputy Speaker; we are all aware of that. The $300 million steel transformation plan has absolutely nothing to do with the revenue generated by carbon pricing. It is separately funded, so it would have been feasible for those opposite to vote in favour of this and still maintain their 'head in the sand' opposition to the Clean Energy Future package of legislation. But they did not. I continue to invite them to change their position and explain why this measure is incredibly important to the future of the steel industry in the Illawarra.
I and the member for Gilmore appeared on local radio this morning to explain why we had adopted the positions we had on the steel transformation plan. The member for Gilmore said she voted against it because she did not understand it. You would have thought that a member who is charged with the responsibility of representing those constituencies in her electorate would have put a bit more effort into understanding the legislation before the House. It is critical that the opposition review their position. The workers in the Illawarra are very keen to understand whether those opposite are going to withdraw their mindless—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I am having difficulty hearing the member for Throsby.
It is very important that those opposite make a clear position on this. If they are elected to government, will they cease and desist from the future payments through the steel transformation plan to steel industry employees? Will they cut them off? Steel industry employees need certainty to ensure that they can restructure and reinvest and to ensure that we have a viable steel industry in this country. The big axe hanging over their heads is the position adopted by those opposite.
by leave—I rise to table a petition of 400 signatures as a document. The petition calls for, firstly, an urgent review of the provisions of telecommunications in the Pyrenees shire, in particular a lack of reliable mobile coverage and high-speed broadband, and, secondly, the lobbying of Telstra to upgrade services to a standard appropriate to 2011. The petition is from residents of the Pyrenees shire in the electorate of Wannon and asks the House and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to consider the two recommendations put forward.
It is important that this is tabled as a document because the lack of mobile telecommunications is a vital issue in the shire of Pyrenees. The response that I got from the minister for telecommunications to the letter I wrote to him on this issue is extremely disappointing because for the first time it stated very clearly that the federal government, the Gillard government, has no money to give to smaller communities to assist them in getting provision for mobile telecommunications in their communities. There is nothing for mobile towers. This is a sad state of affairs because, in 2007, $2 billion was set aside for the provision of telecommunications in regional and rural areas. The interest on that $2 billion annually went into providing telecommunications to those areas where it might not have been commercially viable for Telstra, Optus and other telecommunications providers to put those services in. Four years later, we have no money from the federal government to assist these communities.
I take this moment to congratulate the Pyrenees Shire Council. Given that the federal government will not allocate any money, they have had to step in. They have offered $40,000 for one of the telecommunications providers to put a mobile tower in Moonambel. Once again, this is appalling cost shifting from the federal government onto local government. The Pyrenees Shire Council has had to come in and offer this money, when the federal government should be doing exactly that. I again call on Senator Conroy to abandon the $43 billion folly which is the NBN and instead put that money back into providing telecommunications services, and in particular broadband telecommunications services, in country areas.
These 400 signatures clearly show that there is community concern in regional and rural Australia about the lack of telecommunications and, in particular, mobile telecommunications. The minister needs to act. He stole $2 billion which had been earmarked and allocated to provide central telecommunications in regional and rural areas and has put it into his NBN folly and left regional and rural Australia abandoned as a result. It is time he recognised that there is life outside big urban centres and that the provision of mobile telecommunications enables those communities also to receive broadband through those mobile towers. We need to put back in place a government program which assists small communities to access these vital telecommunications.
The people of the Pyrenees shire have spoken on this. There are signatures from 400 people calling for it. Now we need to see some federal government action on it. If not, they should get out of the way. They should call an election, go to the people and get out of the way so a decent government can come back into this parliament and govern for all Australians. Rural and regional Australians are getting sick of the way the Gillard government are treating them. It is time that the government started realising that people exist outside urban areas and want proper services. They need to provide some funding so we can get decent mobile telecommunications in country areas.
I seek leave to table the petition as a document.
Leave granted.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an important and growing concern in my community: the ever-rising number of locals who have hit hard times, many finding themselves homeless. I am increasingly concerned about the number of locals who are coming to me who have lost their jobs because the business they work for is struggling or because they have substance-abuse problems or are in the midst of a family breakdown or difficult circumstances. Across the federal seat of Longman we suffer from six per cent unemployment. In Caboolture we are at 10 per cent unemployment. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the number of small business owners who have spoken to me about how difficult conditions are for small business. Time and again, they talk to me about spiralling costs and declining confidence. Time and again, they tell me that they feel that the government is getting in the way and making life harder for them rather than getting out of the way and leaving them to get on with running their business.
Yesterday in this House the members of the Labor Party voted in favour of yet another tax on hardworking locals in my community. They voted in favour of a tax on those small businesses, which are already struggling. Those members of the Labor Party voted for making a bad situation worse. They voted for higher electricity costs, higher water costs, higher rates costs, higher grocery prices and higher transport costs. It is clear that the Labor Party of today have forgotten and walked away from the very people they once claimed to represent. These decisions have repercussions for the families in my community. Instead of there being a thriving small business sector that is the engine room of employment and prosperity in the region, businesses are closing and people are losing their jobs. Their lives are being made harder, not easier.
I will share some of the stories of the people who have come to my office recently seeking help because of the desperate situation they are in. A mother with five children lost her job in January after the Queensland floods. She fell behind in her rent and ended up being evicted. The youngest of her children was 18 months old. When the mother first came to see me, she was living with a friend of hers in a two-bedroom flat. Her friend had two children. Obviously this situation was unsustainable, so this poor woman ended up living in a car. Fortunately we have an excellent organisation—Caboolture Family Haven—in my electorate, and this wonderful institution was able to help this family. Another story is that of a father with a six-year-old daughter who recently lost his job. He also fell behind on his rent. He was absolutely desperate when he called my office, seeking assistance with this situation before he and his young daughter could be evicted, and again Caboolture Family Haven was able to step in and assist this man with housing.
I have had even more desperate calls to my office from small business owners who can see their life's work disappearing before their eyes. We need a government that supports small businesses and makes it easier, not harder, for them to thrive, to prosper and to employ people. We do not need a government that is imposing more taxes and regulation and strangling the life out of the very sector that is responsible for employing people and growing the economy.
Recently, at one of my Listening Posts, which I regularly conduct around my community, I had two gentlemen come to see me towards the end of the day, at about five in the afternoon. One of the men had discharged himself from hospital that day and was shaking and having trouble staying on his feet. He was clearly struggling with substance abuse. There was nowhere I could refer this man so that he could sleep safely for the night, so I rang Phil from Friends of the Street, an organisation that works tirelessly to help the homeless in my community. Phil came immediately with food and his usual sensible and practical advice, but this man was in a bad way and could not be left to sleep on a bench in the park. All we were able to do was to take him back to the hospital—it was the only place where he could be safe and cared for. The Caboolture Hospital is already straining under the pressures of population growth in our region; surely there is somewhere else this man could have gone for the support he required.
Along with my colleagues in the coalition I will continue to fight in this place and in my local community to see that in this nation we have a society which can give a hand-up to our most vulnerable people, a society which has hope that tomorrow will be better than today, and that we have a government which rewards hard work and creates a society based on opportunity, where forgotten Australians can get ahead in life; a society which rewards hard work and says to people, 'When you are down, if you work hard you have every opportunity and ability to get ahead in life.' That is the Australian society that I want to see, and that is the Australian society that the coalition is fighting for.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 12: 10