by leave—I move:
That unless otherwise ordered, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Question Time commencing immediately and being followed by:
(1) presentation of documents;
(2) the discussion of a matter of public importance;
(3) ministerial statements; and
(4) government business until 9:30 p.m.
I indicate that I understand that there may well also be a suspension of parliament for a short period of time at an appropriate time!
Question agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her immediate ban on live cattle exports in response to Bob Brown and the Greens in June—
Government members interjecting—
Order! Order!
and I contrast that with the 48 hours of airport chaos that resulted from her dithering on Saturday. I ask: why is this Prime Minister more concerned to pander to the Greens than she is to protect the Australian travelling public?
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister has the call. The Prime Minister.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I must admit I did commence laughing at the start of it, because I thought the Leader of the Opposition was moving off Qantas! And I would have known why if he was moving off Qantas today—because, having spent all of that time yesterday yelling and screaming for answers about who knew what when, what happens today? The Leader of the Opposition twice refused to answer a question about when he knew that Qantas was going to lock its workers out and ground the planes—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order!
When did the Leader of the Opposition know?
Honourable members interjecting—
When did he know that tens of thousands of passengers were going to be stranded? When did he know the workers were going to be locked out?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The House will settle down. The Prime Minister has the call. She will be heard in silence. The Prime Minister.
I am very happy to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question because I think all the facts, every fact, about this dispute should be before the Australian people—every fact about contact with Qantas, every fact about who knew what when. The Leader of the Opposition might like to apply to himself the same standard that he is always so eager to apply to others—in here yesterday, screaming at the top of his voice for answers and, today, a man stunned into a humbling silence. To the Leader of the Opposition, I say this: what the government did on Saturday was the appropriate conduct—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Order! The member for Cook will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Cook then left the chamber.
for a government that understands that the workplace relations system is about balance. It is about treating the interests of employers and employees in balance. It is about making sure that there is fairness for all. It is about making sure that there is not industrial disruption that threatens the national interest. That is the approach of the government and that is the approach we took. Consequently, we moved on Saturday afternoon to bring this dispute to an end, and it was at an end by yesterday afternoon, with planes back in the sky—a balanced approach to the interests of employers and employees, always guided by what is in the interests of the national economy and the travelling public.
But what has amazed me in the course of the last few days is that in these circumstances—with Qantas having decided on Saturday to dramatically escalate this dispute, to engage in a lockout of its workforce, to ground planes with no appropriate notice to the travelling public so that tens of thousands of people were stranded away from home, unable to get to work, unable to get back to their loved ones—the Leader of the Opposition has not uttered one word of criticism of Qantas, not one word of criticism of Qantas after it stranded tens of thousands of passengers. We know why that is—well, we only know part of why that is—because the opposition leader's attitude towards industrial relations is to give the employers everything they want every time and smash into the workers. That was what Work Choices was about. What we do not quite know is all of the details about the Leader of the Opposition's interactions with Qantas, because he is now engaged in a cover-up of that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is time he came clean with the Australian public. The tens of thousands of members of the Australian public who were stranded would be interested to know what the Leader of the Opposition knew and when he knew it.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! To the many people who are talking, I am going to interrupt you. We are running question time and the member for Banks has been standing patiently asking for the call.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
In comparison between the member for Banks and the member for North Sydney, I know who has been the much luckier. The member for North Sydney, if he wishes to remain in question time, should sit there quietly.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how Fair Work Australia is resolving the industrial action involving Qantas, and how has the government taken decisive action in this matter?
I thank the member for Banks for his question. I know that he has always been interested in making sure that there are appropriate industrial rules so that both employers and employees can work together in balanced, harmonious and productive workplaces. That has always been the attitude of the Labor Party: to make sure that employers, employees and trade unions can work together in the interests of productivity and the national economy.
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
The member for Cowper is warned!
I am asked by the member for Banks about the Qantas dispute, and to the member for Banks I would say that in the early hours of Monday morning Fair Work Australia, the industrial umpire which we empowered under the Fair Work Act, made the appropriate order to end the damaging disputation in Qantas, particularly the grounding of its fleet, caused by the decision of Qantas on Saturday. It was an extreme decision to lock out their workers and to ground their fleet, stranding tens of thousands of Australians in places away from home and around the world without sufficient notice to make alternative arrangements.
Fair Work Australia did what it should do under the Fair Work Act to end that disputation. We are a nation which, in the past, has seen lockouts of employees persist for months but Fair Work Australia, seized of the matter during Saturday as a result of the government's application to Fair Work Australia, immediately commenced to work and planes were back in the sky on Monday afternoon as a result of the government's application and the decision of Fair Work Australia.
I am aware that during the last few days there has been criticism of the Fair Work Act and commentary about its provisions. To those who raise that criticism I say that if people want to have a debate on workplace relations in this parliament, bring it on. Bring it on, because we do know that the opposition wants to change the Fair Work Act and go back to Work Choices. If that is the debate of the day then bring it on. Let me make it clear where we will stand in that debate and what principles will guide us, because you have seen it on display during the Qantas dispute.
We will always act in the interests of the Australian public, as we acted in the interests of the travelling public during the Qantas dispute. We will always act in the interests of the national economy because there is nothing more important to this country than the prosperity and opportunity that a strong national economy can provide. We will always act with balance and fairness to the rights of working people, to make sure that they can be appropriately represented at work. That is why we have put the safety net back after the Liberal Party took it away, that is why we have an industrial umpire with powers to act and that is why we have a fair bargaining system.
I do note that there are others in this debate who are bringing a different set of values, most particularly, the Leader of the Opposition, who has not uttered one word of criticism of Qantas for taking this industrial action—not one word.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
Order! The member for Cowan is warned!
Can you imagine what the Leader of the Opposition would have said if working people had marched away from work and had caused the grounding of flights around the nation? If it had been employees who had done that, imagine what the Leader of the Opposition would have said. But there was not one word of criticism of Qantas—not one word—because the Liberal Party are bringing to this their traditional bias against working people. It has been on display over the last 48 hours, just like it was on display during the days of Work Choices. (Time expired)
This question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her government's embarrassing record—its failure to put pink batts in roofs without starting fires; its failure to build school halls without rip-off after rip-off; its panicked handling of the live cattle exports; the biggest budget deficit in our history, its failure to protect Australia's borders and the introduction of the world's only economy-wide carbon tax, which it promised would never happen. I ask: given the Prime Minister's failure to act on Saturday to prevent 48 hours of avoidable chaos, how can she expect the Australian people to have any faith whatsoever in this divided and directionless government?
To the Leader of the Opposition I say, gee, it is getting a bit embarrassing for you now, isn't it? There he is, with his chants of negativity. He comes in here every day and he has clipped together his little negative slogans. He has done that with a sense of desperation today because he is in cover-up mode. He does not want to be asked when he knew what he knew about Qantas. Did he know an hour before the planes were grounded? Did he know 24 hours before the planes were grounded? Did he know 48 hours before the planes were grounded? Did he ring up Qantas and suggest the planes should be grounded? Who knows what role the Leader of the Opposition played in this dispute, because he is in cover-up mode, having screamed for the truth yesterday? He wanted to know every word, every telephone call, every piece of legal advice and what was said to every minister in every meeting. He screamed for the truth. He yelled for the truth. He wanted the truth. Then, confronted with questions about his role today, he was stunningly silent. So, in the midst of that stunning silence, he has obviously gone to the 'break glass in case of emergency', and he has gone and got all of his old negative slogans out and knitted them together as a question. It is truly pathetic.
Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: this government will continue to do the following things. We will continue to have the Fair Work system; the Leader of the Opposition believes in Work Choices. We will continue to ensure that there is a strong national economy that works in the interests of all; the Leader of the Opposition wants the miners to pay less tax—he wants to take money off other people and make the miners pay less tax. We will ensure that Australians have the benefit of new technology, the National Broadband Network; the Leader of the Opposition wants to rip it out of the ground. We will ensure that Australians have a clean energy future at the lowest possible price; just as the Leader of the Opposition wants to give money to big miners, he wants to take money off Australian families and give it to big polluters. We will ensure that we continue to reform and invest in our education system; the Leader of the Opposition is committed to ripping money out of schools and apprenticeships. We will continue to ensure that we invest in the future of Australian health; the Leader of the Opposition is a man whose only achievement as health minister in this nation was taking a billion dollars out of hospitals. We will continue to ensure that working people in this country can see an economy that is being managed in their interests and that they are receiving the services that families need; the Leader of the Opposition would never manage the economy in their interests—we can tell that from his conduct over the last few days, and certainly he is dedicated to ripping away the services that they need. We will ensure that the budget comes to surplus next year; the Leader of the Opposition sits there with his $70 billion black hole, slashing services to working families.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It was an attempt at distraction, but the question still remains for the Leader of the Opposition to answer: when did he first know Qantas was grounding its fleet, and why didn't he answer the questions about it at his press conference? Why not? There is no point yelling about it now. Go out and tell the truth.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the Indonesia-Australia Inter-parliamentary Group of the Indonesian parliament. 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 Infrastructure and Transport. Would the minister update the House on the government's decisive action to minimise the impacts on the travelling public of Qantas's decision to lock out its staff and ground its fleet? When was the minister informed of this decision by Qantas?
I thank the member for Deakin for his question, and indeed it is a very good question. I have been very transparent about what the government knew and precisely when. I have indicated very clearly the process whereby my office was contacted by Mr Joyce prior to 2 pm, whereby I made three phone calls attempting to get on to Mr Joyce. Eventually Mr Joyce returned my call after 2 pm, at which point he informed me that he intended to lock out his workforce from 8 pm on Monday evening and that, as a consequence, he would shut down the airline domestically and internationally at 5 pm that day. I have indicated very clearly that that was the first time that Mr Joyce or anyone else from Qantas had ever raised with me the prospect of a lockout of the workforce and a consequential shutdown of the airline. There are some on the opposite side who have suggested that somehow I should have known that would have occurred. There was not a single person in Australia, in Qantas, an aviation reporter, an opinion writer, a politician—anyone at all in Australia—who had predicted that Qantas would take what in the words of Mr Joyce—
Professor Andrew Stewart—
Order! The member for Mayo.
at 5 pm was 'an unbelievable decision'—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The member for Mayo will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mayo then left the chamber.
Not a single person in Australia thought that Mr Joyce and the Qantas board would make this decision to lock out its workforce and shut down the airline.
But it is the case that I have also indicated that, in the lead-up to Saturday, never did Qantas or any trade union call for government intervention into the dispute. Indeed, up until Friday, one day beforehand, the Leader of the Opposition was also not calling for government intervention into the dispute. What we saw on Friday was a front-page story in the Daily Telegraph, with letters from Premier Baillieu and Premier O'Farrell to the Prime Minister that were given to the Daily Telegraph about the same time or before the Prime Minister's office received those letters. That morning, the Leader of the Opposition called for the government to intervene in the dispute—one day before Qantas announced their action and on the day of the Qantas AGM, in which none of the shareholders of Qantas were informed of this plan, even though we know from the Fair Work Australia hearing that Qantas received a report on 20 October about the consequences for safety of a decision to lock out the workforce. But not a word did we hear.
Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, was asked prior to question time, 'Did anyone from Qantas speak to you or your office prior to Saturday about the possibility of a grounding?' and he could not answer it. He was then asked, 'The question was whether your office was forewarned of the dispute; can you answer that?' and he could not do that either. We know that when they were in office they were a part of a conspiracy— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain how she finds time to call Australian sports stars to congratulate them on their success but could not find five minutes on Saturday to call Qantas to try to avert 48 hours of chaos that stranded 70,000 passengers, hit our national economy and damaged our international reputation?
To the question from the opposition I say: this continues the pattern of yesterday and it continues its pattern of seeking to mislead the Australian people over this dispute for its base political interests, because it is obviously softening up the ground to try to sell to the Australian people a reintroduction of Work Choices.
Given the fact that the member who asked the question is misleading and in a pattern of misleading, I refer him to something that happened yesterday morning. That is when Alan Joyce went on Radio National. The member who asked the question should have known about this interview—indeed, he probably did—but there is this pattern of misleading going on. There was the article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday morning that suggested that somehow Alan Joyce was waiting for a call from me. Alan Joyce was asked about this on Radio National yesterday. The question from the interviewer Fran Kelly was: 'Alan Joyce, is it true that the fleet would never have been grounded if the Prime Minister had taken your call'—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was very short and specific. It was not about whether the Prime Minister returned Alan Joyce's call or took his call; it was why she did not pick up the phone to ring Qantas to try to avert this crisis.
The Prime Minister is answering the question, and I think that the people behind the member for Sturt showed what value they placed on the point of order. It would assist the House if people sat there quietly, engaged and listened—even to the people who asked the question so they could remember the whole question. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question. I would appreciate less debate in responses, but I say to those asking the questions: they have been replete in argument. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much. I am going directly to the question of telephone calls. I know that the facts and the truth are inconvenient for the opposition, but these are the facts. Alan Joyce was asked, 'Is it true that you would not have grounded the fleet if the Prime Minister had taken your call during the CHOGM meeting and promised to intervene directly to end this dispute?' Alan Joyce, in response:
There is misquotes and misinformation on it. We had talked to three senior ministers. I had no expectation to talk to the Prime Minister. I knew that she was tied up in CHOGM. We had talked to the appropriate ministers …
Then Fran Kelly comes back again: 'So you weren't waiting on the Prime Minister's call?' 'No. Absolutely not. That is completely misaccurately reported.'
So misrepresentation No. 1 from the opposition is that somehow a discussion between me and Alan Joyce on Saturday afternoon would have changed Qantas's decision. That is not true, and every member of the opposition who says it is telling the Australian people something that is not true. Qantas determined to ground its fleet on Saturday morning. It determined to engage in a lockout and ground its fleet. We have been critical of that decision. The opposition have not uttered one word of criticism about that. The Qantas decision was the wrong decision: it was the wrong decision by members of the travelling public; it was the wrong decision by the Australian economy. The Leader of the Opposition utters not one word of criticism of Qantas and seeks to mislead the Australian people about the circumstances of this dispute. And then the opposition, yesterday and today, continue to mislead the Australian people about the provisions of the Fair Work Act, pretending that section 431 is something that can be instantaneously turned on without the minister engaging in a proper process and something that is not subject to legal review. In doing that they seek to mislead the Australian people.
Now, Mr Speaker, you would ask yourself: why are they seeking to mislead the Australian people about all of this? Why don't they utter a word of criticism about Qantas's decision to lock workers out and ground its fleet? I will leave that for the Leader of the Opposition to answer, but I would suggest to him that, for a man who has been calling for details and the full record of events, he would want to be more fulsome and more direct in his answers to media questions than has been on display today.
Mr Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Given the answer she has just given, I invite her to rightly criticise union leaders such as Tony Sheldon and Steve Purvinas, who in Tony Sheldon's case has told the Australian public they should punish Qantas and in Steve Purvinas's case has advised the Australian public not to travel on Qantas. Is she prepared to say these people should not be vandalising an Australian national icon?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Order! I do not need the assistance of the Leader of the House but that was the point I was about to make: that was stretching the supplementary question very wide. The Prime Minister appeared to be eager to answer the question; on that basis I give the Prime Minister the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for precisely proving my point for me. Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: if the pilots or the transport workers or the licensed aircraft engineers or any other pivotal part of Qantas's workforce had walked off the job at 2 pm on Saturday and grounded flights at 5 pm on Saturday I would have uttered every same word of criticism as I have uttered of Qantas, and I would have taken the matter to Fair Work Australia, and I would have sought to have the industrial action terminated.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order!
If any union, if any working person, had engaged in conduct that destructive—
Honourable members interjecting—
The House will come to order! If the Assistant Treasurer and the member for Fadden want to have a discussion they can have the discussion outside if they continue!
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
Can we interrupt the member for Paterson by continuing? The Prime Minister has the call. She should be heard in silence.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would have been as critical of that action as I was of Qantas's action. I would have described them both as extreme decisions and I would have had the government respond in precisely the same way. That is because I believe in balancing the interests of employees and trade unions and employers in workplaces. That is what the Fair Work Act is all about. That is why Work Choices was so wrong, because there is a pendulum in industrial relations between the interests of employees and employers and it is the job of government to keep that pendulum in the centre. The Liberal Party thought its job in government was to grab that pendulum and put it all the way up for employers, so employers could have everything they wanted and working people got smashed time after time after time.
In relation to other industrial action, let me make it very clear in case the Leader of the Opposition has not heard these things from the government. The government were critical of statements that people should not fly on Qantas. We were critical of those statements. They were wrong and they should never have been made. Of course they were the wrong statements. We did say consistently, publicly and privately, to the industrial parties, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has been clear about the role he played in this—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is warned!
we did say to them that they needed to get this dispute fixed in the interests of the nation. Every step of the way we have shown the appropriate balance between the interests of working people and the interests of the employer. And, of course, when we moved on Saturday we were motivated by keeping balance in industrial relations, by making sure we were doing what we needed to do to protect the national economy and in the interests of members of the travelling public who were stranded miles and miles away from work or home, where they needed to get to.
Contrast that with the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. He is always on the radio full of words of criticism about militant unions, but we see an employer lock its workforce out, we see planes grounded around the country with basically no notice to members of the travelling public—we see an employer take that extreme action—and the Leader of the Opposition cannot bring himself to utter one word of criticism of Qantas. Well, we know why that is. It is Liberal Party philosophy, it is fused into their DNA, it is what built Work Choices—and that is, if they ever need to look at a situation in a workplace their only question is: 'How much can I do to help the boss, what can I do to hurt the workers?' That is all they ever have believed in and all they ever will believe in.
My question is to the Treasurer. Australia is the world's second-biggest goldminer after China, and Treasury's original proposal for a super profits tax included gold. It is estimated that even the revised mining tax could raise an extra $1.8 billion if gold were included, which would be enough to fund impact assessments for coal seam gas on farmland, for example, as proposed by the member for New England. Treasurer, why should goldminers get a free ride and avoid a tax on their super profits?
I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. The MRRT is about taxing the most profitable mines, mining the most profitable commodities, so the government decided to tax iron ore, coal, oil and gas. The fact is that gold is mined with a number of other commodities. Gold can be mined with copper; gold can be mined with nickel. The fact is that we would have had extreme complexity if we had decided to tax a number of commodities in a mine and not tax a number of other commodities in the same mine. That was absolutely impossible to do, so we decided entirely for legitimate reasons to tax the most highly profitable mines with the most highly profitable commodities. The alternative would have been to have gone back to a wider range of commodities, but we would not have received the revenue from a wide range of those commodities that would have justified the complexity. That is why the government decided to go for a limited number of highly profitable commodities in a limited number of mines. It made a lot of policy sense; and it makes policy sense today.
I am pleased to see that the member is a supporter of resource rent taxation. We on this side of the House are strong supporters of resource rent taxation. We believe that the Australian people should get a fair return from the resources they own 100 per cent, which can only be mined once. Given that we have high commodity prices and given that we have the highest terms of trade in 140 years, it is only fair that the Australian people should receive a fair return from that. That is why we have put in place resource rent taxation, particularly when the high terms of trade impact on the economy, push the dollar up and leave us with a patchwork economy. This gives us the capacity to spread the benefits of the mining boom to every corner of our country—to struggling small businesses right around the country. From Tasmania to Western Australia to North Queensland, 2.7 million small businesses will get the instant asset write-off of $6,500—very important support for small business. That is why it is important to use the revenue to invest in infrastructure and it is also very important to make sure that we support the superannuation savings of Australian workers—3.5 million Australian workers will get an immediate boost to their superannuation.
When we say that we are doing something about the patchwork economy, it goes to the core of resource rent taxation, because we understand the need to spread the benefits of the mining boom right around our country. That is why we on this side of the House are strongly supporting resource rent taxation. Those on the other side of the House support lower tax for miners and lower superannuation for Australian workers. We on this side of the House support Australian small businesses with lower taxes and support Australian workers, unlike those on that side of the House.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. What has been the impact of Qantas's decision to lock out its workforce and shut down the airline on the travelling public? What has been the public response to this decision?
I certainly thank the member for Chifley for his question. As a result of the shutdown, at least 68,000 Qantas passengers were affected—48,000 domestic passengers and 20,000 international passengers. As a result of that, people could not get to businesses; people could not get home to their families. We had people turning up at London Heathrow Airport and other airports not knowing how they could get home. Indeed, last night I spoke to a gentleman who had booked on Qantas, had flown from the United States and was stranded in a Sydney hotel with his 34-week pregnant wife. I intervened because he was unable to get a seat on a plane. My office rang Qantas and they were able to get him and his wife seats to Cairns this morning.
They are the sorts of personal issues that were raised as a result of this issue. That is why the government was so determined to get this airline up and running. Those opposite ask why we did not do something. The Leader of the Opposition was asked a very clear question on ABC 24 on 14 October: what would be your specific intervention? He was given the opportunity to call for government intervention and he did not do so.
Mr Hockey interjecting–
That is right, and what changed between 14 October and Friday? What changed before Qantas made this decision? One thing changed: the unions—
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will resume his seat. The member for Herbert, having been warned, has continued to interject. He was warned and he has continued to interject. The action I am about to take will give a quarter on my right who say that I play favourites more ammunition. I will not name the member; I will invite him to leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). A warning is a precursor to a naming.
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
One thing changed in terms of the industrial action. As of Saturday, the only industrial action that was taking place was pilots wearing red ties—that was the only action that was taking place—and making announcements to their members; yet between 14 October when the Leader of the Opposition made that statement and Friday—the same day we had the front page Daily Telegraph article and the same day we had the letters from the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales—the Leader of the Opposition changed his position. We know that earlier on he could not answer the question when journalists asked him, 'When were you told?'
The Manager of Opposition Business interjected about 'industrial terrorism'. We heard questions yesterday about 'extreme union action'—when it was a lockout by the employer. On this side of the House, it makes no difference whether you have a suit on or a blue collar—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The member for Sturt is warned.
Extreme action not in the national interest will be condemned by this side of the House. Indeed, I said about Mr Purvinas's comments—for example, in the AustralianI was 'very concerned'. I joined criticism of the secretary Steve Purvinas. I said that Mr Purvinas's comments were 'extraordinary' because 'you need a strong company in order to employ people in order to have union members'. I took action. I condemned the extraordinary action. Those on that side of the House did not. The shadow Treasurer, to be fair, did call for intervention earlier, and I would be interested to know what the shadow Treasurer knew and when, and who he was informed by. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Did the minister at any time propose the use of section 431 of the Fair Work Act to stop the industrial action at Qantas?
No.
The record will show that I called the minister and he made a response.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts, representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. Will the minister inform the House how the Fair Work Act and the government's decisive actions under that act have strengthened the rights of working people and protected the national interest? How were workers treated before the introduction of the Fair Work Act?
I thank the member for Greenway for her question and for her commitment to ensuring that there is fairness in the workplace. I am asked by the member how Fair Work Australia has operated in the national interest. It has done this by restoring Australian values in the industrial relations framework. Those values of fairness, security, good faith and getting the balance between work and family are Australian values and they are Labor values. But they were not the values that were embodied in Work Choices. They are now embodied in Fair Work Australia.
Under Work Choices, there was no right to collective bargaining, there was no requirement for the employer to bargain in good faith, and nor was there an ability in circumstances in which the parties could not resolve their issues to have recourse to an independent umpire. As far as the opposition was concerned, they said no to collective bargaining, no to good-faith bargaining and no to an industrial umpire. We said yes to all of those things because they are Australian values.
I am asked the question about how the implementation of this act has advantaged Australia. It has done it in two ways: not just by restoring values but by ensuring that we got the planes flying again after that precipitous action taken by Qantas over the weekend.
I am also asked in this question how workers were treated before the implementation of Fair Work Australia. Well, it is Melbourne Cup day, and I always think it is a good thing on Melbourne Cup day to have a look at the form. There was the coalition form—we have talked about it before—the Peter Reith form. Their approach to industrial relations resolution is to bring in the Rottweilers and the black hoods, and sack a workforce and replace it with scabs. But that was Peter Reith. Who became the industrial relations minister after Peter Reith? The current Leader of the Opposition. Abbott continued the process going forward. We know the Leader of the Opposition did not back the former minister for industrial relations Peter Reith in the presidential stakes, but he holds the same form as the former minister for industrial relations.
I will give you some examples because it also pays in this place to have a corporate memory about how some of these disputes were handled. There was the Morris McMahon dispute, where workers were out on the grass for four months because the employer was not required to bargain in good faith. Workers were paid $11 an hour—and what was the Leader of the Opposition's admonition to them? 'Go back to work because you have a Rolls Royce deal.' Then there was negotiating the auto industry package. He required the industry to pay into a fund so that they could sue workers and unions. Then there was the Tristar Steering dispute where he would not intervene; he said it was not the role of the government to get involved. Then there was the G & K O'Connor dispute, the meatworks where workers were sacked and on the grass for nine months because they had to put up with a 60 per cent wage cut. The Leader of the Opposition stayed out of that dispute, and he refused to disclose his dealings with the company. Doesn't that sound familiar in the context of this Qantas issue today? Here he is. We know that there was engagement with Qantas, but he refuses to disclose what he would have said to Qantas had he picked up the phone. He would have said, 'Continue the dispute.' (Time expired)
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Did the minister at any time propose the use of section 431 of the Fair Work Act to stop industrial action at Qantas?
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting —
The member for Higgins is now warned.
No.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the Assistant Treasurer update the House on the position of travellers with travel insurance affected by Qantas's decision to lock out its staff and ground its fleet? What factors will impact on the ability of travellers to claim for losses incurred?
Opposition members: No. No. No.
The member for Fadden will remove himself from the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). There are plenty of others who could be following him.
The member for Fadden then left the chamber.
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for asking a question that is of interest to literally over 100,000 Australians and people from other countries who are travelling on Qantas, both in Australia and overseas, and who were caught up in this issue. It is an issue that affected employees—they have been trapped in hotels overseas and cannot get back to their families because of this action. It is an issue that is important to the insurance industry, which I will return to in more detail in a moment. What rights travellers have in this—an issue conspicuously absent from the coalition's questions; it took a government member to ask this question—are influenced heavily by the turn of events from Saturday afternoon. The rights of travellers are influenced heavily by the disproportionate and precipitant action of Qantas. They are the people who grounded the planes and now make it a live issue about the insurance rights of people.
Why is it we never hear the opposition criticise Qantas? Why is it that they only ever criticise one side of the debate? They have been deafeningly silent on what they think about Qantas.
Opposition members interjecting—
As much as they may shout my answer down, we know that their industrial relations policy is dial a friend: ring Qantas and find out what to do.
Of course the reason why travellers in this country need information about their insurance is that Qantas could not manage their employee relations and so in turn chose to damage the economy. An otherwise smart company full of professionals could not do the day job which they are paid to do, which is to encourage their employees on a process of change. Because Qantas could not do their day job properly, travellers now need to find out what their rights are. I have spoken with the Insurance Council of Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is very tempting but it would be time consuming. I warned the member for Higgins. She will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a), only because I just cannot wait around for a division. When I warn people I expect there to be a reaction.
The member for Higgins then left the chamber.
I have spoken with the Insurance Council of Australia. First of all, they say that travellers inconvenienced should check with Qantas first to see what Qantas will say to them. They tell me that industrial action is normally a predictable event, so sometimes insurance companies will not pay the cost of a lost ticket. The emphasis there is on 'normally a predictable event'. The insurance industry has said that this shutdown was unpredictable. Because of that, insurers, I have been told, not universally—
Opposition members interjecting—
If the opposition don't think it was unpredictable, they need to explain their actions.
Order! The minister will ignore the interjections and the interjectors will cease interjecting.
The insurers have said that, whilst there cannot be a blanket commitment, they will look sympathetically to claims. They do say they will assess whether or not passengers were able to mitigate their loss and if they were able to get a flight quickly what losses they incurred. Because this is an unpredictable element they are going to be more sympathetic to claims than has traditionally perhaps been the case on other occasions.
Of course, this comes down to the question of unpredictability. This event was certainly unpredictable to the flying public. It was certainly unpredictable to the tourism industry. It was certainly unpredictable to the mining industry. It was certainly not notified to the government until Saturday afternoon. But of course that does beg the question: who did know? I sat through the 12 hours of hearings in the commission last Sunday and Monday morning. I did not run into any Liberals in the lift queue trying to sort the matter out.
I do know that Qantas said that easily from 20 October this was on the cards. Of course, there is one other set of actors who can explain whether it was unpredictable. We all know where I am going here, don't we? What did the opposition know? Did you know? Were you informed at any stage? Did some of your former staff members tell you what was going on? Shame! (Time expired)
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Wright has been well behaved since coming closer to the chair, but the fact that he is now out of his new chair makes his behaviour grossly disorderly. He should behave much better.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement yesterday that she could not stop the industrial action at Qantas using section 431 of the Fair Work Act due to the 'endless legal challenges that would have ensued'. Given that the pilots union and the Transport Workers Union have said they are preparing a legal challenge to the Prime Minister's use of section 424, what new excuse can the Prime Minister now give the parliament for not making a declaration under section 431?
The opposition's campaign of misleading continues. I have explained it to the parliament once and I will explain it again to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to members of the opposition generally. Section 431 enables the minister for workplace relations to make a declaration. The provision has never been used. It was first introduced into Australian industrial relations law by the Howard government. There were times during this questioning in parliament yesterday when members of the opposition were yelling out: 'What is it for? Why is it there?' Let us just note what the facts are: this provision was introduced by the Liberal government; it enables a minister to make a declaration; it has never been used. So my point before the House yesterday and my point before the House today—and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has taken the point out of context—is that, because it has not been used and because the advice to us is that the ministerial declaration would be capable of judicial review, the use of that ministerial declaration could then have triggered long-running court cases which would have taken us into unknown legal terrain. It has not been used before.
This is another campaign of misleading by the opposition—day in, day out. The Leader of the Opposition switched his position from government should not intervene to, on Friday, government should intervene, without any explanation as to why he changed his mind between those two points, given the escalation of the dispute did not happen until Sunday, when Qantas notified that it would be locking its staff out. To the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and the opposition started calling for the use of section 431, the other thing it misled about is the circumstances in which it can be used. It cannot be used just willy-nilly; you have to meet a particular test.
Then, of course, the opposition has misled about what the minister needs to do. The opposition yesterday and today has continued to mislead and say that all the minister needs to do is instantaneously sign a piece of paper. That is not correct. Because the matter is capable of judicial review, the minister has to have a body of evidence and there is also the prospect that the minister needs to extend procedural fairness to the parties and hear from the parties. When you properly assess, therefore, what you need to do under section 431, it means you end up in proceedings, effectively, very like—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It cannot be relevant for the Prime Minister to make up things about what the opposition said yesterday. That cannot be relevant.
The Prime Minister has the call. She is responding to the question.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So the opposition has consistently raised the spectre that the minister could have just dashed off a declaration. That is not legally correct.
Then, what the opposition has consistently failed to acknowledge is that the government, in taking the action that it took, ensured that this dispute was brought to an end. I do note—because I think for completeness on the public record it should be noted—the relevant department advised the government to take the proceedings under the section that the government chose to use.
So, for all of this campaign of misleading, I would say to the opposition: the government acted to bring this dispute to an end. We are concerned about the national economy and the travelling public. We are concerned about balance in the workplace relations system. The truth is, looking at the government and the opposition, the only people concerned about the travelling public and the only people concerned about balance in the workplace relations system are the government. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the outcome of today's Reserve Bank board meeting?
I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. I would like to inform the House that the Reserve Bank today has announced it will cut the official cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.5 per cent—a decision just announced. As the nation gets ready for the race which stops us once a year, the Melbourne Cup, this will be a welcome relief for Australian families who are under cost-of-living pressures.
I understand that despite our strong economic fundamentals, and they are strong, parts of the community are doing it very tough and finding it very hard to make the family accounts add up to get the bills paid. So this news will come as welcome relief to them. It will be relief for families too as we move towards the festive season, when people want to make arrangements for Christmas and Christmas holidays.
Importantly, today's decision by the Reserve Bank confirms this government's strong economic management credentials. We do understand that families are under cost-of-living pressure and that is why we have introduced a range of measures to assist families, including increasing the childcare tax rebate to 50 per cent and creating the education tax refund to help with the costs of getting kids to schools. We are going to deliver an increase of $4,200 in family tax benefit A for the mums and dads who have teenagers, and, of course, we have brought in paid parental leave to help parents of very young babies. And we have secured an economy where 95 out of every 100 Australians who want a job have got a job. Our focus has always been on making sure that Australians have the benefits and dignity of work, and that is why we moved to put economic stimulus into our economy, to keep jobs for Australians when the global financial crisis threatened.
We have also come through with a strict fiscal discipline plan and we are delivering the fastest fiscal consolidation on record. The delivery of that fiscal consolidation and getting the budget back into surplus—back into the black—as promised, is very important. The government's strict fiscal strategy means we have created space in the economy for it to grow without adding to price pressures. You run a strict fiscal policy in order not to put upwards pressure on inflation, and that helps the RBA have the room it needs to move on monetary policy.
At the same time, our strong public finances continue to be the envy of the world. That point will come home to me very forcefully, I am sure, as I attend the G20 in coming days, where I will meet with leaders of other economies who are struggling with debt, who are struggling with high unemployment rates and who are struggling with the prospect of how they deal with their budgets, whilst we here, of course, have strong public finances, we have Australians in jobs and we are bringing the budget into surplus by engaging in strong fiscal consolidation.
We live in the right region of the world at the right time in history. Economic weight is moving from west to east. Our economy is strong now and we must keep reforming and changing to ensure that we maximise the benefits of the Asian century in which we live. Today's announcement by the Reserve Bank will be good news for Australian families to help take that bit of pressure off on this Melbourne Cup day.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The coalition of course welcomes lower interest rates, as we always have, but I reflect on the comments of the Reserve Bank board when they said that they are reducing interest rates because overall growth is more moderate and confidence is subdued. I ask the Prime Minister: given her Treasurer has been ignored by the banks on 50 separate occasions, will the Prime Minister guarantee that the banks will pass on to Australian households the cut in interest rates in full?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. Let me do two things: one, direct the House's attention to the complete paragraph that the shadow Treasurer quoted from; and, two, deal with his question about banks and passing interest rates on. I think it is very important that the House gets the full paragraph. I will refer to the full Reserve Bank statement and then I will refer to the paragraph that the shadow Treasurer referred to. The paragraph says:
Information about the Australian economy suggests moderate growth overall. The terms of trade have now peaked and will decline somewhat in the near term, but they remain very high.
In response, investment in the resources sector is picking up very strongly, with much more to come. Some related service sectors are enjoying better-than-average conditions. In other sectors, cautious behaviour by households and the high exchange rate have had a noticeable dampening effect. The unemployment rate has increased a little over recent months, though it remains close to 5%.
That paragraph of the Reserve Bank statement is pointing to the patchwork economy that the government talks about consistently. When you have a patchwork economy with resources steaming ahead and, as a result, the Australian dollar at historical high levels and sustained high levels, that does put pressure on other sectors of the economy that are trade exposed, including manufacturing. We have been talking about that for months and months and months—talking about the patchwork economy and how we are responding to it.
Talk, talk, talk!
Before the opposition starts its little chant, one of the ways we are responding to it is through the minerals resource rent tax, because that is a pivotal instrument in a patchwork economy where you take more tax from the sector of the economy that is turbocharged and use that to spread economic growth throughout the rest of the economy. The only people in denial about the patchwork economy—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister to guarantee that the banks would pass on in full the cut to Australian households.
The member for North Sydney has used his point of order to repeat the last part of his question. The Prime Minister is responding to the question in totality.
I am responding to the first part of the question. I was concerned that the way in which it was phrased may mislead people about the Reserve Bank statement, and, because we constantly see negativity and misleading from the opposition, I have taken the opportunity to ensure that that misleading does not stand unchallenged. In relation to that negativity by the opposition, my point was—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 501 of the Practicewords that have been ruled out of order and asking the member to withdraw. Those words include 'misleading' and 'deliberate misleading', which the Prime Minister has been using all through question time. I would ask her to withdraw those remarks.
On the point of order, I have allowed, in the context of the debate, 'misleading'. I would not have allowed 'deliberate misleading'. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In concluding on the first part of the question, which refers to the description of the patchwork economy in the Reserve Bank statement, the government has been explaining the patchwork economy to the Australian people for some time now. It proves the importance of the minerals resource rent tax, taxing the sector of the economy that is streaking ahead, to facilitate growth in other parts of the economy and opportunity for all. The Liberal Party are the only people in the nation who really believe that miners are paying too little tax.
On the second part of the shadow Treasurer's question, let me be very clear about this: I believe that Australian banks should pass on this interest rate cut in full. I said this morning to the media that, if the RBA cut interest rates today, Australian banking customers would be looking to their banks to cut interest rates in full. I believe that is what the Australian people want to see from the banks that they bank with. We have acted to increase banking competition. We believe that was very important. But let me be loud and clear about this: I believe the Australian community is looking to banks today to announce that they will pass this interest rate cut on in full.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you outline for the House what today's Reserve Bank board outcome means for average Australians?
I thank the number for Fraser for his question. Today's decision is a win for Australian families with mortgages and it is a win for small businesses, whichever horse they back today. Those opposite have been asking questions about whether the banks should pass this interest rate cut through in full. Well, they should pass this through in full. Indeed, there is no excuse for not passing this through in full. Westpac has today announced a full pass-through of 25 basis points. This is a welcome decision in households with very large mortgages and it is certainly welcomed by small businesses.
The government, for its part, has done its bit. As the Prime Minister was saying before, we have put in place the fastest fiscal consolidation in history, and that has been recognised by both the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank as being very important in terms of their deliberations. We are playing our part with fiscal policy.
Some points were made about the statement from the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank clearly points to the fact that inflation is moderating, that underlying inflation is back within the target band. They also make the point that there are adverse international conditions. These two factors, along with the government's fiscal policy, were what led them to take rates back to what they describe as neutral. Fiscal policy is very important in this. The government has put in place its fiscal policy because we do not want to add to inflationary pressures in our economy. That is why we have the fastest fiscal consolidation—that is, return to surplus—in our history.
Over and above that, the banks have a part to play as well. All banks should pass on this 25-point cut in full. One of the reasons why we have put in place a comprehensive package of competition reforms is that, if people are unhappy with their bank, they can walk down the road and get a better deal. That is why we have been steadily implementing fundamental reforms such as the abolition of mortgage exit fees, reforms to credit cards and so on—so the market is more competitive. So if somebody is unhappy with their bank, they can walk down the road and get a better deal.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister continue to claim that the government had no notice of the grounding of the Qantas fleet when Mr Alan Joyce has just said:
We made it very clear … that we could ground the entire airline and that this was a real possibility and it could happen at very short notice with immediate effect, due to the nature of an airline and requirements to minimise operational risk.
Is the Prime Minister claiming that Mr Alan Joyce is misleading people?
The minister has made it very clear what the circumstances were here in terms of discussion between Qantas and the government—
Opposition members interjecting—
And no amount of yelling from an opposition that does not want to hear the facts about this dispute and is engaging in its own acts of not being straightforward—anybody who saw the Leader of the Opposition's press conference earlier today saw a man who was clearly shuffling around not sure what to say next. So we are still awaiting the full version on the public record of the opposition and Qantas. So, before we hear little bits of jeering from an opposition that has not been straightforward itself, let us be very clear about what the government has said in this place, and beyond, over the—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100(d) states that there shall be no imputations in questions, but the Practice also says that the question of imputation shall be applied to answers as well. Clearly, the Prime Minister is making imputations about the truthfulness of the Leader of the Opposition, and she should desist forthwith.
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. There are other avenues open. I think that the member for McKellar is actually cherry picking portions of the Practice. If only she would make learned submissions to the Procedures Committee that she could convince both sides of the House to agree to I would have some sympathy for her case. The Prime Minister has the call.
What I was saying about the things that the government said in this place during the course of question time today, yesterday and also outside this place—and the Minister for Transport has made this very clear—is that the prospect of Qantas locking out its staff and immediately grounding its aircraft was not raised with the government. It was notified to the government on Saturday. As a result of the notification on Saturday the government took the action which caused the industrial dispute to come to an end so that Qantas planes could get back in the sky, and they have been back in the sky since yesterday afternoon.
We do understand that the opposition has a different view from us about this. We are in the world of industrial relations balance, of looking after the interests of employers and employees, of caring about the travelling public. We are in the world of competently managing when there is disputation and bringing it to an end. The opposition is in the world of not criticising Qantas, of not being concerned at all about the travelling public, of always denying the rights of working people and of doing whatever it is told to do by employers. That was its track record in government and it continues to be its track record in opposition. And I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been disappointed in the past few days. The only people in Australia unhappy when Fair Work Australia ended industrial action were the members of the Liberal Party sitting opposite. The only people in Australia unhappy when the Reserve Bank announced its interest rate cut were the members opposite. You could see the disappointment written all over their faces.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what are Australia's priorities for this week's G20 leaders' meetings?
Mr Billson interjecting—
The member for Dunkley should not conduct Fashions on the Field about people's ties. I think he should be very careful. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that all members have a pressing engagement, so let me be very brief. I will proceed this evening from Australia to France for the G20 meeting. This is a very important meeting at a time when two big engines of the global economy are misfiring at the same time—that is, the economy in Europe and the United States economy. We have been very vocal about the need for Europe to put its house in order. We have seen a framework emerge from European leaders. Now in the context of the G20, we need to ensure that this framework ends up in concrete steps which are implemented to deal with the sovereign debt problems out of Greece and other nations, to deal with financial stability in Europe, to deal with fiscal consolidation needed in Europe and to make sure we do not see contagion in the banking sector.
The meeting is important for matters beyond the actions that need to be taken in Europe. It comes at a time when we do need to see a lift in global growth. The global economy does need a shot in the arm. We will certainly be lifting our voices in support of freer trade and ending the gridlock over the Doha Round because the global economy does need that shot in the arm. We will also be lifting our voices for the need for economies to act in a way that bolsters global growth for developed economies like our own. That means looking for new sources of growth like clean energy futures and the new sources of growth that can be realised from the National Broadband Network and new technologies. For developing nations that means that people need to confront hard questions of market-based currency arrangements. I will be at the G20 putting Australia's case on these questions on the need for global growth, global balance and trade.
Mr Speaker, given that time is short, with those words it may be an appropriate moment for question time to end and for people to meet a commitment they would like to meet. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I would like to add to an answer I gave to the member for Fraser today during question time. The Commonwealth Bank has also announced that it is cutting by 25 basis points. I know it makes those opposite unhappy, just like ending an industrial dispute makes them unhappy.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
Please proceed.
I was misrepresented in question time today by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport who claimed that I did not answer a question about what time I was informed about the action that Qantas was going to take. Let me just read from the transcript of my press conference today:
Mr Abbott, at what time on Saturday were you or your office informed about the action that Qantas was going to take?
TONY ABBOTT:
My understanding is that my office was first informed at about quarter past four and I heard about it just before five o'clock.
The Prime Minister and the minister for transport also claimed that I somehow had prior notice of what Qantas intended to do. Let me reiterate: the first I heard about it was at about quarter to five on Saturday afternoon. If the Prime Minister and the minister for transport have any doubt, I refer them to a transcript of Steve Price on 2GB where he said he was beside me when I first learned about it. If I had prior notice of what Qantas was intending, I would hardly have booked myself and my family on Qantas the following day, so I suggest to the Prime Minister and the minister for transport they should stop fantasising about me and start apologising for the massive damage they have inflicted on the Australian public.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Sitting suspended from 14 : 56 to 15:30
I have received letters from the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Chifley proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Wide Bay, namely:
The failure of the Government to act to avoid the grounding of the Qantas fleet.
I therefore 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—
Today in question time we received repeated assurances from this government that it had done all it could to prevent the Qantas strike, that it had done all it could to prevent the grounding of Qantas aircraft and that it had acted decisively in response to the warnings it received that this grounding was about to happen. What is now absolutely clear is that the government could have acted to prevent the lockout and prevent the grounding. They could have done so and they had plenty of time to do so.
In an interview just half an hour or so ago, Qantas confirmed that, had the government intervened, they would not have grounded the airline. In a simple statement, they have undermined everything that the government said to us in question time today and all of their lame defence over the last two or three days. The clear fact is that the government could have prevented those 48 hours of chaos and that they could have done it easily. I quote directly from that report:
Asked if the fleet would have been grounded if the government had used section 431 of the act, a Qantas spokesman said: "No."
He said no. It goes on:
"If a declaration had been made under section 431 of the Fair Work Act, Qantas would have been prevented from issuing a lockout notice to these employees covered by the three unions," the spokesman told AAP.
Not only would Qantas have acted in a decent and responsible way and not grounded its fleet but, had the government actually taken the action available to it under section 431 of its own act, Qantas also would have been prevented from locking out its employees. It would have been a simple matter for this government to prevent those 48 hours of crisis. It was simple for them to do it, but they did absolutely nothing. This is another example in the conga line of this government's failures—its inability to deal with issues, its inability to be decisive and its inability to deliver stability for our country.
The government say that it is all about job security, that they are looking after the job security of Qantas workers. But there they are only worried about one job—only one job is insecure—and that is the job of the Prime Minister. She was interested in her own job security in this particular matter. When you look around and see that there are 32 former union bosses in her caucus, it is pretty obvious what delivers her job security. On top of that, we have the Transport Workers Union frontrunner for the ALP presidency, Tony Sheldon, the man who is in fact running this dispute for Qantas. In fact, he boasts in his campaign video to the delegates going to the ALP conference that, among his attributes for the job, he was 'running the Qantas dispute'. So who is making these decisions? Who is guaranteeing the job security of the Prime Minister? It is the union bosses. It is Tony Sheldon, the man who is running the Qantas dispute.
So the government, to try to cover up their own inability to take the decisive action that our country needed at that time, have spent the last two days vilifying Qantas—they are blaming Qantas for their own failure to act. Qantas had given them plenty of warning. Qantas had told them time and again that their airline was in trouble, that it was bleeding to death as a result of union action. But the government took no notice. Then, at 2 pm on Saturday, when Alan Joyce, in an appeal for help, rang several government figures to tell them that they would be grounding the airline, the government simply spurned his entreaties. Here was an airline in trouble, pleading for the government to help. The government could have acted immediately to resolve this issue, but in fact they did nothing—and all they have tried to do subsequently is to demonise Qantas to cover up and mask their own failings.
We know that there was disagreement amongst the various ministers. To give credit to the minister for transport, it is pretty obvious that he wanted the government to intervene but others did not.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The minister is saying he did not want the government to intervene. That means he is just as guilty as the Prime Minister. The 100,000 passengers who were held up and whose travel was disrupted as a result of this dispute can blame the minister for transport just as much as they can blame the Prime Minister, because the government could have acted.
The government did not need to have all of the measures required under section 431 of the act in place by five o'clock; all they had to do was to tell Alan Joyce that the government would act, and Qantas would have withdrawn the grounding of its fleet. The lockout was only going to occur two days later—
Ms Rishworth interjecting —
Order! The honourable member for Kingston does not look like the honourable member for Lyons. If she is going to interject, she ought to move to her own seat because it is disorderly for her to continue to do as she is.
At 2 pm on Saturday afternoon the government were notified that Qantas intended to ground the airline. They had plenty of time to call Mr Joyce and say, 'We will intervene,' and then the grounding would never have occurred. After all, it was not until two days later that the lockout was due to occur. The government had plenty of time to intervene. A simple phone call to Alan Joyce or to a Qantas spokesman would have meant that none of this trouble occurred. None of it needed to occur.
The Prime Minister should have known that she had the capacity to intervene. After all, she was the minister who painstakingly put together the Fair Work Act. She is an ex union lawyer, so she ought to know a bit about the way in which the law works. She said that she could not act under section 431 because it had not been tested. It had not been tested, of course, because the Fair Work Act is only a couple of years old, and all of the other companies that have been put in a position where they have been blackmailed by their unions have just backed away—they have rolled over.
The government probably thought that Qantas had a bit of a reputation for rolling over and that it would do it again, so they just spurned the company and took no notice of all the warnings that had been given week after week and month after month that this dispute could lead to the grounding of the airline. If the government do not think that section 431 is of any value, why did they put it in the legislation in the first place? It was their bill; it was their legislation. If it will not work, what options does a company have if it needs to resolve an industrial action?
Bear in mind that the 48 hours of the dispute and its events were not the first time passengers had been inconvenienced by Qantas flights not being able to operate. The unions, in a tag team, had been week after week calling strikes, disruptions and work-to-rule campaigns—all sorts of attempts to disrupt confidence in the airline. Frequently they would tell everybody there was a strike on and, five minutes before it was due to happen, they would call it off, knowing full well that passengers had already made other arrangements and ensuring that there would be the maximum possible disadvantage to their employer while their own wages were not even affected.
This kind of disruption was going on week after week after week. There were many more passengers affected during those rolling actions of the unions than there were in the 48-hour grounding. It had been going on for month after month, yet the government did not take any notice of it. It is quite all right for the union to strangle a company day by day. It is all right, as far as the government are concerned, for the union to bake their employer over a long period. It is okay, from their perspective, to have the unions demand that people not fly on their own employer's airline. All that sort of thing did not provoke anything other than a couple of casual words from ministers.
The reality is that they could have intervened right back then. Qantas management were saying, 'We have taken just about all we can,' but the government kept silent. Qantas had reportedly already lost over $70 million before last Saturday and were bleeding $15 million a week. If that had kept going, inevitably Qantas was going to fail. The airline Australians love, the airline that carries our country's name around the world, would have failed because it was being put to death by a million cuts by unions who seemingly wanted more and more and who had no respect for the importance of their company's being profitable in order for it to be able to pay them better wages.
Let us not forget that Qantas is hardly some kind of wage and salary scrooge. Their employees are the highest paid in their profession. In many cases they are the highest paid in the world. Qantas had settled agreements with 10 other unions, so they were able to reach industrial agreements with unions. But there were three who were holding out, and these three unions had made it clear that it did not matter much what sort of offer was put on the table; they were not really interested.
They wanted guarantees that workers would continue to be employed in positions that did not even exist anymore—where the work was no longer there. They wanted long-term guarantees of employment. No company can do that. We do not expect a trucking company to employ people who make horse shoes just because they once used horses and carts; we expect a company to modernise. We expect the workforce to modernise and to take advantage of the new technology in modern aircraft. That means that the workforce is going to have to change, piece by piece, as time goes on.
The government knew all this was happening. Qantas had been around this building for week after week, talking to government members and opposition members. They knew it was happening, but they had no contingency plan in place, it seems. They must have assumed that Qantas were just going to allow themselves to bleed to death over a year and that there would be no need for the government to act. But even when they were warned—even when a decisive statement was made by Qantas that they would be doing something by five o'clock that day—the government did nothing.
The government could have acted—they could have saved the inconvenience to 48,000 Australians and they could have resolved this dispute immediately. What Fair Work Australia did 48 hours later could have been done by the government in one hour. It could have been done immediately. We could have got to a compulsory situation where the dispute was off and the parties' negotiations were continued. The government could have delivered that on Saturday afternoon, but they did not; they waited until the airline was grounded. Then, all of a sudden, the government could find a reason to go to Fair Work Australia and have it intervene. Why couldn't they have done it an hour earlier?
The suggestion that Qantas had not specifically asked the government to invoke section 431 is another one of the many misleading statements that the government is peddling. Does the fire brigade wait to be asked before it goes in and fights a fire? No, it knows that the curtains are on fire and need to be put out. This government did not see the house on fire; they essentially did nothing and delivered us 48 hours of chaos. All the Prime Minister had to do—or one of her ministers, if she was too busy over in CHOGM, meeting with all the important leaders from the Commonwealth countries around the world—was to call.
She could have put the foreign minister in the chair for a while to look after affairs. He is quite experienced in these things. He probably could have done it ably. But she did not do that. Neither did she lift up the phone and talk to Qantas like she does to all the sporting champions and other people who are in the news. She did not bother. If she was too busy, I am sure the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport could have done it. He has rung Mr Joyce many times; he said so himself. He could have rung up and said, 'We will fix the problem.' It did not have to be fixed by 5. It could have been just a promise to Qantas that the government would act. But the government did nothing.
The government is entirely to blame for the 48 hours of inconvenience to Australian travellers. It was in a position to do what it could do, but it did not act. It did not act, because its bosses are the trade unions. It did not act, because the people who pay the bills for the ALP are the very trade union officials who are running this dispute. The man who wants to be President of the ALP in a few weeks time—and I hope he does not succeed over some of the other excellent candidates who are seated in this room—is the one who is running the dispute, and this government did not have the courage to stand up to him. This government did not have the fortitude. It was not sufficiently decisive to solve a problem when it could have been solved, and it caused 100,000 people to suffer unnecessarily. (Time expired)
What an extraordinary position put by the Leader of the Nationals. In 15 minutes there was not a single word of criticism of Qantas management for the unilateral decision by their board to lock out their workforce and ground the airline.
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The member for Solomon will change places with the Chief Opposition Whip if she wants to continue to interject.
There was not a single word of sympathy for the 68,000 Australians who were inconvenienced by the Qantas unilateral decision. The fact is this: there are in industrial disputes often two sides—employers and employees. They bargain between each other and have discussions in order to settle their industrial agreements. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, said this about his view of industrial relations:
… parties to an industrial dispute should make their own arrangements … without any government involvement.
That has been the position of those opposite. That was the position with regard to Work Choices, where they changed the balance totally in favour of employers from a system where you had a fair balance in the workplace between employers and employees—and we have seen it all on display here.
After 2 pm on Saturday, Qantas notified the government of their decision to lock out their workforce on Monday night from 8 pm and to ground their fleet, national and international, from 5 pm. The consequences of that for this iconic Australian company were severe. The fact that it was done on the weekend leading up to the Melbourne Cup Carnival and the fact that it was done while CHOGM was taking place in Perth add to the damage to the company's reputation as a result of this unilateral decision. When I spoke to Mr Joyce on Saturday afternoon after 2 pm, I asked him if there was anything the government could do. His position was very clear: he argued that the board had made a decision on Saturday morning and he was simply informing the government of that position.
At no stage prior to Saturday afternoon had Mr Joyce or anyone else from Qantas raised the prospect of a lockout of their workforce. At no stage had anyone from the opposition or the government or anyone else, in the millions of words that have been written and spoken about these issues, raised the simple idea that Qantas would take what in the words of Mr Joyce was the 'unbelievable decision' to lock out its workforce and shut down its entire domestic and international operation. Yet these clowns opposite would suggest that it was a government decision to do that. It was very clearly a decision by Qantas, yet those opposite are incapable of uttering a syllable of criticism of this extraordinary position. Imagine what those opposite would say if the pilots had rung up and announced that they were unilaterally from 5 pm refusing to fly aircraft and shut it down! This was an extraordinary position. People had been boarded on planes and were taxiing to the ends of runways. Planes were recalled and people offloaded.
This is not Rio Tinto—this is not a company which has relationships with businesses at the top end of town or internationally. This is a service industry that relies upon its workforce and the relationship with its workforce to deliver good, positive service on the ground. You do not get met by Alan Joyce when you book in to a Qantas flight. When you sit on the flight you do not get served by Alan Joyce. The plane is not flown by Alan Joyce. The plane is not fixed and made safe by Alan Joyce. This is a massive miscalculation by the company.
I have been a friend of Qantas and will remain so. This is an iconic Australian brand, but it is an iconic Australian brand which is about not just its executive but also its workforce. The relationship is interdependent: to have a successful Qantas you need the commitment of its workforce. You need sensible outcomes, which is why I went the extra yard and convened meetings in my office between Mr Joyce, Mr Sheldon and me. Real progress was made; with a bit of goodwill there could have been an outcome. Indeed, as a result of those discussions eight days before the announcement of the lockout, the Transport Workers Union cancelled their industrial stoppages last week, and both Qantas and the TWU are on the record in the media in the early part of last week about the prospects of a resolution in the common interest.
Yet we know now from Fair Work Australia that, the day before I had that meeting, Qantas management had received a report about a lockout of its workforce and the safety implications for the airline. On no occasion in the face-to-face meetings, in the phone conversations or in the text messages with other government ministers and me—not once—did anyone from Qantas say, 'By the way, we're thinking of locking out our workforce and shutting down our business.' Quite frankly, that was an extraordinary and reckless decision that has an impact not just on the company but also on the national economy.
When this government was confronted by this unilateral decision by Qantas, we acted. We were told after 2 pm that Mr Joyce would be on his feet from 5 pm to 5.20 pm on Saturday. I was on my feet at 5.45 pm with a comprehensive response including the appeal to Fair Work Australia and the fact that we established a task force in my department as well as the fact that we moved 3,000 extra passengers on Saturday night thanks to Virgin Australia. We acted in a comprehensive fashion. Fair Work Australia went through 16 hours of hearings to come up with a decision, and we got Qantas back in the air.
Let us be very clear about the statements Mr Joyce has made. Mr Joyce cannot say and will not say anywhere that he gave anyone in the government any warning whatsoever about the lockout that led to the grounding of the fleet. What Mr Joyce did say, very publicly, was that aircraft were being grounded due to the engineers' actions, that seven aircraft had been grounded, that if it continued more aircraft would be grounded and that it could reach a point where Qantas would have to take further action. At no stage did Qantas ask for government intervention in this dispute. That is a point that has been confirmed by the Qantas CEO, Mr Joyce. Indeed, Mr Joyce told Senator Evans, the workplace relations minister, that, were the information to go public before the 5 pm announcement, then Qantas would bring it forward and ground the airline immediately. They raised safety questions, and I spoke to CASA about whether there were any safety concerns whatsoever which would justify the grounding of the airline. We had a clear indication from CASA that that was not the case.
All this occurred one day after the Qantas AGM. The Australian Shareholders Association, talking about the matter, said, 'Today the ASA believes that management had the ability to make applications under the Fair Work Act without disrupting customers and damaging the airline's global brand.' That is what shareholders had to say about this decision.
Yet from the opposition—the only people in Australia who are not happy that the planes are back in the air—we have not once heard a word of criticism against Qantas. We have not heard a word said about how it was reckless to elevate a dispute to the level where it hurt the national economy, which is what the Qantas submissions to Fair Work Australia did. Their submissions and their statements were saying that they were taking this action in order to cause damage to the national economy. Yet there was not a single word of criticism from those opposite. Not once has anyone over there said that it was unreasonable for the travelling public to be held as hostages. This was not just a lockout of the workforce; this was a lockout of Qantas's own customers. It is an extraordinary position for a company in the service industry to take.
Perhaps we know why. We know their ideological commitment to Work Choices. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has had all sorts of problems in the past with being straight with people. Indeed, in a speech to the Sydney Institute on 5 June 2007, he had a cracker of a quote which says a lot about his character. He said, 'one man's lie is another's judgment call.' The Leader of the Opposition was asked two questions today. The first was, 'Did anyone from Qantas speak to you or your office prior to Saturday about the possibility of a grounding?' It was followed up with, 'Mr Abbott, the question was whether your office was forewarned of the dispute—can you answer that?
Mr Abbott responded like this: 'Ah, look, my office was in regular contact, ah, with Qantas. Qantas—as anyone in Parliament House would know—ah, have basically been patrolling the corridors of Parliament House for weeks now, alerting people to the seriousness of the dispute. Thanks very much.' Then he ran; he ended the doorstop. Today, have a close look at the transcript of what he said in his personal explanation—have a close look at what he had to say. When was he notified of the specific grounding of the fleet at 5 pm Saturday? That is the question that he responded to; it is not the question he was asked by journalists, and it is not the question that he evaded twice—not once but twice. Of course, the opposition have form when it comes to these issues.
We on this side of the House have a balanced approach to workplace relations. We have criticised unions, and I have criticised unions, when they have stepped out of line, and I will continue to do so. But I will also continue to criticise management when they step out of line. This was a militant action which was totally out of proportion to the debate that was occurring. Indeed, over many months there have been more Jetstar cancellations than there have been Qantas cancellations while this dispute has been going on. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance: 'The failure of the Government to act to avoid the grounding of the Qantas fleet.' This is an absolute public importance issue. In fact, we have just heard the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport try to convince the House that he fully backs the Prime Minister's actions. Yet today in the Daily Telegraphit states that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Assistant Treasurer are believed to have argued for an immediate intervention to save people from being stranded. I wonder where the Telegraph got this information? Who put those leaks out? Publicly the minister is holding and toeing the government line—even coming into this House and stating that this is the way it had to be. It was reported in the media today at 3 pm that a Qantas spokesperson was asked if the fleet would have been grounded if the government had used section 431 of the Fair Work Act, and the spokesperson said, 'No; if a declaration had been made under section 431 of the Fair Work Act, Qantas would have been prevented from issuing a lockout notice to these employees covered by the three unions.'
Enough members of the cabinet must be aware of the very real impact this fiasco has had on our tourism sector, both in terms of short-term bed nights and in terms of the damage done to 'Brand Australia'. The visuals across the world of people sleeping on airport floors because they could not get into accommodation or because they could not afford to stump up the money for the hotel room to be reimbursed is not a good image of Australia. This could have been avoided. The Prime Minister keeps using the words 'decisive action'; what the Prime Minister has is divisive action. It is divisive action which has got the community angry with Qantas, angry with the unions, and, more importantly, angry with this government. This Prime Minister said she had no notice of the issue. I refer to an article in the Australian by Joe Kelly on 21 October. The article is headed 'Tourism begs PM to step in on Qantas'. I am sure that the Prime Minister and her advisers, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Tourism would read the Australian. I am particularly sure that they would have read this article, because the tourism industry was begging the Prime Minister to step in and take action. In fact, according to Flight Centre managing director Graham Turner, the government should have stepped in to force a solution to the dispute. He said:
If they can't do that, it makes you wonder why we elected a government. This is exactly the sort of situation where they should be actively searching or forcing a solution.
For the Prime Minister to come into this House on not one day but two days and say that she was not aware of the seriousness of the situation defies any ounce of credibility.
Today is Melbourne Cup day, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper. You may have backed a winner or you may have lost. That is the Australian way. But let me tell you: the tourism industry in Melbourne has lost, and it has lost massively. In fact, today in the paper it is reported that the general manager of Melbourne's Adelphi Hotel said that they are sitting on about 80 per cent occupancy when they should be on 100 per cent. For him to miss out on 20 per cent of his business around Melbourne Cup day is a cruel blow. It does not get any better in Melbourne for the tourism industry than Melbourne Cup day. This government, because of its failure to act, has let down the tourism industry.
When the announcement was made, my phone was inundated with calls from Western Australia and Queensland. As you know as a Queenslander, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is now the peak tourism season up in the north of Queensland. But the bed cancellations have ranged between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. This is an industry that is coming off the back of natural disasters, the global financial crisis and all of those things that impact the tourism industry. It is an industry that runs on very, very small margins of profitability. But now, in their peak season, when they needed the government to step up to the plate, what did the government do? They pretended they did not see it was coming. They pretended there was no issue.
I am not here to defend Qantas; neither am I here to defend the unions. I am here to defend the tourism industry—people with their own skin in the game, trying to make a living. Before Saturday's move by Qantas management, the carrier had to cancel 629 flights. Before Friday, Qantas had to reschedule 387 flights. Part of the issue has been that the unions gave notice of intention to strike, which affected flights, and then call it off at the last minute so that they did not lose any wages because of strike action. But Qantas, having to act responsibly, had to cancel flights. This minister who has just addressed this MPI has failed to condemn the union movement for its action, which has totally disrupted our tourism industry and affected our brand: Australia. But I have to say to you that he is not on his own. In fact, the Minister for Tourism himself will stand and talk about all of the effects on the tourism industry from the global financial crisis through to natural disasters, yet he is the minister who has failed to act. The minister is reported to have said that he has urged that the tourism industry 'not be hung out to dry because of this industrial action'. Yet this is the minister who, when it has come to actually getting behind the industry and supporting the industry, has walked away.
Let us face it: what is his track record? Since 2008 Australia has slid from fourth place to 13th place in international tourism competitiveness according to the World Economic Forum. This is the minister who keeps explaining it away, but he is also the minister who did not stand up when this government increased the passenger movement charge by 24 per cent—that is, from $38 to $47 per passenger—in a very price-sensitive market. Their income from the charge is $630 million this year and will increase to $755 million by 2014; at the same time, they are only spending just over $130 million on Tourism Australia. This is the minister who sat back and watched while Customs' budget for processing people when they arrive in Australia was cut by $34 million. This is the minister who has presided while cuts were made to Chinese and Indian trade events—and they are our key target markets. This is the minister who sat back and watched cooks and chefs be removed from the skilled migration list. To top it all off, this is the minister who warned that a carbon tax would disadvantage the aviation industry, yet, in a hypocritical move, then turned around and voted for it. The industry demands a minister who will not pick sides but will stand up for the tourism industry overall and for good and proper management so people can go about and do what they do—that is, create the experience of a lifetime for people. This government has watched over the total destruction of our international reputation.
This Friday in Parliament House, as part of the Abbott opposition's industry review, I am holding a special day in an 'Industries for Australia's Future' review of tourism. It will be attended by groups like the Australian Hotels Association; the Restaurant and Catering association; the National Tourism Alliance; Tourism Training Australia; the Accommodation Association of Australia; Tourism Accommodation Australia; Caravan, RV and Accommodation Industry of Australia; the Australian Tourism Export Council; and the TTF. I know what they will be taking as their first issue of debate on the day when we gather the information on things that are important to them. The first issue of debate will be how this crisis is bringing their industry to its knees when they have just been able to get back up. They were knocked down by the GFC. They were knocked down by the natural disasters. They wanted a hand to get up, and what this government has done is give them a sucker blow. It has knocked them back down on their knees and said, 'It's all Qantas's fault.' This is the government that could not see the signs coming through the industrial action. Would it sit down with people? Would it take decisive action? No; this is the government that takes divisive action. It prefers to drive the wedge between Qantas and the workers and, more importantly, the tourism industry, which relies on the aviation sector as one of its key industry aspects.
I have pages and pages of quotes that have come in to me from industry players about the effect of this industrial action on them. As I say, I am not here to bag Qantas; I can understand the decision they took. I am not here to bag the unions; they are standing up for what they believe in. I am here to stand up for our tourism industry, which is the innocent party in all this action, because the government failed to act. (Time expired)
It is special to be able to participate in this debate. Am I the only one in this place who gets a little bit nervy when I hear those opposite calling for government intervention on industrial relations? These guys have great form on intervention. We remember Patricks. We remember their other great intervention, Work Choices. If they on that side of the fence had had their chance on this, it would not be flying kangaroos; it would be flying Rottweilers. These people, who have never walked away from a chance to stuff up an IR dispute, are now calling for government intervention and calling on the industrial umpire to get involved in this when they spent the best part of their time in government neutering the role of the umpire in sorting out disputes. They are now saying that we should find some way to intervene. They spent the last election telling us that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated—though I do not know how something can be dead, buried and then cremated. Putting that logic aside, here they are clipping the defibrillator onto the corpse of Work Choices and arguing that we should be having intervention by the government in industrial disputes.
Whose side are they on? Who are they standing up for? We have had half an hour of contributions from those opposite. Who are they standing up for? The member for Wide Bay was here bemoaning and wringing his hands over the fact that Qantas had been demonised. He did not once stand up for the 68,000 members of the public who had had their worlds or their plans thrown upside down and had all this chaos inflicted on them by a board and a senior management who were executing industrial hardball. We did not hear anything from the member for Wide Bay. We almost got close with the member for Paterson talking about the impact on others, but he could not quite get there to support the general public.
The other thing is that we are getting this rewriting of history by those opposite, who are telling us to intervene. When pressed weeks ago, they did not say a thing. They said it was not up to them to pick sides, and that is right. They also have form when it comes to the aviation sector. When people were locked out of Boeing up in Newcastle and stuck for weeks—close to a year—locked out, they never stood up for those people. They do not stand up for the general public. And what is their answer now? On Friday, it is: 'We don't pick sides.' On Saturday, it is: 'Get involved.' All of 24 hours and they are straight in, telling us now to 'pick up the phone'. I love their fascination with phones—boat phone, jet phone, today it is bank phone. The Leader of the Opposition does not work out of an office, he works out of a telephone exchange. He has got phones connected to every sector of the economy, to every sector of Australian life, and there he is, ringing everyone. But we have not heard them stand up for the 68,000 people, the mums and dads, stuck here and abroad—not a peep. Worse still, they chastise the Qantas workforce.
The Qantas workforce have the temerity to ask for this: a more secure job. As they see jobs being offshored, they are asking for a way to make their jobs more secure. They are even prepared in part to take a wage outcome that is lower than inflation, but their priority is job security—that is what they want to see. Those opposite say that it is too much to ask for someone to have a more secure job. These are the people who trawled through every workplace in the country wringing their hands about the cost of living, telling us how the cost of living was so important to them. How do you manage cost-of-living pressures when you don't have a job? They will not stick up for that. When people are out there trying to protect their livelihoods, you do not hear a peep out of them. It is simply outrageous that they can sit there and not say one word about the way Qantas went about locking out a workforce, disrupting the plans of the public and wrecking the economy.
I am going to put it bluntly: Qantas's actions represented industrial bastardry. They were prepared to put the public in front of a battering ram and force them straight into the middle of an industrial dispute, and not even care about the impact. It is simply a disgrace. A national carrier was prepared to turn on its own public, the flying public, and not care for one moment. It was a preplanned decision. Hotels: booked in advance. Couriers delivering lockout notices: planned in advance. Emails to workforces: planned in advance. And they did not give any advice whatsoever to the share market that they would lock out their workforce and shut down their operations; there was no forewarning that that would happen. It is not surprising now that a whole stack of questions are being asked.
Qantas are taking comfort in this dispute from the words that are being uttered by others in other boardrooms. That demonstrates a complete disconnect from the general public and the public mood. They should not, with respect, be taking comfort from the boardroom; they should not be listing to those people. They should be thinking about the mum who is expecting a child and is stranded, who wants to get back to Cairns but cannot because their operations have been shut down. They should think about the families who were reported about in the weekend papers, like the family trying to get back to another part of the country to see a sick father. They should be listening to the people whose lives were upended as a result of this. Now they are trying a last stand to justify what they are doing, trying to find some excuse for the total disruption to the economy and the total disruption of 68,000 people. Imagine if you were stuck on the other side of the world. Imagine if you had parents who were trying to come back to Australia, who were told when they got off a connecting flight that the next flight was not happening and who are stuck in a place they do not know. These are people who do not know how they are going to get home and their families here have no idea what is going to happen. They are being used—absolutely used—as pawns in this game. This should not be forgotten.
We have moved swiftly. We have got the planes back in the sky because of the actions that have been taken. Mind you, Qantas could have taken the action themselves to try and suspend or terminate the bargaining period. They did not. Why? Because they knew they would not have the ability to argue the case in front of Fair Work Australia that they needed to stop this. They were not able to do it, so they stuffed up the plans of 68,000 people in the most incredible fashion they could muster. That is what they did. They chose that path.
The New South Wales and Victorian premiers wrote to the government. The Victorian government had power to intervene. When they referred their IR powers to the federal level they had an ability to intervene in disputes that they thought were important and would have an impact on their state. Victoria did not intervene, not once. Instead, they thought they would pull a stunt by writing a letter. If they were so concerned about the impact, why didn't they turn up to Fair Work Australia and argue the case? Why? Because they could not, they did not have the means to. Instead, a national carrier was prepared to upend the national economy, and we were forced to move quickly to deal with this. It is simply disgraceful. But it amounts to nothing when compared to the fact that those opposite are silent. They are not prepared to urge moderation, not prepared to urge all sides in this debate to get back to the table and not prepared to urge for common sense. Instead, they are just egging on and giving comfort to some ideology that persists within the Qantas boardroom that this is the way you sort disputes. It is not. The way you sort the dispute is get to the negotiating table and fix it up. Don't hold the national economy to ransom. Sort your problems out at the negotiating table.
I will follow on from the earlier comments by the shadow minister for transport and Leader of the Nationals, who again confirmed that it has been established as a fact that the Prime Minister and other Labor ministers were contacted by Qantas and warned about the potential move to ground its fleet. In the lead-up to his decision, Mr Joyce spoke to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, and then to the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations about the issue. They did absolutely nothing at all. They completely failed to act. Earlier today senior Qantas executive Olivia Wirth confirmed that she had personally spoken to the Prime Minister's chief of staff to let the Prime Minister know that Mr Alan Joyce was available to speak to the PM. In fact, Ms Wirth said Mr Joyce was standing by, ready to talk with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did nothing in response to those approaches, and Qantas sources have confirmed Mr Joyce waited until five minutes before his decision to ground the fleet to hear from the Prime Minister.
This is a gross failure to act by the Gillard government and this could well have been avoided if they had acted. Instead they chose to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. We talk about the huge inconvenience to the thousands of people who have been left stranded in Australia and around the world, but that is nothing compared to the cost to the Australian public and to the Australian economy in general. It has been a huge blow in particular to my area, the Cairns and Port Douglas region. While the shadow tourism minister in his contribution talked about the national impact of the government's inaction on tourism, I would like to keep mine very local.
Nowhere has the government's failure to act been felt more acutely than in Far North Queensland, in particular Cairns and Port Douglas, which rely on tourism as their main economic driver. Operators have been hit by a perfect storm of economic blows over the past couple of years. We have endured the global financial crisis; we have been hit by the high Australian dollar; we have had the nation's highest unemployment rate. The tourism industry was forced to stand by and watch the impact of the New Zealand earthquake and the Japanese tsunami, both key inbound markets for Cairns. We then had the floods in south-east Queensland and Cyclone Yasi. While these two natural disasters did not directly impact on the Cairns-Port Douglas region, they sent a message across Australia and the world that Cairns was closed for business, even though the industry was unaffected and ready to greet visitors with open arms. This had a huge impact on businesses in the area, in spite of many representations and pleas to this government for assistance under category D for the extension of natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. It fell on deaf ears. There was zero support for any business affected by these events in our region. We have seen over 400 of our small businesses fail in the last two years.
You could see that many of our businesses were certainly feeling the pinch and the Qantas debacle was the last thing we needed. For two days no international or domestic flights from Qantas were in the air. Quite frankly, it is almost the last straw for many of our small businesses. I received an insight into this disaster, this government's handling of the Qantas debacle, through one small business in Cairns. I had to change my Qantas flight to a Virgin flight and I was taken to the airport on Saturday by hire car. In passing I have to say well done to John Borghetti and his team for accommodating so many passengers affected over the weekend. The driver, who was also the hire company's owner, told me had already had eight cancellations. I was picked up at about 10.30 in the morning. He said he could possibly survive if the Qantas grounding lasted only one or two days, but if it was any longer than that—a week or two weeks—he said he could not keep going, particularly after two disastrous years. He also said he had accumulated $60,000 in debts that other companies owed him, resulting from the impacts of Yasi. It shows you the serious problems the industry has.
The trouble faced by that hire company is replicated right across the entire region. This is the type of small business that the Gillard government does not understand and, quite frankly, does not care about. The government does not comprehend how seriously tough it is for small businesses in a regional area such as Cairns and Port Douglas. Through this series of setbacks and body blows to the tourism industry, the Gillard government has done absolutely nothing. It has failed to act; it has sat on its hands; it has done nothing to help businesses going to the wall over the past two years. The Qantas debacle is but the latest example of this. There has been no coordinated approach or support for the tourism industry in Far North Queensland, because the Gillard government just does not comprehend the value of tourism to regions such as Far North Queensland. It does not understand and it just does not care. Businesses big and small in Far North Queensland are in absolute despair. They cannot keep going much longer, when they are constantly hit by forces outside their control. They cannot keep going without some sort of sustained, coordinated assistance.
The government could have taken action under section 431 of the Fair Work Act. We are told that failure to do so was a result of uncertainty in relation to that clause because it had never been tested. That clause was written by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went ahead with section 424, which had never been tested either. Really, there is no excuse. Travellers and businesses had to endure 48 hours of chaos, which this government could have averted. It is very shameful. I sit here and listen to the other side constantly attacking us for supporting a business that is absolutely vital. I have not heard any comment from over there about the tactics that have been used by the unions in bringing us to this situation. This is something that the Prime Minister could have picked up the phone and talked to Qantas about on Saturday; she could have picked up the phone and talked to Qantas about this—and I am sure she was speaking to the unions—six months ago. She could have done it three months ago. She certainly could have done it last week, and she was given more than ample opportunity to do it on Saturday. She chose not to do it.
Again, this government have shown that they have absolutely no idea about what is required in relation to dealing with any sort of crisis. Let us have a look at it. Let us talk about the boats that keep arriving, the pink batts or the BER. The Labor Party knew there were risks but of course they failed to act. This is a very unfortunate problem that we have. All of these disasters that we see, one after the other, after the other, form a list far too lengthy to repeat at this point in time. I suggest that their successes could be measured on the back of a postage stamp.
Many people were sitting in airline terminals around the country and around the world because the Prime Minister was sitting on her hands. And there were many businesses up in my region sitting there holding their breath waiting for another disaster to fall upon them that was a direct consequence of the inaction and the total lack of understanding and caring of this terrible, disastrous Gillard government. (Time expired)
It is not a pleasure to rise to speak on this MPI on Qantas. It is disappointing that we even have to have this debate. What is disgusting is the fact that those on the other side talk about nothing but blaming the government. There is no talk about the passengers being disadvantaged. There was mention of the tourism industry, but there was no mention of passengers by the opposition. That is because they are not actually interested in the impact that this has had on the Australian economy or passengers. Their interest is in playing the blame game. I did not think I could be any further amazed by the opposition and their negativity but today, and the debate yesterday in this House, has shown how far the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party will go to capitalise on any incident in this country.
The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition will go to all lengths for political opportunism. If it is a decision of a local government having got some sort of funding from the federal government and then doing something wrong, it is our fault. If the state government do something and they get some funding, it is our fault—we must have caused that. It seems that anything that happens in this country is the Labor government's fault. That is what the Liberal Party are about. They are about blaming. They are about opportunism. They are about opposing everything.
We have heard so many inconsistencies in this debate. We have heard that we should have foreseen this happening. We heard that the Prime Minister should have picked up the phone days ago, as we heard yesterday; we are now being told that the Prime Minister should have picked the phone up six months ago in relation to this debate—despite the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has said that he has had numerous discussions with Qantas and the unions in relation to this dispute in recent times to try to help reach a resolution in this matter. So the government has been involved in trying to reach resolutions in this matter. But, of course, that is not convenient for the opposition to talk about.
When is the opposition going to say that a company, when it makes a decision, should be held to account for it, just as individuals are? There should be some accountability by Qantas in this debate. And there is on this side of the House. We are holding Qantas to account for the decision they made. No-one else made the decision; Qantas management made this decision.
We are being told that this was foreseeable, but the fact is that Alan Joyce, in his press conference on Saturday afternoon when he said that they were grounding all flights, was asked by a journalist, 'Why didn't you tell the shareholders at the meeting the day before that you were going to do this?' and Alan Joyce's response was, 'We only made the decision to do it this morning.' But apparently we were supposed to know that six months ago. The Liberal Party are full of nothing but political opportunists. They will go to any lengths to try to milk a vote out of this, because that is what they are about.
I just want to get some facts on the record. I do believe the Australian people have the right to know the facts in this dispute. In the Australian yesterday, Alan Joyce said:
THE action I announced on Saturday was the only option available to Qantas to cut short the destructive industrial campaign that has devastated the airline over recent months.
Under the Fair Work Act, no other choice was viably open to us.
I believe the Australian people and all of those customers of Qantas, the tens of thousands of customers who were left disadvantaged over the last few days by the Qantas decision, have the right to know that section 423 of the Fair Work Act specifically says:
(1) FWA may make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that is being engaged in if the requirements set out in this section are met.
Requirement—significant economic harm
(2) If the protected industrial action is employee claim action, FWA must be satisfied that the action is causing, or is threatening to cause, significant economic harm to:
(a) the employer, or any of the employers, that will be covered by the agreement; and
(b) any of the employees who will be covered by the agreement.
Section 423 enabled Qantas at any time over the last few weeks to file an application to suspend or terminate the protected industrial action—not because of a view of threatened harm to the national economy but in relation to significant economic harm to its business.
Qantas have said that the protected action that was being taken by the unions was costing them $15 million a week. We have since heard that the decision that Qantas made to ground its fleet was costing $20 million a day. So the unions' protected action was costing Qantas $15 million a week and Qantas's action was costing them $20 million a day, yet Qantas—let us be clear, it was not the government and not any other party—chose not to go to Fair Work Australia, the independent tribunal, at any time over the past few weeks prior to Saturday's announcement to seek to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. That was available to them. Qantas should be honest with the Australian people, instead of saying there was no other response that they could take.
The other side say that the Fair Work Act is flawed. If we want to talk about flawed legislation, I can stand here all day and talk about Work Choices. The independent tribunal under Work Choices had no ability to resolve disputes because their hands were tied behind their back. So employers or employees could not go there to seek any sort of resolution to disputes. Their hands were tied behind their back. This government introduced the Fair Work Act that provided those mechanisms for both employers and unions to utilise when they are needed.
Qantas was able to use section 423. An order could have been made under subsection (7), which states:
FWA may make the order:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application by any of the following:
(i) a bargaining representative for the agreement—
being the employer or the unions—
(ii) the Minister;
… … …
(iii) a person prescribed by the regulations.
Fair Work Australia approved the protected industrial action. Before industrial action in Australia can occur it has to be approved by Fair Work Australia, so Fair Work Australia had approved this industrial action. Fair Work Australia were aware of this industrial action, having granted this protected industrial action by the unions. If Fair Work Australia considered that significant economic harm was imminent to be caused to Qantas, they could have suspended or terminated the bargaining period. But even Fair Work Australia—I know we are being told that we should have had crystal balls for all of this—did not initiate of their own motion a suspension or termination under this section.
We have heard that the government should have used section 431, intervened and put a declaration in place. Unlike the Liberal Party, we believe it is important to get the facts argued before an independent tribunal and have the independent tribunal determine the matter. That is a better course of events than a minister coming over the top, intervening and just imposing a decision on the parties without hearing all of the circumstances. As a consequence, because the government did not use section 431 and impose a decision and instead used section 424 and took the matter to the industrial tribunal, that tribunal was able to hear arguments from all sides and come up with a determination that resulted in giving the parties 21 days to negotiate and, if need be, it arbitrating and making sure there is a decision in this matter. That is a better course of events for Qantas, for its workforce and for industrial relations in this country. It is about time the opposition started telling everybody the true facts in this matter. (Time expired)
Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011; and
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Online Games) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mr K. J. Thomson on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 121: treaty tabled on 16 August 2011, incorporating a dissenting report. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
This report contains the committee's view on the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the United States of America relating to the operation of, and access to, an Australian naval communications station at North West Cape in Western Australia done at Washington on 16 July 2008, which was tabled on 16 August 2011. The proposed agreement is intended to replace the agreement between the government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the government of the United States of America relating to the establishment of the United States naval communications station in Australia done at Canberra on 9 May 1963. The 1963 agreement provided for the establishment, maintenance and operation by the United States of a naval communications station in Australia. This agreement was terminated in May 1999 and since then an interim arrangement applied until a new treaty was concluded. The proposed new agreement will remain in force for an initial period of 25 years and, unless terminated, shall continue for subsequent periods of five years.
The new agreement provides for continued access and use of this station, officially known as the Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station, by the US and, consequently, the means through which very low-frequency, or VLF, communication for US and Australian submarines may be maintained. Continuing US access to the station will help support the maintenance of a strong and adaptable US presence in the Asia-Pacific region and is an important indication of the continuing commitment of the US government to regional cooperation. The station's capacity for communicating with submerged submarines in the Indian Ocean is unique in our region and is an important element in enabling Australian use of other VLF transmitters to communicate with Australian submarines.
The committee notes that the station is used to communicate with all types of US Navy submarines, including nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines, and that there is some concern in Australia about that aspect of the station's operations. However, Australia's hosting of the station is not inconsistent with our commitments under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty. The committee also recognises that the station is part of an integrated network of communications stations and that the Australian Navy is reliant upon VLF transmitters provided by other bases operated by the US in other countries to communicate with Australian submarines worldwide. The committee accepts this is a genuine area of mutual cooperation in defence activities that assist in meeting the operational requirements of Australia's defence forces.
The committee notes the potential for the proposed agreement to pose a conflicting obligation if, at some point in its 25-year lifespan, a treaty establishing a southern hemisphere nuclear-free zone were to be established. However, this hypothetical scenario does not warrant the rejection of the proposed agreement and the potential negative effects to Australian naval communications that may arise as a result of such a rejection. The committee concludes that this treaty should be supported with binding action. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on bills referred on 22 September 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.
Leave granted.
On 22 September 2011, the House Selection Committee referred four bills to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for inquiry and report. Three of the bills propose measures that relate to reforming the regulation of education services to overseas students, or ESOS, and the fourth amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
The inquiry received 22 submissions, 20 of which were from public and private service providers and their representative bodies. The concerns of industry were so clearly demarcated and defined in the submissions that the committee considered it unnecessary to take further evidence from these organisations. The committee followed up on industry concerns by inviting officials from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to a public hearing held in Canberra. We are grateful to the organisations and agencies who participated in the inquiry.
The ESOS bills constitute the government's second and final response to the recommendations of a review of education services for overseas students that was conducted by Bruce Baird, the former member for Cook. The review was initiated by the government as a result of the significant growth in overseas students. It followed closures of service providers that resulted in a loss of fees and education, and a string of violent incidents targeting Indian students which caused considerable reputational damage to Australia's education services for overseas students. The review was released to the public in March 2010.
The prominent features of the ESOS bills are as follows. They set out provider default obligations, establish a single tuition protection service, establish a new TPS governance structure led by a statutory TPS director, provide for a risk rated premium based on provider risk of default, impose certain obligations on providers in relation to the collection of prepaid fees, and meet record-keeping requirements. Collectively, these measures are designed to provide greater certainty for overseas students which will have consequential improvements on the reputation of Australian providers of education services to these students.
The committee has made five recommendations in relation to the ESOS measures. Two recommendations propose specific amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011. While supporting the general thrust of the proposed measures, the vast majority of stakeholders expressed concern at the proposed 24-hour reporting periods for provider and student defaults. The department explained that the requirement was intended to impress on providers the need to immediately report defaults in order to ensure the welfare of overseas students. The committee supports the department's concern for student welfare but believes that a 24-hour reporting requirement imposes an unreasonable burden on providers. The intention of the bills would be served better by legislating a 72-hour reporting requirement.
The committee has made two further recommendations that do not propose amendments to the bills but seek assurances that service providers will be well informed of the detailed implementation of the new tuition protection service arrangements and that the full range of service providers are represented on the proposed tuition protection service advisory board. The committee unanimously supports the passage of the ESOS bills through the House with the recommended amendments.
The Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 was also referred to the committee with the ESOS bills. This bill reduces HECS-HELP discounts for upfront and voluntary repayments and clarifies that Australian citizens are not entitled to Commonwealth support when undertaking a course of study primarily at an overseas campus. The committee unanimously supports the proposed HESA bill in its current form and recommends the House pass these proposed measures.
In closing, I would like to thank my committee colleagues and the secretariat, in particular Glenn Worthington. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I commend the member for Kingston and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment on her summary of the bills that have been referred back to his House from that committee. I will not detail those bills by name. However, she did focus on the predominant area that was raised in the 22 submissions we received: the extension of the 24-hour notification period to the tuition protection service. In any event, the committee has recommended 72 hours. While members of the opposition have not elected to lodge a dissenting report on this occasion, we did raise concerns about the 72 hours. The industry was asking for about a five-day period. The 72-hour period may still be too short.
It is probably worth pointing out for the benefit of the House that there are two parties that can default on delivery of service. On the one hand we have the provider who might default on delivery of the service—that is, the provider might not able to deliver the subject in the place designated or, in fact, the provider might be closing its doors—and, in my opinion, 24 hours is more than enough notification time. The student deserves to know very quickly, firstly, that the course is not available and, secondly, that the TPS will be looking for an alternative for them. Of course, the student can also default, in which case the default is triggered if they do not roll up on the first day of the course. There can be a number of reasons for this. The 24 hours has been extended to 72 hours to give the provider a chance to find the student, check out what their personal circumstances are and see if something else can be arranged, and, if it cannot happen in that period of time, to alert the TPS. There are some concerns amongst opposition members that the period should have been a bit longer than 72 hours from the point of view that it may fall on a weekend or a public holiday and the TPS would be notified when, in any case, they may well find the student and arrange something different. But it seemed that the industry is generally relaxed about the 72 hours so, in that case, we elected not to lodge a dissenting report.
Also, a number of submissions had issues with the start-up time of July 2012. It would be fair to say that a number said that it must start by July 2012, bring it on and the sooner the better, but there were others who felt that, because of specific circumstances in their area of education delivery, July 2012 was going to be quite a difficult target to meet. On balance, the opposition allowed that to stand but have concerns with it. A number of other issues were raised around the collection of fees, the length of semesters, and school years being a full year but only being able to collect the fees for half a year. Some of the English-language services, which operate over different periods, also have some concerns with the ability to collect fees on time. But, on balance, we have allowed the bills to be returned to the House with only one meaningful amendment.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:
1 At the end of subsection 35(2)
Add "if the enactment is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth. Without limiting the application of this subsection, the Assembly may not enact any law that is inconsistent with the Marriage Act 1961".
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:
1 At the end of subsection 9(1)
Add "if the law or the part of the law is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth. Without limiting the application of this subsection, the Assembly may not enact any law that is inconsistent with the Marriage Act 1961".
The effect of the opposition amendments would be to add the words, at the end of the principal operative provision of the bill, 'if the enactment is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth' and to add the further sentence, 'Without limiting the application of this subsection, the Assembly may not enact any law that is inconsistent with the Marriage Act 1961'.
The purpose of the opposition's committee stage amendments is to do two things. First of all, they correct an anomaly that would appear in the bill were it to be carried in its current form—that is, under the combined effects of sections 51 and 109 of the Constitution the states may not legislate in areas reserved for the legislative power of the Commonwealth if there is an inconsistency between a Commonwealth law passed under one of the section 51 heads of power and a state law. That inconsistency can arise in one of two principal ways. There may be a direct inconsistency—for example, if there were to be a Commonwealth law passed under a section 51 head of power which provided to a certain effect and a state law on the same topic which provided to the opposite effect. That is the plainest case of inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution, and as a result of the operation of that provision the state law would be struck down.
Very commonly a state law is found to be inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, not because of a direct inconsistency but because the Commonwealth law—to use the phrase that the High Court uses—covers the field. So if, for example, the Commonwealth were to pass a law under a section 51 head of power which was intended to be comprehensive in relation to that particular topic, then an inconsistent state law, or a state law which sought to regulate the same topic in a manner at variance from the manner in which the Commonwealth law sought to regulate the topic, would also be struck down under section 109 because the Commonwealth law would be considered to cover the field. We in the coalition consider that the Marriage Act is such a law, although I acknowledge that the proposition is controversial; and some, including Professor George Williams, have formed a view that it is not the case, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage. If this bill were to be passed in its existing form, without the qualification that we are introducing here, we would have the unusual situation that the territories would have broader legislative powers than the states, because section 109 of the Constitution applies to state laws, not territory laws. So the device of this amendment is to apply the same test to territory laws as section 109 of the Constitution imposes upon state laws.
There is controversy about the reach of the Marriage Act 1961 and, in particular, the 2004 amendments to the Marriage Act, which were introduced by the Howard government—and I might add that those amendments in 2004 were supported by the Labor Party. These amendments introduce section 88EA into the Marriage Act, which prohibited same-sex marriage.
The qualifying words of the opposition's amendments, which are really inserted out of abundant caution, are to make it perfectly clear that an inconsistency between a territory law in relation to marriage and the Marriage Act will result in the Marriage Act prevailing. The better view, as I said earlier, is that the Commonwealth Marriage Act covers the field in relation to marriage, and that is the view of most constitutional lawyers. But there is a minority view that it does not. In order to deal with the possibility that the Marriage Act does not effectively prohibit same-sex marriage, these additional words are introduced to ensure that no territory law may be inconsistent with any provision of the Marriage Act, including, in particular, though it is not set out specifically, section 88EA. So, we really believe that the House should accept these amendments as part of a belts and braces approach, one of abundant caution. I would urge the House to consider these very sensible changes.
The Greens will not be supporting these amendments. The amendments run completely contrary to the spirit of the bill. The bill gives recognition to the fact that in the ACT and in the Northern Territory we have mature debating chambers that are able to govern the people who have elected them. For this parliament to determine in advance what those chambers may or may not legislate about reflects the kind of paternalism that this bill is seeking to redress. This bill is seeking to restore the position that exists under the Constitution. There will still be a capacity in the unamended bill for this parliament to pass a law if it considers that any territory has done anything it should not have done. That position remains and the constitutional supremacy of this parliament remains. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendments.
The government's clear legal advice is that the opposition's amendments are unnecessary. It is already the case that any territory law inconsistent with Commonwealth law on marriage, just as with any other subject, would be invalid. The Commonwealth parliament also has the broadest possible power under the Constitution to make laws for the government of any territory. That is set out in section 122. The Commonwealth parliament could use this power to override any territory law, even a territory law that is not currently inconsistent, by making a new inconsistent Commonwealth law.
I would add that it is not appropriate to tack on provisions singling out the Commonwealth Marriage Act to a bill concerned with the general role of the Commonwealth executive government in territory law-making processes without very careful consideration of the specific effects and more general implications. The opposition amendments do not deal in any detail with the differences between the ACT and Northern Territory self-government acts. It is also not appropriate to tack on provisions singling out the Commonwealth Marriage Act to a bill concerned with the general role of the Commonwealth executive government in territory law-making processes. From a policy perspective, the territories bill is not concerned with marriage or any other particular area of social policy. The territories cannot make laws that are inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act or any other act. This position will not change if the territories bill is passed.
I do not wish to unnecessarily detain the House, but it is disappointing to hear the member for Melbourne and, in particular, the representative of the government, the Minister for Trade, reject these amendments. There is supposed to be bipartisan support from all members of the House for the traditional definition of marriage, and we are opposed to changing that definition within the Marriage Act. I would have thought that the government has had abundant experience lately to realise that some of these questions can be controversial. This question, in particular, is controversial, and there are different schools of law. Even though we would agree that the government's legal advice is correct, there are certainly others within the legal fraternity who would reject it. As I said when I introduced these amendments, they go to being abundantly cautious and making sure everybody understands what this parliament means when it passes this act and that this parliament reaffirms that we support the traditional definition of marriage.
The contribution that has just been made by the member for Stirling highlights legitimate suspicions about the motive for this legislation. If I heard correctly, the member for Stirling asserted that this means the government does not support the Marriage Act. That is complete bunkum, rubbish, and the sort of thing you would expect from the opposition. We have now seen the real motivation for these amendments being put forward, and that is so that the opposition can go around falsely claiming that the government does not support the Marriage Act.
What we are saying is that taking on an amendment to this territories legislation—which is about the status of the territories legislation and the capacity, or otherwise, of the Commonwealth to override it—has of itself nothing to do with the Marriage Act. Let us have a debate about the Marriage Act at some time, but let us not have the motivation of the coalition in this matter being to misrepresent in the broader community the position of the government on this matter. This is general legislation about the territories, and that is what we are debating.
What I was saying—and the Minister for Trade might care to listen to this because he has just misrepresented the position that I put about two minutes ago—is that we believe there is some discussion within the legal fraternity about what this bill exactly means. So we are moving, out of abundant caution, to make sure that it is fully understood that this parliament reaffirms its support for the traditional definition of marriage. We understand that the Labor Party are deeply conflicted about this question. They have people who do not believe that, and they are being forced to toe the line, even though we know that there is great dissension within the Labor Party about whether they should or should not support the Marriage Act.
I am not seeking to run a scare campaign. The opposition is not seeking to run a scare campaign about any of this. We are seeking to legislate consistently so the will of this legislature remains perfectly clear. That is exactly what these amendments are trying to achieve.
I agree that the second half of the initial contribution from the member for Stirling was related to questions in the minds of the coalition as to whether the legal advice is persuasive or not. The member for Stirling has used phrases such as an 'abundance of caution'. The advice to the government is that no such amendment is necessary. But in the second half of the contribution just now of the member for Stirling he has sought to create a debate around the Marriage Act. That says to me that the true motivation for these amendments is not the role of either a minister or the parliament in making laws or overriding laws of the territories but one thing and one thing only and that is base politics.
I now expect the coalition in my own area of Rankin will say, 'This proves that the member for Rankin does not believe in the Marriage Act.' For the record, any such claim would be false. I expect nothing more of the Liberal Party because they resort to misleading tactics. We are happy to support this legislation that has been put into the parliament today, but I will not stand here and cop the misrepresentation of motives on the part of this government in supporting this legislation. If there is in the future to be a debate about the Marriage Act, let us have a debate about the Marriage Act. This is simply another politically opportunistic manoeuvre on the part of the coalition to go around electorates and seek to misrepresent the views of various members of parliament. For the record, for the 50th time, as the member for Rankin, I consider marriage to be a union between a man and a woman as set out under the Marriage Act. That does not mean in any way, shape or form that we do not or cannot support this legislation. We do support the legislation. They are completely consistent propositions. Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Keenan's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:15]
(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.
I rise today to speak on Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 establishes the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, known as ARENA—I do not know where they got the 'N' from! ARENA is designed to centralise the administration of $3.2 billion in existing federal government support to the renewable energy industry currently managed by the Australian government and by Australian government funded bodies such as the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, known as ACRE, and the Australian Solar Institute, the ASI.
ARENA will also assume the work of ACRE in establishing and maintaining links with state and territory governments and, with the ASI, in fostering and developing collaborative research partnerships internationally. ARENA will also be responsible for the policy advice to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism and will take over and expand the activities of ACRE in this regard.
The bill also establishes the members of the ARENA board, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer, and sets out how ARENA will operate and be funded. Funding to be provided to ARENA each year is prescribed in this bill until 2020 and will be held by the government until required by ARENA. Around $1.7 billion of the funding allocations to be made by ARENA is currently uncommitted and will be available for ARENA to provide financial assistance for the research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies, the development of skills in the renewable energy industry and the sharing of non-confidential knowledge and information from the projects it funds.
The Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 complements the main ARENA bill by providing the transition and consequential activities that—
Dr Emerson interjecting—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Can you guys knock it off? I am trying to do a speech here! Thanks. It provides the transitional and consequential activities that need to occur in order for ARENA to take over funding and administration from the existing programs and projects transferring from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism to ASI and ARENA. The coalition believes these bills create a better vehicle for the delivery of renewable energy technology project funding and support, and the coalition's position with respect to these bills is an entirely separate matter from the position the coalition may adopt on any project ARENA may inherit or later consider or support.
While the coalition does not oppose the establishment of ARENA, as it will allow for streamlining of procedures and for appropriate corporate governance in the sector, this non-opposition should not be taken as carte-blanche approval of some of the programs to be administered by the proposed ARENA. It is a matter of public record that the government has not covered itself in glory when it comes to the implementation and operation of energy projects, including renewable energy projects. There is a long and chequered history of failure, as there is on most things in the performance of the current Gillard and prior Rudd governments on a whole range of programs that they have attempted to administer.
We need look no further than the item that is still before the parliament, the establishment of a carbon tax, to again see a program and a policy that has been all over the place. We now see of course, as a result of a breach of promise, a carbon tax that will be introduced into Australia and will be far deeper, far broader and far more economically damaging than any other tax of its type in the world. It is a tax which will drive up the cost of living, put more pressure on electricity prices and make Australia's energy and resources industries less competitive than their global counterparts.
This is a hallmark of this government, as is the incompetent management of a whole range of programs, including its renewable energy programs, which I will come back to in a moment. There are reams of economic modelling that have shown that the carbon tax will put a significant burden on the Australian energy and resources sector and expose it to disadvantage in terms of competitiveness. Yet the members of the government have shown us, on the passage of that legislation through this House, that they would rather celebrate than think about the damage that it is going to cause to our competitiveness and to this economy.
That carbon tax is designed, they say, to try and lower carbon emissions. In reality, of course, it goes nowhere near driving the sorts of fuel switches and energy efficiencies that we need. At least with the bill we have in front of us there is a structure and a corporate governance and an outcome. You do not see the same thing in the carbon legislation.
We have also seen in recent times this government, through its renewable energy and carbon reduction programs, demonstrate the incompetence that we have grown used to across the board. We saw last week the announcement by ZeroGen that it was in receivership and would soon disappear off the face of the earth, and hundreds of millions of dollars—a good proportion of which have been attributed by this Labor government—will disappear with it for no outcome. I am no fortune teller or visionary with a special gift, but four years ago I warned this House that this project was on the road to self-destruction. In fact, another Labor luminary—none other than Peter Beattie—said publicly and in the newspaper that I was on drugs to suggest that the project was going to fail. I hope, Peter, that whatever you were on then you are not on now, when you see what happened to that project. Another failed federal Labor government-state Labor government program literally evaporates into thin air. With it goes taxpayers' dollars that this government had so unwisely invested in it.
The investment is part of the whole Labor government's smoke-and-mirrors approach to clean energy, where it promises the world but delivers absolutely nothing. Given that ZeroGen is now in receivership and $40 million of federal taxpayers' money—and a substantial amount, perhaps double that, of state Queensland government taxpayers' money—has disappeared and gone down the drain we need to ensure, as much as is possible when you have a Labor government in power, that those sorts of things do not happen again.
That is why the coalition is not opposing this legislation. We hold out some hope, through the structure of ARENA, that they will not appoint their mates to the board of ARENA but will get the expertise they need to ensure that the make-up of the board is men and women who understand the importance of renewable energy projects and understand how to invest money. On the second count, there is no-one on that side who has the faintest idea.
ARENA will be made up of six appointed members plus the secretary of the board and there will be at least one person from the field of renewable energy technology, another from commercialisation, another from business investment and another from corporate governance. There may be, unfortunately, a cross-membership with the $10 billion Greens slush fund that the Labor Party has set up—let us see how this all works, but it is hard to imagine it is going to work well—so the person who runs this country, Senator Bob Brown, can get what he wants out of the project. It is money poured into projects that will probably end up in the same spot as ZeroGen.
We do not oppose this legislation. We understand the reasons for setting up ARENA and will watch very closely as it is done. Whilst it is reassuring that renewable energy issues—and energy in general—are going to be oversighted by this body, it is somewhat disappointing that we have still not seen the framework for Australia's energy in the form of a white paper. We are of the view that it is very difficult to invest in any form of energy, particularly renewable energy, in the complete absence of a policy or structural framework on energy policy going forward. The last energy white paper was delivered by me, as the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in 2004.
Seven years ago!
Seven years ago—thank you for doing the maths—the member for Herbert has just reminded me. And in that time, the world has changed dramatically. In that time we have seen the growth of China and the expansion in emissions that that has caused. We have seen a huge shift in energy demand as countries develop their economies. We have seen in Australia not only a huge focus on only supplying that demand through coal or liquefied natural gas but also an energy shift that has seen an expansion of the wind-energy industry. Without an energy white paper it does not matter how good ARENA is, the energy sector will still be staring in the dark as to which direction it should take.
For that reason, the government has left the industry guessing. Whilst the government has not addressed this issue in any shape or form, I use today and this bill as another opportunity to ask my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism to do something about his recalcitrant colleagues—to stop them viewing the resources and energy sector as just another milking cow for their wasteful spending—and to do something about putting in place a framework that will ensure that not just renewable energy but all energy investments in Australia have some direction and framework.
Once ARENA has been established, the proof will be in how the funds are administered by government. This is the same government, as I said, that has set up a $10 billion Greens-dictated slush fund as part of its new carbon tax. The cross-representation between the ARENA board and that capital fund will make for some interesting watching and reading. I suspect that if the government establishes the ARENA board properly with people who have expertise there is going to be some real tension between the way ARENA operates and the way the board of the slush fund operates.
This government has put $10 billion out there for these projects without even identifying a specific need. It already has some $3.193 billion allocated to the renewable energy and low emissions technology funds to do work on renewable energy, yet it says it needs these extra funds. The Australian people are not prepared to just take the word of this government on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, or whatever you want to call it, and they are not convinced that it will be successfully administered—and the record shows that their concern is well placed. The people of Australia have seen how this government has wasted their money on a whole range of renewable energy and emission reduction programs.
Let us not forget where we started with this—the pink batts program and billions and billions of dollars. A constituent rang my office in Toowoomba this week and said that the people had arrived to take out her insulation. She has had that insulation in her roof and she has been living in fear that her house will become electrically live or that it may catch fire. At last, they have come to take it out. Are they going to replace it? Of course not; they are just going to take it down to the dump and bury it, along with billions and billions of Australia dollars. On top of that we have had the Green Loans program. Again, there was another great public announcement, another flash of public relations and another promise from this government in relation to renewable energy and lowering emissions. And what happened? It collapsed.
More recently, we have had the collapse—again in my electorate but right across eastern Australian—of photovoltaic installers' businesses, where those businesses have installed photovoltaic cells for customers and they then in good faith acquired the credits and sold them to a company which has just disappeared, along with the money of course. Husband and wife businesses—mum and dad businesses, as they are called—small businesses and people my age and younger who have basically mortgaged their houses and gone into business to install these photovoltaic renewable energy cells on the roofs of houses on the say-so of the government, in a program administered by the government, not only have lost their money but also, unfortunately, in a couple of instances, I suspect they are going to lose their houses. Such is the record of this government when it comes to administering renewable energy projects. It is just one disaster after another—constant mismanagement, constant hyperbole, constant spin, constant smoke and mirrors, no outcomes, lives destroyed and jobs lost—because they cannot administer anything.
This week, in the oil and gas energy space, we are going to see the introduction of another new tax. Because we have a tax-and-spend government, we are going to see the introduction of the minerals resource tax. And what a disaster that has been! Can anyone remember what RSPT stands for? It stands for resources super profits tax. The reality is that that tax was so badly put together that they had to retreat to the MRRT—and now we hear that even the MRRT is not ready for introduction. But, because this government are so desperate for money—because they can never get it right no matter how long they take—we expect that tax to be introduced into this House before it is in a proper state to be administered.
This is just another example of how, when it comes to the energy space—whether it is renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, energy for export or energy for domestic use—this government cannot get their policies right, and, when they put policies in place, the administration of those policies is a total and complete disaster. I could go on for some time. There is a long and appalling list of failures in the resources, energy, renewable energy and carbon reduction area. In fact, this whole area of energy and carbon reduction is just a political game for those who sit opposite. It is an area that they continually play in and continually mess up.
It is long overdue that the Gillard government take the energy and resources industry seriously, instead of flippantly assuming it will just continue to underpin our economy—regardless of what atrocious policies this government inflict on it and regardless of the failed programs, particularly in the renewable energy area, this government put in place only to watch them crumble and fall to pieces. We believe that there needs to be a far sharper focus by the government and some economic competence to actually manage these programs. That is why we will not be opposing the ARENA bills.
We do support renewable energy. We do not support some of the programs that the government have in place—and at an appropriate time we will go into that in detail. The renewable energy industry was started by the coalition. I know that those who sit opposite like to take full credit for everything, but let us get a few facts on the table. The mandatory renewable energy target, the MRET, was introduced by a coalition government. It was put in place and was up and running. It was the first in the world. It was a coalition government that established the photovoltaic industries in Australia. It was a coalition government that funded the first wind projects in Australia. It was the coalition government that funded the first photovoltaic large-scale generation programs. It was the coalition government that put money—and I was the minister partly responsible—into the first solar thermal projects. It was the coalition government that continued to ensure that we had projects that worked.
So we in the coalition do have a strong basis on which to support renewable energy and we do have a very strong interest in making sure that we put in place a structure that will be able to administer the programs that the government put in place to bring about an outcome that actually produces lower emission energy and is renewable. The problem that we have is that this government continually come up with bright ideas and then comprehensively bungle them through bad administration and failure to oversight policy development properly. The coalition will make sure that the onus is put on the government, by the establishment of ARENA, to be effective and efficient in their management of policies and projects as this money is rolled out. Who knows when the election will be? But between now and then there is going to be a sizeable amount of money put into this sector and if it is managed properly it will have a positive outcome. It may not create headlines and it may not give photo opportunities, but the goal is to make sure the money that is spent is spent well. When we have a government that cannot deliver the most fundamental things such as energy white papers or even put insulation bats in ceilings, we do hope that with this legislation and with ARENA we can get a policy and a structure which actually works.
I hope that this government uses the establishment of ARENA as another chance and a turning point in its poor planning and policy implementation, but I have to be a little bit pessimistic about whether the government will do that. I doubt that it will—though we live in hope—because this government has not heeded any of the wide-reaching warnings from the industry or from the coalition to date. The coalition will not object to the introduction of appropriate policies that can assist and not impede the energy resources sector, including the renewable energy sector. But examples of success have been few and far between in the life of this government. We will not stand in the way of a government that pushes ahead with good policy, but we will stand in the way of policies which are destructive or based on a poor agenda.
The coalition will not oppose this bill. We would in our time, had we had the opportunity—or when we do get the opportunity—have established a structure perhaps even similar to this one. But the crux of this bill is that it is a second chance for the government. It will be another chance for the government to demonstrate not only to the energy industry but also to the people of Australia that it actually can manage money. To date we have not seen that. ARENA will not only have to administer the renewable energy sector; it will also have to be a miracle worker to give the government a lead and show it how it should manage money and not waste billions and billions of dollars, almost on a monthly basis.
Clean energy markets are the high-growth sectors of the future. By encouraging investment and innovation, they will transform our energy sector. In the process, Australia will become a market leader in clean energy innovation. Climate change is already shaping the world economy. The world, whether the opposition likes it or not, is shifting to a clean energy future. It might be slower in some countries, such as the United States, where Tea Party intransigence is standing in the way of good policy, and it might be politically fraught in other parts of the world too; but the emergence of clean energy markets is undeniable. In 2008 Europe spent nearly $50 billion in clean energy investments, China has announced a $400 billion clean energy technology investment program, and global investments in energy markets are predicted to reach up to $424 billion a year by 2030.
Australia has a great opportunity to take the competitive edge in two big renewables markets. The first market is the high-tech, high-skilled global market of technologies for renewable energy generators. We can be at the forefront of innovation. We have the scientists and the researchers. The second market is the energy market. As a major user of energy, Australia can implement renewable energy technologies. We have natural resources in abundance. To be a market leader, Australia must have the market conditions for clean energy industries to establish a foothold. Once an industry has an initial foothold in a region, that region is much more likely to become a hub for future growth. This effect has been called a cluster. It is a powerful way of organising firms to increase innovation, productivity and economic growth. The dominance of Stuttgart in the performance car market and Los Angeles in the entertainment industry demonstrates the growth benefits of clusters.
The Gillard government brought 18 bills to this House to establish the carbon price. I spoke on these bills on 14 September this year. This bill addresses renewable energy technology development. I am grateful to Angela Winkle, an intern in my office, for assistance in preparing these remarks. The government has already established a guaranteed market for renewable energy development through the renewable energy target. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, complements the renewable energy target. It encourages research and development of technologies. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will then provide leverage for private investment in the commercialisation of clean energy technologies. These mechanisms complement the carbon price. They will encourage rapid investment in innovation in clean energy technologies. They will encourage the transformation of the energy sector on the scale required. They will enable the broadest range of inquiry into new technologies. These policies will mine the ingenuity of the market and encourage investment in renewables.
On 19 September Senator Kim Carr announced finalists in the Australian Clean Technologies Ideas Competition. The range of ideas proposed highlighted the inventiveness of Australian businesses and entrepreneurs just waiting to be tapped. Finalists proposed ideas ranging from silent wind turbines and improved wave energy systems through to centrifuge technology for cleaning oil and lime calcination for energy storage. Supporting the development and commercialisation of innovative ideas will transform the Australian economy. It will provide Australian businesses with the competitive edge in emerging global clean energy markets. By creating market incentives, the most innovative and cost-effective technologies will emerge. Those technologies will include those we have not even thought of yet—those with unexpected benefits, those that emerge from the ingenuity of the market and those that would remain undeveloped with a direct action plan.
The opposition proposes climate policy with tunnel vision. It picks technologies to support and excludes new ideas. Yet projections of renewable energy have been notoriously bad at projecting which technologies will succeed. Pre-2000 modelling projected that in 2010 wind energy would be nothing in Australia's renewable energy mix. But in 2010 wind actually accounted for 44 per cent of the renewable energy mix. Bagasse was projected to be two-thirds of the renewable energy mix by 2010 but in reality accounted for less than 10 per cent. The opposition's insistence on selecting technologies to support ignores the role of a market in identifying the most cost-effective solutions.
The opposition's insistence on a 'Moscow on the Molonglo' approach to climate change is clear in their focus on soil carbon. The direct action plan identifies soil carbon as the single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reductions in Australia, but that is misleading. Soil carbon has potential for short-term carbon sequestration, but soil has a carbon saturation point which limits sequestration potential. There is a point at which soil cannot absorb more carbon. The CO2 will remain in the air, raising the concentration of CO2. CSIRO has found that carbon sequestration diminishes to almost zero after 40 years. Soil carbon can be used as a 'time buyer' while other technologies are developed, but the opposition provide no policy to ensure technology development. Their plan is short-sighted and designed—as the member for Wentworth has pointed out—to be withdrawn at the first possible moment.
In place of the coalition's command-and-control approach, the government's portfolio approach backs multiple technologies. It generates the broadest platform for innovation. It is a broad platform that enables cross-pollination of ideas and creates a foothold for clean energy industries in Australia. ARENA will be an independent statutory agency. ARENA's board will consist of industry leaders in technology, commercialisation and business generally. The board will direct investment in renewable energy and enabling technology projects. In supporting early-stage technology development, ARENA will fill a market gap. The public-good nature of clean energy technology innovation warrants government support. Successful technologies developed through ARENA funding can be commercialised through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
We have the opportunity to take a leading role in research and innovation and to develop a competitive advantage in high-tech, high-skill, clean energy industries. As market leaders, Australian businesses can partner with manufacturing countries. Earlier this year I was with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, at the Australian National University for a launch of a major project researching the efficiency of photovoltaic solar cells. China has the world's largest solar panel manufacturing industry. As a result, a Chinese company, Trina, has committed to investing in ANU's endeavour. ARENA and the CEFC will encourage more relationships like this one.
Transforming our energy sector will not be easy. For example, one report, the Beyond Zero Emissions Zero carbon Australia stationary energy plan, claims that we can get to zero emissions by 2020. This plan describes a complete phase-out of all fossil fuels by switching to electric systems. It envisages all Australian energy demand being supplied by wind power and concentrated solar thermal power with a minor contribution from biomass and hydroelectricity. The plan is a $370 billion investment program. It requires energy efficiency measures, the transfer of half the road transport to electric rail, the replacement of the current car fleet with electric vehicles and the transfer of all domestic air travel to rail—all by 2020. The zero emissions plan suffers from impractical time frames for investment, infeasible costs and an underestimation of Australia's energy requirements in 2020. I do admire the authors' optimism, but the task is hard.
More worrying is the so-called plan put forward by the opposition, so in writing this speech I decided I would do what no-one has yet done in this House: explain direct action. So I got their policy and their talking points and set to work. While the government's policy encourages innovation and positions Australia as a market leader, the coalition would have us in the back blocks of clean energy innovation. As well as stifling innovation, direct action is far more expensive than a market solution. The Grattan Institute said that a:
… carbon price … can achieve the scale and speed of reductions required for Australia to meet its 2020 commitments without excessive cost to the economy or taxpayer.
But in their direct action plan the coalition propose an emissions reduction fund that operates as a grant-tendering program. Analysing past policies, the Grattan Institute found that, for every dollar a government commits to grant-tendering programs, only 3c worth of operational projects result within five years, and only 18c worth result in 10 years That means that for a direct action plan to meet the 2020 emissions target it would need a fund of $100 billion. That is a big, whopping new tax.
Another component of the direct action plan is rebates for renewable energy projects. But the Grattan Institute also found that rebate programs produce little abatement for their cost. Using rebates to achieve the 2020 target would require $300 billion over the next 10 years. The coalition claim that they can reach the bipartisan 2020 emissions target largely through grant-tendering and rebates for only $3.2 billion is absurd. From my primary school days, I recall going to the tuckshop with 50c and asking for a meat pie, a chocolate Breaka, a Paddle Pop ice cream and some red frogs to top it off. I was surprised when I was told that my 50 cents would buy me only half the Breaka.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I advise the members interjecting, one of whom had an experience at question time that he obviously did not learn anything from, that there are ample opportunities in this place to have your say, and I see that the member for Herbert will have his say directly after the current speaker as he is on the list to speak. I suggest that what happened at lunchtime be taken into account and that the interjections cease.
As an eight-year-old I learned that my 50c would not buy me everything I wanted. The members opposite do not seem to have learned the same lesson on the value of money.
The coalition's plan also costs more because it does not deal with international action. It does not matter where the emissions occur; they all have an equally detrimental impact on the environment. Each tonne of abated CO2 reduces the chance of bleaching the Great Barrier Reef, whether abated from Australia or elsewhere. Abatement is available at lower cost overseas. By forcing all abatement to take place in Australia, the coalition is choosing to pay more for the same environmental benefit. The coalition is choosing to increase the burden on Australia and therefore on Australian taxpayers for the same environmental outcome.
On the topic of the coalition's direct action plan's price tag, I note that on page 17 of the coalition's talking points they claim that direct action has no cost to families, yet page 18 states that direct action will cost $3.2 billion over the first four years. The coalition seem to be confused as to where funds for government expenditure come from. In fact, Treasury modelling estimates the cost of direct action at $1,300 per household per year. The opposition's approach to renewable energy uptake is to provide minimal funding for limited projects such as solar roofs and just 25 geothermal or tidal towns. If we could predict the future and know that solar and tidal are the best technologies, this would be a credible approach; but, given that crystal balls are notoriously unreliable, the opposition's desire to micromanage industry is mind boggling. The approach picks winners, is inefficient and has been demonstrated to be cost ineffective when compared with market based mechanisms.
I also note the opposition's regular complaint that Australia should not act because the world is not acting—that we do not want to get ahead of the pack. This complaint is curious because page 8 of the direct action plan states, 'Most developed countries have undertaken action on climate change.' The opposition go on to state there that the action taken by most developed countries are national emissions trading schemes, taxes or a mix of the two. Also curious is the direct action plan's labelling of Nordic countries' electricity tax incentives as direct action. Page 8 of their plan states:
Many of the Nordic countries have taken more direct action by introducing electricity tax incentives for most users to use less electricity and extensive subsidies for public transport.
Should this be taken to mean that the opposition views taxes as direct action?
The confusion is illustrative of the direct action plan generally. As a Labor Party member I cannot believe I have to explain this to the coalition. Markets work well; but, rather than use the market, the coalition want to micromanage business. Rather than use the market, the opposition want to pick their favourite technologies. Rather than the market, the coalition want an ineffective and expensive grant-tendering fund. Rather than use the market, the coalition want an ineffective and expensive rebate program. Rather than use the market, the coalition want to pay for promised projects, not actual reduced emissions. Rather than use the market, the coalition want direct action—an expensive, ineffective and confused scheme. The coalition's direct action plan will result in either very high cost to taxpayers or the 2020 emissions target not being met. Direct action will not promote innovation and will leave Australia locked out of the world's clean energy markets. The government's renewable energy policies encourage innovation, research and development, and commercialisation of technologies. ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. I welcome the government's move in establishing ARENA. There is no doubt that government expenditure in the area of renewables is in need of better oversight, and it is my hope that the ARENA body will provide this. It is to be given a role of developing a strategy to provide a common purpose for what at best would have to be described as a haphazard approach to the use of taxpayers' money in this area in the recent past.
Emerging technologies are likely to need support even though the government is in the throes of introducing an $8½ billion per year tax which is designed to make conventional energy more expensive in order to enable renewable energies to compete in that space. But the government's record in this area has been pretty poor: the pink batts, the green loans, the ZeroGen investment so colourfully described to the House by the member for Groom—along with his account of the accusations from the former Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, that the member for Groom was on drugs when he pronounced it a poor investment by the government—and, in my own electorate, a $7 million solar farm which was announced for Coober Pedy with great fanfare and which has disappeared without a trace with no similar announcement from the government. Trust me: it has disappeared. With that kind of record, I was surprised to hear the member for Fraser just a few moments ago reckoning that the coalition could not handle money. I think he should look to his own government before he starts to criticise others in that area.
In my electorate of Grey there are a number of current investments that the government has made to support the development of renewable energy, and basically they are welcome. There are two hot rocks projects in the north of the state and the SolarOasis project at Whyalla, which at this time is, unfortunately, almost 18 months behind schedule. I remain hopeful that this project will be successful, but delays and cancellations show just how difficult the task of trying to pick winners is. Once again I refer to the member for Fraser, who says that the coalition is in the business of picking winners and that, of course, the Labor government is not. Investment in any of these programs is in fact evidence that this government has tried to pick winners. I hope they have backed some winners, because while not every investment will be a winner, it is clear that we need a winning ratio. I am hopeful that that is what ARENA will deliver. ARENA will administer $3.2 billion worth of projects, and $1.5 billion of that is already committed. Their role is to develop a strategy, and that is what I am interested in.
The government is to put together this expert body called ARENA, which is not to be given the task of administering the $10 billion slush fund which is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is suggested in the legislation that there will be a possibility of cross-membership, but if we are to have cross-membership and an expert body in ARENA the question needs to be asked: why do they not just give the role to the expert body? Perhaps the reason for not doing so comes back to the time when this fund was announced by the Greens. It is likely that the government will cede responsibility to the Greens, and what a disaster that would be.
There are some other matters which I would like to get on the record in relation to the electricity grid in my state of South Australia—some of the ramifications of the shift to renewable energy which I hope ARENA will consider. While the operations of the electricity grid in South Australia may not be the prime purpose of ARENA, almost certainly ARENA will be asked to back projects which will feed into that electricity grid. South Australia has 51 per cent of Australia's installed wind capacity, at 1,018 megawatts. That is about 35 per cent of the state's total installed generation capacity. During the last year for which I have figures, 2009-10, those wind farms actually supplied 18 per cent of all the electricity in the state. That is a pretty good performance for wind farms. The bulk of the baseload electricity comes from the gas fired Torrens Island station, which provides 47 per cent of the state's electricity, and the coal fired stations at Port Augusta in my electorate of Grey deliver about 33 per cent.
This does present a couple of issues which I am not sure our state legislators fully understand. I am not sure our federal legislators fully understand them either, but I hope that the expert body, ARENA, does understand them. First, there is the effect of wind power—opportunistic wind generation; unreliable wind generation—on baseload suppliers. In the last 12 months there have been a number of days, my information is that there have been about five, when the wind has blown strongly and when all generators have been in operation, and the price of electricity has dropped to virtually zero. That leaves the coal fired power stations in a position where the power has already been generated but they cannot sell it, so they jam it through capacitors and dump it as heat. Of course, in this situation, the wind generators can still sell their electricity because the 20 per cent renewable energy target, the MRET, means that electricity suppliers will use the opportunity of cheap energy to purchase that wind power. That provides a problem for the baseload generator.
There is a second problem that has happened in that time space, and I will use 31 January of this year as an example. It was a high-demand day, and high-demand days in South Australia are always in summer. The state was becalmed. We had 60 megawatts of electricity generated from the total capacity of 1,018 megawatts of wind generation. That is just six per cent of its capacity, and that is all that the wind generation network was able to deliver on that day. So, until we conquer the quest for an economic storage of electricity, we need to retain the capacity in the network to be able to generate the state's full load, virtually 100 per cent, on demand—and that means baseload generators. Until we nut out the issue of being able to efficiently store renewable energy, we must retain that capacity.
Of course, the first scenario I outlined, where the price of power dropped to virtually zero on a number of days, actually threatens to produce the second scenario, where we do not have enough baseload electricity. If the baseload electricity generator has too many days within the year when the baseload generator cannot operate economically, it will not be there anymore. If wind power in South Australia is to expand by 50 per cent—that was the aim and proposition put by the now former Premier, Mike Rann—it seems certain that there will be more days when the power is essentially worthless and will be dumped. If four or five days a year becomes 40 or 50 days a year, then the ability of the baseload generator to survive will be severely threatened. That is when the sustainability of the grid comes into question. Over-reliance on fluctuating and low-reliability power threatens the grid's ability to deliver power 365 days a year.
I am not forecasting doom; I am just advising caution. I hope that ARENA has a role in developing a strategy which will avert these problems. I raise the issue in the hope that those who are making the decisions in shaping our future will take all these factors into consideration. This is important. A state that cannot supply power on a regular and fully predictable basis will be in grave economic circumstances and, of course, the chance that the regulator will have to operate brownouts across the metropolitan area is likely to go down very poorly with voters. In that same time space over the next five to eight years, the power demands of Roxby Downs are predicted to go from around about 125 megawatts to, from memory, about five times that—that is, about 650. There will be an increasing demand as well, and that will also require baseload electricity. While all this is happening at one level, at another level the government is attempting to bludgeon Australian industry into renewable energy with the most punitive CO2 tax in the world. We debated the CO2bills in this House only two weeks ago.
There have been some recent developments which I would like to report to the House. The Canadian Foreign Minister has come out and said that there is no way Canada will be adopting a carbon tax. The news from Japan in the wake of the Fukushima disaster is that it is likely to miss its CO2 reduction targets by 16 per cent. The US is clearly not proceeding down the tax path, because President Obama has said as much. I guess we will look forward to the next two weeks when the President will be visiting Australia, and perhaps he might have a discussion with our Prime Minister about what the US is doing in that space.
The Europeans, of course, are held up by the government as exemplars in this space, so it is interesting to know what is happening there. I have an article by Alessandro Torello from the Wall Street Journal. I will not read the whole article, but I think it is worth highlighting a few paragraphs. It says:
The European Union is for the first time clearly questioning whether it should press ahead with long-term plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions if other countries don't follow suit …
It goes on:
'If coordinated action on climate among the main global players fails to strengthen in the next few years, the question arises how far the EU should continue with an energy-system transition oriented to decarbonization,' the commission says in a draft of its Energy Roadmap 2050.
These are exactly the same issues the opposition raised in this place two weeks ago. It says further:
The EU's doubts come ahead of a climate-change summit in Durban, South Africa, which is thought to be unlikely to deliver a significant global climate-change deal.
Finally it says:
'It has to be seen clearly that there are risks associated to unilateral EU action,' the commission says in its draft. 'There is a trade-off between climate-change policies and competitiveness. Europe cannot act alone in an effort to achieve global decarbonization,' the paper says.
Of course that is so. They are not acting alone, are they? We are showing them the way! If the government's rhetoric is to be believed, when we arrive in Durban towards the end of this year the Europeans will be over this crisis of confidence because they will not be worried that the rest of the world is not accompanying them on the same course, and they will be greatly reassured that Australia is out in front of them. This will be a wake-up call for the government, because then they will realise that we are a country of 23 million people on the other side of the globe from Europe, and that we are responsible for just 1½ per cent of the world's emissions. For the government it will be: welcome to reality. Before the CO2 tax is even passed through the Senate, it seems as good as certain that we are trying to lead the world to a place where they clearly have no intention of following.
In closing, I will come back to the ARENA bill and say that I hope that ARENA will supply rigour to government's decisions and that it will give them the ability to pick the winners; because, in the end, when you give out public funds you do have to make a value judgment on which technologies are likely to succeed and which technologies are likely to fail. I hope this expert body will address that and that it will be given a lot of responsibility for dealing with the larger $10 billion fund as well.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
General Introduction
People smuggling trades on falsehoods and on the exploitation of people who seek protection or asylum in this country.
Successive Australian governments have condemned people-smuggling ventures whether organised by individuals or by transnational criminal networks.
People smugglers have no humanitarian motives. Their only motives are profit, and planning and launching ventures without regard for the safety of the children, women and men whose lives they put at risk.
No-one in this parliament will forget the tragic scenes of the vessel known as SIEV221 crashing against the rocky cliffs of Christmas Island on 15 December 2010, resulting in the deaths of at least eight children, 22 adults and many others never recovered from the sea. Nor do we ever forget the sinking of SIEVX some 10 years ago, which claimed the lives of 353 asylum seekers, including 146 children, 142 women and 65 men. These and many other tragedies resulting from people-smuggling ventures should have never occurred.
The effective prosecution of people involved in organising and facilitating these inherently dangerous voyages sends a clear message that the Australian parliament does not tolerate people smuggling.
While we work with our regional partners, the UNHCR and other organisations to bring refugees to Australia through appropriate channels, we must ensure people smuggling operations that bring people to Australia continue to be effectively criminalised.
The purpose of this bill is to give clarity to the laws that have criminalised people smuggling and aggravated people-smuggling offences for more than a decade. This bill does not affect the rights of people seeking protection or asylum in Australia.
People smuggling offences contribute to Australia's implementation of its obligations to criminalise people smuggling under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air supplementing the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Clarification of the phrase 'no lawful right to come to Australia '
The purpose of this bill is to make it clear that the phrase 'no lawful right to come to Australia' refers to requirements under Australia's domestic law that people must have a visa that is in effect to lawfully come to Australia, or fall within one of the limited exceptions to that rule outlined by the Migration Act. For example a New Zealand citizen with a valid passport is exempt from requiring a visa to come here.
This is the way the provisions have been consistently interpreted since their introduction in 1999. Amendments to the Migration Act in 1999 made it an offence to organise or facilitate a group of five or more persons coming to Australia if those persons did not have a lawful right to come to Australia.
No impact on the rights of asylum seekers
The amendments expressly clarify the operation of people-smuggling offences in the Migration Act.
The offences deal with the serious crimes of people smuggling and aggravated people smuggling, and do not affect the treatment of individuals seeking protection or asylum in Australia. As such, the amendments are consistent with Australia's obligations under international law and do not affect the rights of individuals seeking protection or asylum, or Australia's obligations in respect of those persons. This is confirmed by advice provided to the government by the Attorney-General's Department.
Retrospective application
This bill does not alter any of the elements of the existing people-smuggling offences in the Migration Act. The amendments would apply retrospectively from December 1999 when the words 'lawful right to come to Australia' were first inserted into the people smuggling offences in the Migration Act. Retrospective application is necessary to avoid uncertainty about the validity of previous convictions and to maintain current prosecutions.
The effect of the retrospective application is to clarify an existing understanding of the laws, and to ensure convictions for people smuggling offences already made as well as prosecutions underway are not invalidated.
There are exceptional circumstances that justify retrospectivity for this bill. Those circumstances are that it would not be appropriate to risk a significant number of prosecutions being overturned as a result of a previously unidentified argument in relation to the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia'.
Conclusion
This measure is critical to ensure Australia's laws criminalising people smuggling are clear and effective and reflect the parliament's intention when the laws were put in place. I commend this bill to the House.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
The views of those on this side of the House in relation to border protection are very well known. It is vitally important that the Australian government adopt and run a coherent and effective border protection policy. It must be the Australian government who has control over who comes to Australia. Failure to enforce a robust system of border protection has enormous negative consequences for our nation.
As I make these comments, I am mindful that I do so in the wake of reports that another vessel attempting this dangerous journey to Australia has sunk and there have been reports of loss of life. It also comes on top of the tragedy we saw in December last year, when the SIEV221 crashed at Christmas island, again with the loss of many lives. That brought home to Australians, in the most graphic way, the perils that are involved in making this journey illegally from Indonesia or other parts to Australia. We also know that it is highly likely that several, if not many, other vessels over the years have left Indonesia and never been seen or heard from again. Presumably those on board have been lost at sea.
Let there be no doubt in people's minds that the blame for these tragedies—the losses of life involved in this illegal journey from Indonesia to Australia—lies at the feet of the criminal syndicates of people smugglers who participate in this evil and insidious trade. People smugglers, contrary to what some in the community might believe, are not modern-day versions of humanitarians smuggling marginalised people to safety. Only the deluded would hold this view. People smugglers are sophisticated criminals who run a criminal business for enormous profit at the expense of the poor souls who have to pay to come to Australia in this way. We as a parliament must do everything we can to make sure that we close this business down. Obviously, as anyone who has followed this debate would know, how to achieve that remains the subject of some controversy between the opposition and the government. In light of the events that I outlined earlier, I do not intend to go through all of this today; but I do reiterate that this parliament must be resolute in tackling people smuggling, and until this resolve is shown the trade will be able to continue to flourish.
The bill before the parliament today, the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011, which we are dealing with in some urgency, does exactly that. It will ensure that the intent of the migration legislation that was amended by the Howard government in 1999 is made crystal clear in relation to the meaning of the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia'. As the minister stated when he introduced the bill, this will in no way infringe on the rights of people seeking Australia's protection from persecution within their homeland. Neither will it in any way alter Australia's international obligations in relation to these people.
The Howard government amended the Migration Act in 1999 to deal with people-smuggling offences, and in particular to make it an offence for a person to organise or facilitate the bringing to Australia of another person if that other person had no lawful right to come to Australia. The construction of the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia' is presently the subject of a question of law reserved to the Court of Appeal of Victoria, and this matter will be heard later on in November. Appeals along similar lines have been lodged in other jurisdictions.
This bill is intended to clarify that 'no lawful right to come to Australia' means that at the relevant time the non-citizen does not hold a visa to that effect, whether or not Australia may have any protection obligations under the refugee convention or for any other reason. To ensure that previous convictions remain valid, the clarification is to be applied retrospectively to 16 December 1999. As I said, the amendments affect neither the rights of individuals seeking protection or asylum nor Australia's obligations in respect of those persons.
The parliament is dealing with this bill with some urgency. It is clearly important that the law be clarified so that everybody in the community understands the intent of this parliament in relation to what it means to have no lawful right to come to this country. I appreciate that both the shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, and I were briefed by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs on this matter recently. It might have been preferable if we had had a little more notice of this bill being brought on today, but, regardless of that, the opposition does support it.
I too support the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011, and I know the urgency that underpins this matter. I welcome the support of those opposite. My support is obviously committed to the bill, but I will put it in a more personal sense. As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the country. Many of the people who came to my electorate from overseas came here in 1975 after the fall of Saigon. They came by boat, so they were boat people. One of the things I do know from talking to them is the number of people they lost at sea. The issue of deterring people smugglers from plying their trade in boats to this country boats is well understood in my electorate.
After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the Vietnamese came to Australia. After the massacres that occurred in Cambodia in 1989 under the regime of Pol Pot we saw another wave of refugees trying to get to Australia. I have attended many Vietnamese functions where they pray to the Virgin Mary. They adopted her as a patron saint because so many people were lost at sea.
I have talked to the Australian Federal Police, the minister and border control people and they say it is estimated that in excess of five per cent of those who travel with people smugglers in these leaky vessels, mainly exiting Indonesia, perish at sea. Both the minister and the shadow minister referred to the tragic disaster that occurred on Christmas Island last December. Tragically, somewhere in the vicinity of 30 men, women and children were lost. Ten years ago 353 people were killed in a dreadful occurrence on Ashmore Reef. It is suspected that more recently another vessel was lost at sea off the coast of Indonesia, which occasioned further loss of life.
When we talk about people-smuggling, we are not talking about some effort to help people venture to another country with a view to have them claim asylum. We are talking about people who take money to ply their trade in simply transporting people. At the moment every boat that leaves Indonesia represents $1 million profit, whether or not it gets to Australian shores. For people smugglers, that is their profit after they have taken out the resources they have committed to the vessel and to organising the trip. People are so desperate that they go to people such as these, smugglers who are so ready and so hungry to take their money. The smugglers do not care all that much whether or not that vessel gets here. They give someone a compass, tell them where to go and, as a matter of fact, they even predial the mobile phone for them so they know that when they have gone a certain distance they can ring and, if things go right for them, they will get picked up. That is the level of care of the people involved in people-smuggling.
I am glad Minister McClelland is sitting at the table. I have nothing but the praise for the Australian Federal Police. I have spent time with them in Indonesia. I have seen what they are doing to combat the challenge of people-smuggling and the efforts they are putting in with the Indonesian National Police and the policing authorities over there. There are almost 17,000 islands in the Indonesian archipelago where people can set sail for Australia. That requires a lot of effort in detection and investigation and the Australian Federal Police are doing very good work with the Indonesian National Police in that respect. I also commend the Indonesian government for the various changes they have made to their domestic laws in people-smuggling and the efforts they are putting in to eradicate this illicit activity from their shores.
As the minister indicated, this Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 amends the Migration Act 1958 to clarify the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia' in the people-smuggling offences in subdivision A of division 12 in part 2. This is a clarification. It puts beyond any doubt what the intention is and the understanding that underpins those words in the act. This is probably simply saying all the various things that most people out there in the community genuinely believe. We know that people-smuggling is a vile activity. We know these are people who are prepared to place the lives of innocent men, women and children at the mercy of the seas simply to make a fast buck. This is a heinous crime and there are people out there who are doing everything in their power to take advantage of that, taking advantage of the desperation of those who see no other way of moving about.
Unless they have a visa, this bill will make it an offence to transport people to this country. This puts beyond doubt what I am sure the average person in the street thinks is very much the law as it stands. The bill will make clear the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia' refer to requirements under Australia's domestic law and not to any obligation under international law which may claim to exist. The bill also makes it clear that this requirement applies whether or not the person travels into Australia's migration zone as part of a people-smuggling venture.
The bill is intended to have retrospective application from the commencement of people-smuggling offences in 1999 and will ensure that the validity of past, present and future people-smuggling convictions stand. On behalf of the people I represent in my electorate, many of whom are refugees, many of whom came to this country on boats and many of whom lost relatives and friends in all those ventures, I welcome this bill in putting an end to the people-smuggling trade. It is something we have a vested interest in, not only to protect our shores but also to do the right thing for humanity. I commend the bill to the House.
People smugglers are criminals. They should be tried as criminals in our courts, and there should be no doubt that if they are found to have been engaged in the act of people smuggling they should be convicted as criminals and face harsh penalties. In this parliament there has been disagreement about some matters. In this matter, there is agreement.
It is people smugglers who are responsible for deaths at sea. It is people smugglers who are responsible for their own crimes. We in this place must do all we can to ensure we have policies that address these matters. But let us not misunderstand one thing about who the criminals are: they are the people smugglers. Their actions seek to exploit vulnerable people for their own profit, as speakers on both sides of the House have said. Their victims are put at great risk, and too often we see the results of that risk.
As the minister at the table mentioned earlier, this afternoon we have, sadly, heard further reports of another tragedy to our north, off the coast of Indonesia. We will await further details. I am sure the government is waiting on briefings as well, and we appreciate the information we have received from the government on this matter. It comes as another vessel has been intercepted today, which adds to those that have come before.
The Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 is a matter of agreement between the government and the opposition. It is also a matter of urgency. No-one in this place wants to see those who have been involved in these criminal acts being allowed to slip through the net, because, where they have been detained and prosecuted, we wish to see a conviction. The bill seeks to provide clarity, retrospectively, that a person has no lawful right to come to Australia if, at the relevant time, the non-citizen does not hold a visa—that is, in effect, whether or not Australia may have protection obligations under the refugee convention or for any other reason.
This clarification is made necessary by a series of appeals arguing that it is not unlawful to enter Australia for a reason under the refugee convention. Courts may have their opinions on these things; but what the parliament is saying here today is that this parliament has an opinion about these matters, and we are making it crystal clear what constitutes this unlawful act.
Article 31 of the refugee convention is informative. It is titled 'Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge' and it states in its first part:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
It is not illegal to seek asylum; it is illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa, and we have different rules and systems for dealing with those who would seek to enter Australia illegally, regardless of what subsequent claim they may make, lawful or otherwise. The mode of their entry is relevant, and we have had for some time now separate systems for dealing with offshore entry persons. But in making that point I return to the original point, and that is that those who facilitated that unlawful entry—those who have facilitated that illegal act—need to be held to account by our own laws.
So tonight we are pleased to support the government in ensuring the speedy passage of this bill through this House. We will continue to hold strong views about the matters that we have had some disagreement upon. We hold those strong views because of our very long-held belief that a system that ensures that we deter illegal entry to the country will produce a result where lives are not lost at sea and where the immigration program—of which we are all proud—is enabled to have integrity and where the 13,750 places that are available under the refugee and humanitarian program are given to people whom we believe are in greatest need and whom we are in the best position to assist. That is what we want to see as a result of this program. That is why we are pleased to stand with the government today and support the bill before the House.
To conclude my remarks, I note, on behalf of the coalition, that the reports that we have heard from Indonesia are of great concern. We send our thoughts to those who are directly affected. We thank in advance the Indonesian authorities for what will be their cooperation in seeking to understand what has occurred here. We thank the government for the reports that they have already provided to us, and we await further news. I fear that that news will not be good, and, as we hear that news, I think it is important for us all to remember who the criminals are in this situation: the people smugglers.
Here we have another instance of Labor and the coalition working together to diminish the legitimate rights of people coming to this country to seek asylum. It is another attempt to avoid an inconvenient truth which keeps recurring because we signed up to international conventions which recognise that people have a lawful right to come to this country. That truth, until we face it squarely, is going to continue to be inconvenient for the government and the opposition because they will continue to do all they can to bring to bear some of the most harsh and punitive measures that can be found against some of the people in this world who need our protection the most.
I will go into the detail of the Deterring People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011 shortly. But—regardless of what your position is on the question of migration and on the question of the appropriate laws that should be in place—this bill ought to be of great concern to anyone who values the basic principles of the rule of law, because what this is really about is a case that is due to be held in Victoria's Court of Appeal in two days time. That case is the case of a 20-year-old Indonesian fisherman who is intending to say to the court, according to the reports, that he is not a people smuggler but an impoverished young Indonesian person who found himself working to earn a very small amount of money by working on a boat. He says that he was caught up in this, according to the media reports. And on 3 November the court was going to act independently, apply the rule of law, look at the questions of fact and of law, and decide whether or not that was the case and that person had a valid defence under Australian law—and that is, Australian law as it stood at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence.
Because this case is coming up, we now have this bill being rammed through without any proper scrutiny. I note that, had this bill being introduced before five o'clock tonight, we would have had the opportunity at the Selection Committee to refer it to an inquiry. It is no coincidence that the government waits until that is over, comes along here and says: 'Right, we've got the agreement with the coalition and we're going to ram this through without any due scrutiny. Let's get this through parliament in the evening.' It was not even on today's daily program.
The fact that there is no scrutiny is bad enough, but violating the principle of retrospectivity to shore up a bad Howard law is even worse. What we have here is a law that will apply back to 1999. If you were concerned about the rule of law in this country you would think that if you were going to remove legitimate rights that people may have had going back to 1999 you would put it up in lights and you would allow time for proper debate and proper scrutiny, not go through the process that we are seeing here now.
What makes it additionally objectionable is that this bill is linked with mandatory sentencing provisions that will require judges to impose minimum mandatory sentences of five years imprisonment, with three years nonparole. In effect, what this parliament will be saying is that we cannot trust the courts to decide when someone is what might be termed a big organiser of people smuggling and when someone else has just been caught up in it, perhaps with as little volition as some of the people who are getting on the boats. I think most people would agree that there is a big distinction between a high-level people smuggler—if we use that term for the moment, as the government has—who might have a sophisticated operation that potentially trades in misery and a 16- or 17- or 18- or 19- or 20-year-old who has found themselves working on a boat to earn a couple of bucks. If the government were concerned about really addressing the people who are at the top then they would craft a law that deals with that—but that is not what is being done here.
The Human Rights Law Centre made it clear that, of the 353 people currently charged with people smuggling, only six are people who actually organised the boats. The rest are people who operated or were crew on those boats. So this is not a bill that is aimed at the supposed kingpins. This is a bill that will catch everyone in its wake. And this is a bill that is reacting to the fact that the court of appeal might well have decided in a couple of days that, yes, this person does not deserve to be punished. So, in their desire to be tough, what do the government do? They cosy up to the coalition and say, 'Let's take away people's rights retrospectively, let's do it quickly, and let's extend mandatory sentencing; let's presume we can't trust the courts to make this kind of decision themselves, let's avoid scrutiny and let's make the 95 per cent of people pay for the five per cent who might be the genuine high-level organisers'—the ones the government are, apparently, so concerned about.
If we really wanted to address the problem the government are identifying, we would need a bill that gives the judiciary the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not the person being charged is someone who is a high-level organiser who, in the government's words, trades in misery. And we would give the courts the discretion to determine whether or not the person should then be sentenced or whether there were any extenuating circumstances. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is a knee-jerk reaction to an upcoming court case because the government are terrified that the court may in fact say, 'Yes, some people do have a legitimate right to come to Australia, and, no, if you find yourself as a 17- or a 20-year-old Indonesian fishermen caught up within it we are not going to mandatorily sentence you to five years.'
If we are serious about avoiding deaths that occur when people take their lives into their own hands and embark on perilous journeys—and I believe everyone in this chamber would agree that we want fewer people dying at sea and we want to take steps to make that happen—there are a number of things we could do. We could have a long-term, practical, humane and compassionate policy towards refugees, like this country used to have. We could say that we will increase our humanitarian intake. We could say we will play a broader role in our region—in Indonesia, Malaysia and all the countries in the region—to resettle more people who have come from those countries so that they do not need to embark on a perilous journey. We could start by putting more staff in those countries to process the claims. There are many people in those countries who have been found to be refugees and who have been languished in camps or elsewhere for years at a time because there are not adequate staff to process them. They are then forced into a position where sometimes they do take their lives into their own hands. If we really wanted to do something about stopping the tragic deaths that occur when people jump on a boat to come here, we could start by doing that and by putting protection of people at the centre of a framework for a regional approach, not continuing with this knee-jerk approach that says, 'We will break the people smugglers' business model,' if by that we mean that a 20-year-old Indonesian fishermen deserves to spend several years in prison. Every time we get close to having a rational and humane debate in this country about how to deal with the difficult global problem of people fleeing war and persecution, it seems to be the case of one step forward and two steps back. We had the instance of the High Court telling us what we should have already known—that is, it is unlawful to expel people from Australia to another country where we do not know how they will be treated. We had the opportunity to ask if Australia could be different. In Australia in the 1970s, for instance, we had an agreed approach that said, 'We will take in some of the world's most vulnerable people and resettle them and their families and we will stop them coming on boats by embarking on a regional resettlement program.' We did that then and it was successful. There are many people in this country who long for us to have that kind of debate again. There are really tough questions that need to be asked about how we deal with people who are potentially risking their lives to get here. How do we discuss these issues with humanity, compassion and with an eye to a practical outcome instead of knee-jerk reactions that engage in a race to the bottom?
I will not be supporting this bill. If this bill is so important, we would have seen it coming on the daily program for some time, we would be having proper committee inquiries and it would not be rushed through two days before the Victorian Court of Appeal is due to determine a matter. This is not a bill that is part of some longstanding grand plan to deal with the big question of refugee movement. It is a bill designed specifically to scuttle a court case that is coming in a couple of days and other cases that might follow it. In the process of doing that the government seems prepared not only to trash the principle of retrospectivity but also to uphold a bad John Howard law. Many people will wake up tomorrow, read the newspapers about what has happened this evening and shake their heads and wonder what is the future of debate about asylum seekers and refugees in this country.
I rise to express strong faith in the Solicitor-General and in the minister's intent in this legislation, but in defence of parliamentary process I raise the issue of this legislation being introduced at 6.15 tonight with an expectation that it will be voted on less than one hour after its introduction. Why? Because suddenly we seem to have agreement between the two major parties—one in particular which in the recent past has been campaigning on the so-called 'death of democracy', but which, when it is convenient, is happy to be a party to ramming through legislation at record speed. I have done my best to get my head around the legislation in the short time I have had to look at it, including talking to the minister at the table, Minister O'Connor, and I take on faith the reasons given for the speedy progress of this legislation.
It is based on one particular case before the Victorian Court of Appeal. In the short time available I have been trying to find the case, using AustLII and other methods. At best I came up with a definition of 'payara'. One small irony is that it is also a vampire fish; comedians could probably have some fun with that, given the abuse of process. This is an exercise of taking the major parties on faith in trying to beat the court. This parliament should not be a place of trying to beat the court in decisions that may be taken at some point in the future. This particular case, I gather, is going to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on Thursday. It beggars belief that government and the minister only became aware today that this issue was before the court on Thursday and so this bill is being presented to the House tonight. Surely, knowing the timing of courts generally and knowing that this matter has been listed with the Victorian Court of Appeal for some time, an appropriate time frame for consideration of any relevant legislation, even if we are trying to 'beat' the court, could have been decided during the last month or two and presented to all members of parliament. It is incredibly unfortunate—in fact it is an abuse of the parliamentary process—that we are being asked to break normal conventions of the consideration of legislation, effectively based on a phone call today to say this legislation is important, urgent and on sound advice from the Solicitor-General. It further validates concerns I have about migration policy from both sides of this chamber; the emphasis seems to be more on crisis management than on developing long-term sustainable strategies for the future direction of this country. This is the latest bad example of bad policy, policy on the run, from governments forever in crisis mode on migration policy and immigration policy. It is disappointing that Australia has found itself in the situation where policy seems to be driven by crisis and political outcomes rather than by national interest outcomes.
The bill sitting on the table is another example of a bill crafted largely around crisis management and for political reasons—much like the Malaysia offshore processing bill. It has been an exercise that both major parties should be condemned for, (a) for the inability to focus on national interest rather than on political interest, and (b) for failure to reach any version of consensus or any sensible or sustainable result. That bill is still sitting on the table and, therefore, we have question marks galore in the area of migration policy regarding onshore/offshore 'assessment'—rather than 'processing'. We also have question marks about the implications, for example, for the budget, in regard to community based detention and onshore assessment as a consequence of policy failure.
I was very keen to move amendments in and around international work that Australia has taken the lead in, across party lines, which stands in stark comparison to the domestic debate. That international work is around the Bali process started in 2002 by Alexander Downer, continued now by Chris Bowen and involving 43 countries of the Asia-Pacific region—Malaysia and Nauru and all the other countries whose names are mentioned in this divisive domestic debate and internationally. Australia should be proud to be an example of a country that wants to lead in the area of fighting people smuggling, people trafficking and related transnational crime. There is a framework that has been developed over nine years that could be the framework for domestic policy as well in the areas of assessment, asylum seekers and detention, people smugglers, people trafficking and the various related transnational crimes.
Quite proudly, Australia leads internationally within the Asia-Pacific region, is forward looking, does look to the long-term sustainable regional interests in trying to frame policy but, unfortunately, as soon as we get into a domestic environment, it is crisis management, political division and legislation in a rush. What we are seeing here again tonight is an example of that.
So all the intent and all the reasons behind it may be valid—I would accept the advice of the Solicitor-General if I actually had time to see it—but I am relying on the good faith of the minister and his office. It is pretty hard to accept an argument that this only turned up today with the court of appeal making some considerations on Thursday.
I urge this minister, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the executive generally and government backbenchers—and hopefully one day soon with the support of a national interest test of the parliament rather than various political parties—to engage in a sensible debate and discussion and a reframing of issues broadly in regard to immigration and migration, particularly in consideration of the good work we are doing with 43 other countries that could potentially help reframe the domestic argument.
I will spend some more time now going through the notes before me, considering whether the verbal advice of the Solicitor-General outweighs the complete abuse of parliamentary process. It is pretty disappointing once again that we see crisis management win the day on immigration and migration policy.
Firstly, I thank the members for Fowler, Stirling, Cook, Melbourne and Lyne for their contributions in this debate. I thank the opposition for their support for this important bill. In relation to the contributions from the member for Melbourne and the member for Lyne, I would not agree with all of the comments they made—indeed, I have to disagree with some of the comments made by the member for Melbourne and I need to go to some of those.
Firstly, in relation to consultation: yes, this bill is being dealt with urgently, but there has been significant consultation with the Greens, the opposition and, more recently, with Independent members in relation to the importance of this bill and the importance of clarifying people-smuggling laws as they have been in place since 1999. I can confirm that we have been in consultation with the Greens spokesperson on this matter since early last week. We provided early copies of all documents that pertain to this matter for their consideration. Indeed, as the member for Stirling, the shadow minister for justice, said in his contribution last Monday—we also consulted with the shadow Attorney-General and have therefore had some extensive consultations on this matter. It is an urgent matter and it needs to be dealt with. I will not be making reference to court matters. I do not think that is proper in the circumstances. I will say, however, that the government is resolute about ensuring we have effective people-smuggling offences and, indeed, that we clarify these matters so there is no question whatsoever about the intent of the parliament in 1999 when the original bill was enacted.
In relation to retrospectivity I have to, with respect, disagree with the member for Melbourne. This is not a trashing of the principles of retrospectivity. Not one material change to any element of any offence in the Migration Act will occur as a result of this bill. This is not about changing the nature of offences retrospectively; this is about clarifying the offences as they have been prescribed in the legislation since 1999. For that reason and also because of whatever consequences may flow without having that retrospective provision, the government believes it is necessary to have that provision. I think it is entirely reasonable and proper that we do so.
In relation to people-smuggling offences, again I have to disagree, with respect, with the member for Melbourne. He indicated that this deals only with crews of vessels. The people-smuggling offences in the Migration Act go to not only crews but organisers of these ventures. This is about a range of offences that are committed under the heading 'people smuggling'. I also want to make it very clear that this is not domestic law that has sprung from nowhere; these are domestic laws that were enacted 12 years ago that relied upon the international convention that we are a signatory to in relation to transnational crime—that is, the human-trafficking and people-smuggling convention. These matters are entirely justifiable. They have been in place for some period. As I said, we do no more by passing this bill than clarify the offences that have existed for that time.
I finally want to say, because this is very important, that this will in no way have any adverse consequences for people who are seeking protection or asylum in this country pursuant to our obligations under the refugee convention. We have very solid and sound advice in relation to that matter. For that reason, for the reasons I outlined earlier and for the reasons that have been outlined in some of the contributions made in this place in this debate, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 establishes the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, known by the acronym ARENA, although no-one really knows where the 'n' comes from. ARENA is designed to administer centrally $3.2 billion in existing federal government financial support for renewable energy currently managed by the Australian government and by other Australian government funded bodies, such as the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, ACRE, and the Australian Solar Institute, ASI. ARENA is designed to take over the work of ACRE in establishing and maintaining links with state and territory governments and ASI in creating collaborative research partnerships internationally. ARENA I understand will be the peak body responsible for policy advice to the Minister for Resources and Energy as it expands its role with the takeover of ACRE.
This bill also decides and establishes the members of the ARENA board, from its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer. It will also set out how this new organisation will operate and be funded. The yearly funding to keep ARENA running forms part of this bill and will run until 2020. There is currently approximately $1.7 billion of uncommitted funding that will be made available for ARENA for, firstly, research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies; secondly, developing skills and training in the renewable energy industry; and, thirdly, sharing non-confidential knowledge and information from the projects it funds.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 complements the main ARENA Bill by providing for the transitional and consequential activities that need to occur in order for ARENA to take over funding and administration of existing programs and projects transferring from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and ASI to ARENA. Contrary to the popular spin coming from this Labor-Greens alliance, the coalition believes that renewable energy does play a role in Australia's future energy needs. In fact it was the coalition that first threw support behind the CopperString project for North Queensland. While on the subject of CopperString, I must state my disappointment with Labor government, both state and federal, negotiations with stakeholders such as Mount Isa City Council and Xstrata and their decision to favour a gas fired power station in Mount Isa. For these two inept governments to say that it was a commercial decision by them is a complete furphy and a failure on a grand scale. CopperString was always the most expensive option. It was never the job of Xstrata, Mount Isa City Council or the people of Mount Isa to simply submit themselves to exorbitant electricity prices forever.
I will explain a little about CopperString. CopperString uses the impetus of bringing Mount Isa onto the national electricity grid and therefore opening up opportunities not only for the north-west minerals province but for renewable energy projects. The corridor between Townsville and Mount Isa has been identified as one of the most significant renewable energy precincts in the world. Projects such as the Kaiwedera solar project and the Kennedy Wind Farm, with over 700 turbines, would be able to feed directly into the grid.
We live on the Great Green Way, the road from Mackay to Cairns, Port Douglas and Mossman. Years ago they were looking for a tourism name to go on the Flinders Highway, which travels west from Townsville to Mount Isa. A wag in Richmond came up with the name 'MAMBA country'—it was an acronym that stood for 'miles and miles of bugger all'. We all thought that was hilarious, but how wrong he was. The north-west minerals province is just so important. With solar, wind and geothermal energy, North Queensland could have the most significant renewable energy project and corridor that this country has seen since the Snowy River scheme. Add to that the north-west minerals province and we have the economic powerhouse that North Queensland will become, as well as the food bowl for the rest of Australia going into the future. That this is being put at risk by this government being unable to maintain its negotiations with Xstrata and Mount Isa City Council is a shame. What we have seen is both governments walk away from this project, which has led to uncertainty and disillusionment for all who were looking toward a future where North Queensland could lead this country in renewable energy programs and the employment that would go with that. But it has been left to the proponents of the project alone to try to resurrect the possibility of support for renewable energy from Labor's state and federal governments. That is wrong.
This government has proclaimed its support for renewable energy and spent billions and billions of dollars on the industry—mostly wasted—and yet it would not step in and fight for CopperString. But this is no surprise from a government that has been too enthusiastically signing big cheques rather than pursuing renewable energy policies that deliver tangible, value-for-money outcomes for the industry.
With this bill comes the potential to make a positive change in streamlining the administration of renewable energy programs, but it is difficult to be optimistic given this government's history. ARENA will have $1.7 billion of uncommitted taxpayer money. This may not seem like much in comparison to the $10 billion fund created just to appease the Greens or the continuous wasted spending of a government that has become far too comfortable talking in billions. We need this new agency to be more financially responsible than this government has been. This is taxpayers' money and they are sick and tired of seeing a government that has adopted the philosophy that if you throw enough money at a policy you might get something positive from it. For ARENA to be a successful authority, it must support economically responsible policy and end the profligate spending that has been a hallmark of this poorly performing Labor government.
The ability for ARENA to deliver on this will depend largely on who is chosen to be on its board. I urge the government in making these selections to have somebody, at least one person, from regional Australia. We also need people who will faithfully approach the administration of such a large quantity of public funding with an apolitical and pragmatic outlook. Additionally, the board needs people with actual understanding of the renewable energy industry from commercial and scientific bases. Having it based in a regional area such as Townsville would also send a positive message that this board is not just an extension of the Canberra crowd and that it would have actual skin in the game.
Too often we see these positions given to bureaucrats who do not understand the industry with which they are now dealing and who do not understand the policy needs of anyone outside the capital cities. Regional areas like North Queensland are rich in potential sources of renewable energy and they are central to the future of this industry. I make the point that it was the coalition that came out with in-principle support for CopperString during the 2010 campaign, long before this government did. It is essential that the ARENA board recognises the strength of North Queensland and has the understanding of these areas that can only come from experience working in them. Only then will ARENA be able to administrate effective policy that will increase the supply of renewable energy and improve the competitiveness of Australia's renewable energy technology, as this bill intends.
This bill signifies a step in the right direction. That ARENA will absorb ACRE and ASI and actually reduce the number of bureaucrats is a first for this government. This government has a past so littered with failure and complication, it is every Australian's right to be sceptical that this will deliver a positive outcome—that it will actually deliver a reduction in bureaucrats. For the renewable energy sector, it has to bring support to projects and science based outcomes. It must be seen to be active and interested. It must have quality agendas for every meeting and not just concentrate on when the next meeting will be held and which resort site it will be visiting.
Both sides of this chamber recognise the economic and environmental opportunity that the renewable energy industry creates for Australia. The North Queensland region, from Townsville out to Mount Isa, is at the heart of this opportunity. We have the answers to the challenge of increasing our renewable energy supply that this bill presents; all that is missing is a government that wants to work with the region to help us get there. Instead we have a government that does not understand North Queensland and that has not been capable of administering policy to help the renewable energy industry. I hope that this bill is a sign that it is turning over a new leaf, but, with a record such at it has, it has a long, long way to go yet.
It is with some pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. I wish to make the point that these are important pieces of legislation which will build on the clean energy package, which is designed to secure a new way of managing our economy to ensure that we have an economy that has less reliance on a carbon footprint than we have had in the past.
ARENA is an important institution. It will have a huge job in shaping Australia's energy development into the future, particularly around renewable energy, and this is very exciting. ARENA will be responsible for providing financial assistance for research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies and for developing skills in the renewable energy industry. It will also have responsibility for sharing non-confidential knowledge and information from projects that it has funded. It will promote collaboration on renewable energy technology innovation with state and territory governments and other institutions, including international governments and foreign institutions. Whilst that might sound relatively easy, if you think about it for a moment that is a huge, complex task that will require enormous skills to be administered and overseen by the board.
In Corangamite and across south-west Victoria, there are enormous opportunities for renewable energy. Indeed, a very large part of Victoria's energy security going forward will be provided by south-west Victoria, including my own seat. In fact, a very large part of our energy security will migrate from the eastern side of Victoria to the western side of Victoria in the decades to come. That will provide enormous opportunities for new jobs in south-west Victoria, including of course Corangamite. It will provide billions of dollars of investment to western Victoria, creating opportunities for companies.
Unfortunately, the new state government in Victoria, the Baillieu government, has put in place new laws which will make it far more difficult to deploy renewable energy, particularly through wind farms. My part of Victoria is deeply concerned by the legislative hurdles that the Baillieu government has put in place. They fly in the face of the need to have a clean energy future based on renewable energy technologies. I hope that in due course the Baillieu government recognises the errors of its ways and will reverse the decisions that it has made around planning in this important space. We in south-west Victoria want to work very closely with ARENA to ensure that south-west Victoria takes up every opportunity to generate renewable energy for Victoria's energy security.
I recall one of the contributions made by one of the coalition members from South Australia on renewable energy take-up, particularly via wind, in South Australia. I must commend the South Australian government for their efforts in that area. He indicated that one of the difficulties is that renewable energy is not a baseload energy, and that is indeed true, although I think that important work can be undertaken in linking up our energy grids in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland. The reality is that the wind may not be blowing in South Australia but it might be in New South Wales. If it is not blowing in New South Wales, it may well be in Tasmania. By increasing the landmass and linking our energy assets like that across the nation, whilst the wind might not be blowing somewhere it will be somewhere else, and that will create opportunities to share the baseload.
In my part of Victoria, south-west Victoria, not only do we have enormous opportunities with wind energy but we also have massive opportunities which have not yet been exploited in geothermal energy. There is a massive geothermal resource which is located from, in effect, Geelong through to the South Australian border and through to the Great Divide, which runs through a very large part of south-western and western Victoria. Geothermal energy, whilst it has not been proven up in any great way in a Victorian sense or an Australian sense, it certainly has been in many other countries. I think there will be huge opportunities through ARENA to support geothermal technology and deployment of that technology across the grid in the years to come. I certainly look forward to seeing all of those opportunities taken up. Geothermal is a renewable energy technology and it is a clean technology, producing, in effect, zero emissions. Geothermal technology taps directly into the earth's heat, superheating water to generate steam to drive turbines or heat exchanges. There are huge opportunities in that regard.
There are also other opportunities on the coastline of south-west Victoria. There are new technologies that have not been proven, such as tidal or wave energy generation. Again, these provide huge opportunities. These form a basket of technologies that can be located very close to coastal towns and generate electricity very close to where it will be consumed. By doing that, you do not have all the transmission losses that take place. So I think there are very substantial opportunities in south-west Victoria.
I think this legislation has been well thought through by not only the multi-party climate committee but also, importantly, the minister, who has given a great deal of thought to getting this right. I look forward to working with the government and tapping into the skills that ARENA will have, and I look forward to working with industry to access the opportunities that will be available.
There is no doubt about it, we have to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This has been a problem ever since industrialisation, and it is our generation that will be left with the responsibility of addressing it and putting in place intergenerational policy to deal with it. The ARENA arrangements are a key part of addressing our greenhouse gas emissions and putting us on a much more sustainable path as we move forward.
I commend these bills to the House and I look forward to working with the minister on the passage of this legislation to ensure that south-west Victoria takes up every opportunity that these bills present.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill. The electorate I represent in this place is home to an energy province that has solar, geothermal, coal fired and gas fired power generation. In fact it is one of our energy capitals and, as we speak, it is growing in terms of energy production. I come to the debate tonight supporting these bills.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 will establish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, which is designed to centralise the administration of some $3.2 billion of existing federal government support for renewable energy currently managed by the Australian government. I want to talk a little about renewable energy a bit later because it is something that has been around in the electorate of Maranoa for more than 100 years. I hope some of this money will also go to research and further advancing those technologies and tapping into some of the renewable energy sources identified by the very early pioneers out in western Queensland. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 complements the main ARENA Bill by providing the transitional and consequential activities that need to occur.
ARENA is designed to centralise the administration of existing federal government support for renewable energy currently managed by the Australian government and government funded bodies such as the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, or ACRE, and the Australian Solar Institute, and it is expected to commence operation in July next year. It is a sensible move to bring these bodies together. ARENA will also be responsible for policy advice to the Minister for Resources and Energy and will take over, and expand on, the activities of ACRE. There is no place like Canberra for abbreviations—and I guess it sometimes drives us all a bit mad.
The coalition does not necessarily support all of the existing programs to be administered by the proposed ARENA. However, the creation of ARENA represents a streamlining of, and improvement in, the procedures by which these and future such programs are selected, funded and overseen. Accordingly, we consider that the establishment of ARENA is in the interest of good governance and should be supported.
As I said, my electorate of Maranoa is home to a number of successful renewable energy projects, including a solar farm, an algae energy plant, a biochar farm and a geothermal plant. For instance, the community of Windorah, which is right in the western part of my electorate and not on the main electricity grid, has a solar farm with integrated diesel power to generate power for that community and some surrounding pastoral properties. As a result of that solar farm, it has an estimated saving of some 100,000 litres of diesel that otherwise would be used to generate the equivalent amount of power for the community of Windorah. It holds great promise for other remote communities that receive long hours of sunlight.
Likewise, the township of Birdsville, right out on the edge of the Simpson Desert, has for many years tapped into the geothermal heat of the artesian water. I was there this year with the Speaker and with the Leader of the Opposition showing them this project, which for more than 50 years has tapped into the heat of the artesian water and earth to boil water and generate power for the township of Birdsville. Obviously the town has a diesel backup because the geothermal heat of the artesian water is not sufficient for the demand that is on the town of Birdsville these days, but it saves diesel and that means it is saving carbon emissions and it is coming almost free through the solar energy coming up with that artesian water.
Thargomindah is another interesting place because more than 100 years ago they utilised artesian water. In fact, it was the first place in Australia to do. The community generated thermal power from the artesian bore water once bores were first established in that part of western Queensland. Just across the border from those two communities, Thargomindah and Birdsville, is the township of Innamincka. When we were in government we invested—as I am sure some of the energy companies did as well—in the Geodynamics hot rocks project, which utilises the heat emanating from hot rocks deep underground. My understanding is that those hot rocks are degrading uranium and are some 5,000 feet or about 1,500 metres below the surface.
Australia's unique desert-like conditions mean that there is much potential for the utilisation of this sort of technology because many hot rocks areas have been identified, which could be utilised for absolutely zero carbon emission power generation plants that are sustainable and renewable. There are a number of areas that are yet to be fully developed, as is this concept and project. They have had trouble with the development, but I hope money from the fund relating to this bill tonight is able to go to such projects so that we do not give up on it. While there have been some problems associated with Geodynamics development, we must persist because it offers great hope for totally renewable, zero emission power generation. I hope funding continues for the technology that will ultimately one day prove successful.
It is important because just one cubic kilometre of this hot granite rock is the energy equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil. So hot rocks technology certainly has the potential to meet Australia's energy needs. It will be driven by new technologies based on what we have learned from the Innamincka project. It is out there, it is almost free—although obviously the technology and the development of it are not free. One downside of these hot rocks being at Innamincka is that they are a long way from major populations, but that should not deter us from continuing to invest in this hot rocks technology to make sure that in our lifetime, and in the lifetime of our children, this will be a significant source of energy for generating electricity for Australians well into the future.
The Western Downs region in my electorate is also quickly becoming the hub of solar energy projects, represented by the proposed 250-megawatt Solar Dawn power plant near Chinchilla and the 44-megawatt Kogan Creek solar boost project. In June this year the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced Solar Dawn as the preferred solar thermal project in round 1 of the Australian government's Solar Flagships Program. I support the project and I support the funding from this government. I support taxpayers' money being spent on such a project, not only because it is in my electorate but also because we must continue to develop solar technology. I hope that one day Australia is the leading country in the world in solar technology. For too long we have lagged in this area and yet we are a vast land with so much sunshine. It is technology we should be able to develop and be a leading authority on, not only from the technology point of view but also from the manufacturing and the science behind the solar industry.
The Commonwealth and Queensland governments have announced $104.7 million for the Kogan Creek solar boost project. That will see Kogan Creek power station become home to the world's largest source of solar integration with a coal-fired power station. It is quite exciting news for my constituents of Maranoa, including the people around Chinchilla and Dalby, to know that this is coming and will be the hub of one of the largest integrated solar-thermal, coal-fired power generation sites in the world.
The Solar Dawn project is a proposed 250-megawatt solar thermal gas hybrid power plant to be built halfway between Dalby and Chinchilla in western Queensland by a consortium including AREVA Solar, CS Energy and Wind Prospect CWP. The project is part of the Australian government's Solar Flagships program, which aims to provide the foundation for large-scale, grid-connected solar power and to accelerate the commercialisation of solar power in Australia. It is an exciting project, and I guess that is why they are using the Solar Dawn—it is the dawn of, hopefully, a very exciting future in the area of solar electricity power generation. It is a key component of the government's $5 billion Clean Energy Initiative. Once completed, the Solar Dawn will be the largest of its kind in one of the most environmentally responsible power production plants in the world.
One of the other things about it—and this is important in the context of some of the comments from some people—is to do with the coal seam methane gas industry and of course the water that comes up as part of that process. This solar thermal electricity farm will use the water that comes up as part of the coal seam methane gas extraction. They will be putting that water to a very good use, making a betterment use of the water that comes up as part of the coal seam methane gas extraction.
The other element of this project is that it is going to create a lot of jobs in its construction. In the old scale, there will be 4,000 acres of solar reflectors reflecting onto pipes carrying the water that has been cleaned up, utilising it for the thermal energy turbines that are obviously part of this project. I have spoken with a firm in Dalby where young people are getting a start in life as a result not only of CS Energy but also of this solar project. In fact they will be making and manufacturing the pipes that will be utilised in this project. That also creates local jobs and, I would hope, ultimately, expertise that will flow from the development and learning that goes with projects such as this.
I think that the Solar Boost project is the largest solar project in the southern hemisphere and the largest of its kind in the world. The Kogan Creek Solar Boost project will involve the installation of a solar thermal addition to CS Energy's 750 megawatt coal-fired Kogan Creek power station, which is halfway between Dalby and Chinchilla. The solar addition will increase the amount of electricity generated by up to 44 megawatts during peak solar conditions, providing an additional 44,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year. So it is also a very exciting addition to a coal fired power station and when the solar energy can be utilised it will be a boost to the existing coal fired power station and the grids that are connected to the power station. This innovative solar project will augment Kogan Creek's power station steam generation system to increase the station's electricity output and fuel efficiency. It forms part of CS Energy's commitment to producing cleaner electricity from existing coal fired power stations.
I come to this debate tonight to say that it is an exciting time in the electorate of Maranoa with the developments in Western Queensland. I hope that with this money for research we will be able to develop the hot rocks, the geothermals, and the solar energy prospects and opportunities well into the future.
I am delighted to hear that there is excitement in Maranoa in terms of the future. There is optimism being generated in the communities in which I have been speaking about the Clean Energy Future, and particularly about what geothermal energy might offer, and I think this is something that is quite widespread around the country. People around the country are picking up on a sense of the future that this government is creating.
I rise to speak this evening in support of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011, which is furthering the Gillard government's commitment to ensuring that Australia works towards a clean energy future. This bill complements the clean energy bills recently passed though this place by establishing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency which will play a key role in the continuing development of our renewable energy industry. It will provide independent administration of Australian government funding to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy and related technologies and to increase the supply of renewable energy. The establishment of this agency demonstrates that the government is committed to ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the implementation and operation of the government's clean energy policies. Indeed, contrary to the allegations of those opposite, the government's objectives are to foster an environment encouraging investment in renewable energy.
The primary role of ARENA will be to provide financial assistance for the research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies. ARENA will also be responsible for developing skills in the renewable energy industry in addition to promoting collaboration on renewable technology innovation with state and territory governments and other institutions. In seats such as mine, the seat of Robertson on the Central Coast, I can only hope that very happy coalitions between the federal and state governments enable an increase in jobs. In regions such as mine we are certainly looking to have many, many job opportunities to keep people working in the area rather than having to get on trains and commute to Sydney for work, as is sadly currently the case for too many coastal residents.
Importantly, as stated by the minister, ARENA will have oversight of around $3.2 billion in existing renewable energy grant funding currently managed by the Australian government and by the federally-funded Australian Centre for Renewable Energy and the Australian Solar Institute. The independent nature of ARENA will ensure that grant funding decisions will be made on a merit basis rather than on a political basis—and we sadly saw too much of that in the Howard years. In this regard, ARENA will be expected to develop programs and issue program guidelines for its general allocation of financial assistance.
The board of ARENA will consist of seven members with the skills required to administer the agency. This legislation provides decision-making authority to ARENA in a number of areas. First, ARENA is to administer around $1.5 billion in current renewable energy technology funding agreements. Second, ARENA is to determine its funding strategy and develop and manage programs for funding for around $1.7 billion in unallocated funds. This is an incredible investment in our future. Third, ARENA will have the authority to select projects and make binding funding decisions for provision of financial assistance for research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of renewable energy and related technologies.
Importantly, whilst the decision-making authority of ARENA is independent from government direction, important safeguards remain in place. That is a question of balance and care that this government is consistently attending to. The minister is to endorse the ARENA funding strategy and any grant where the amount exceeds $50 million. There are also requirements for the minister to endorse program guidelines where the guidelines permit grants in excess of $15 million to an individual project. Additionally, this bill specifies that the minister may give directions to ARENA regarding the giving of advice in relation to improving the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies. This requirement also extends to the giving of advice regarding increasing the supply of renewable energy in Australia, improving the development of skills in the renewable energy sector and increasing the use of renewable energy technologies.
This bill is a vital component in the Gillard government's commitment to ensure that Australia plays a leading role in our own clean energy future. It is vital that, in a country with a high abundance of renewable resources, including solar, wind and geothermal—about which many of the participants in this debate have spoken this evening—that we make appropriate investments and utilise them.
This contrasts quite markedly with the policy of those opposite, which is to continue our reliance on fossil fuels and increase our consumption of these into the future. It is only those opposite who, despite the prevailing wisdom of the CSIRO and the consensus of the scientific community, believe that our reliance on fossil fuels has little or no environmental impact. The government, on the other hand, recognises the importance of acting in the national interest by investing long term in renewable energy and renewable energy technologies. This bill demonstrates the commitment of this Labor government to act in the long-term interests of the Australian economy, to ensure that we properly utilise our natural resources.
As stated by the minister, the definition of 'renewable energy technology' in this bill includes hybrid technologies. Hybrid technologies are a vital component in the ongoing development of a clean energy future and, as we have witnessed, hybrid cars are becoming an increasingly important component of our domestic car market. Indeed, representing an electorate with a large commuter population, I recognise the potential that hybrid technologies will play in cutting our emissions. As people like me and my family in the seat of Robertson replace family and small business vehicles, we will be increasingly considering energy-efficient vehicles that employ these hybrid technologies. The inclusion of hybrid technologies into the bill will improve the economics of renewable energy projects because of the significant advancements that have been made in this area of technology. As stated by the minister, ARENA is going to support a number of existing projects that include hybridisation. A few I want to mention in particular include the Solar Flagships' program Solar Dawn, the King Island REDP project and the ACRE Kogan Creek Solar Boost project, about which a number of other participants in the debate have spoken.
We should be excited that we are being innovative as a nation. Labor is leading with this landmark legislation towards a clean energy future. I firmly believe that in the 21st century we will witness an economic and social transformation akin to the industrial revolution in this field of new, clean energy. This is what a clean energy future is all about. I understand that underpinning the strength of the Australian economy is its capacity to grow, develop and offer increasing opportunities to the Australian people. With the prospect of 1.6 million new jobs created by our Clean Energy Future before 2020, that is exactly the kind of initiative that the people in the seat of Robertson are yearning for in terms of the leadership that they seek from us here in parliament.
Like all members in this place, I delight in the health of the Australian economy. This is a time when the global economy is facing unresolved challenges, but we are strong. I also delight in the continuing growth of the Australian mining industry and the opportunity that that presents to us as the Australian nation. In the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax legislation coming later this week, we see Labor's commitment to make sure that at this historic moment of opportunity, with the incredible resources boom, that the resources that belong to all Australians, and the benefits of that industry, are spread to all Australians across the nation instead of being captured by a few or indeed taken offshore in excessive profits by mining companies.
Despite this, it is unsustainable for us to continue to grow economically if we adhere to the coalition's backward looking stance and rely on carbon. Even Margaret Thatcher, an icon to those opposite, recognised the importance of acting on climate change. Indeed, Mrs Thatcher stated during her term as British Prime Minister that the threat of global warming was:
… real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, to that we do not live at the expense of future generations.
I do not believe it is too much to ask those opposite to sacrifice their rear-vision, out-of-date view and turn their gaze to the future.
As part of the Gillard government's policies on a clean energy future, this legislation will assist us in making the changes necessary to ensure that as a nation we do not live knowingly and willingly at the expense of future generations. The government and members on this side of the House have worked to make the right decisions for our nation's future. In contrast, those opposite and their shock jock supporters, who have attempted to wage an ideological war, seek to malign scientists and science in a way I have never before witnessed in my life. Growing up, doing projects even on things such as the sugar industry, I learned that the highest source of authority you could go to was the CSIRO, yet we have heard scientific agencies right across this nation maligned time and time again by those opposite, who are only interested in peddling their own brand of misinformation for their self-interest, not the national interest.
The act of putting a price on carbon and investing in renewable energy is a critical thing for our nation. It is based on doing the right thing and acting in a proactive manner to ensure that our economic growth does not compromise future generations. I want my children and grandchildren—indeed, all Australian children and grandchildren—to look to the future with hope and optimism, just as I did in my youth.
With the passing of this bill and the clean energy future legislation I know that we can look forward to that future with hope, with optimism and with anticipation. They clean energy fuels are the fuels that will, unlike fossil fuels, drive our young people to great heights. We simply have to give them the opportunities, and that is part of what this legislation will ensure.
I see a future where Australia is a renewable energy powerhouse in a clean energy global economy. To achieve this, however, we need to be proactive and the Gillard Labor government has taken the tough decisions necessary for that proactive government to be delivered. I am proud to support this visionary government and I hope that this parliament shows that it is ready and progressive by passing this legislation at the earliest opportunity. I commend the bill to the House.
It was with much interest that I listened to the contribution to this debate by the member for Robertson. I am sure she has a deep and abiding love for her electorate but I am afraid to say that her contribution was full of misguided utopian statements that say green energy will create this new wonderful world where nothing will bother us and we will all live happily ever after. I am sad to say that the realities of the world are much different from that.
I rise to speak on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. As has been said by previous speakers in this debate, we in the opposition will not oppose these bills. We are prepared to support the government's objective to introduce a new independent statutory authority to manage more than $3 billion worth of renewable energy projects. This is to some degree founded on common sense and good governance which, based on the government's track record over the past 4½ years, is somewhat surprising. ARENA will be responsible for policy advice to the Minister of Resources and Energy and will take over and expand on the activities of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, ACRE.
The purpose of ARENA is to manage renewable programs as well as research and development of projects in solar, geothermal and bio-fuel energy. It is hoped that investment into alternative energy resources overseen by ARENA will help transition Australia's renewable energy strategy in a competitive way. Further, we hope that this new agency will take solar from being a mismanaged and misunderstood technology in this country to a more organised one.
The agency, we are told, will be managed by an independent board of investment, business and energy experts appointed by the government. It is hoped this move to an independent board will lead to more action, less red tape, more practical on-the-ground outcomes and a better spend of the money involved. While the coalition may agree in principle to the creation of these agencies, it does not in any way imply that all programs that are to be administered by the proposed ARENA will receive automatic assent.
The government's track record on the administration of energy projects is far from satisfactory. It has not yet informed Australian families about the true cost of its poorly planned renewable energy policies. Like so many of Labor's poorly planned projects I have no doubt that they cost too much and deliver very little.
As an example, the Queensland Labor government's plan to become a world leader in clean coal saw the government invest $47.5 million towards a pre-feasibility study of a now aborted plan. A damning assessment report by the Auditor-General indicated that ZeroGen was unviable, which resulted in a massive waste of taxpayers' money—in excess of $112 million.
In addition, taxpayers are about to become co-owners of green power and clean energy technology as the government injects more than $10 billion over the next five years as part of its carbon pricing policy. The new measures will include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that will be responsible for investing these funds in businesses seeking to get innovative clean energy proposals up and running.
The member for Robertson mentioned the Solar Flagships program and the Kogan Creek solar farm in her speech. We had a recent example in the United States with Solyndra, a huge solar project of some $550 million, which has gone into administration. This idea of picking winners has not been at all successful where it involves bureaucrats picking supposed winners that the market has already decided are losers.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will also invest in the transformation of existing manufacturers to help them meet the demands of the new clean energy sector for goods like wind turbine blades and solar panels—both of which are largely manufactured in China and imported. The aim of these initiatives, supposedly, is to provide taxpayer funded capital investments designed to help transform the renewable energy sector of our economy.
Previously, most government funding for renewable energy has been targeted at early-stage research and development. This is a critical area for government support but it has left a gap in funding for demonstration and deployment stages of renewable projects on a large scale. The proponents of these schemes state that the expected national benefits from these renewable energy investments will be: creating jobs in new and traditional sectors; generating export opportunities; reducing dependence on oil, coal and gas, and exposure to their volatile prices; supposedly, cutting carbon pollution; and driving cost reductions in renewable energy by delivering large-scale projects in new technologies and thereby allowing the industry to learn by doing. However, the stark reality is that we are borrowing billions of dollars and introducing new and punitive taxes to achieve these outcomes, putting our future generations into debt and robbing them of future economic prosperity on the off-chance that the imagined savings in energy, environmental and health costs are actually achievable.
All this begs the question: what are the benefits and how will they be calculated and measured and, given the governments track record, how can we be certain that the choices being made are the right ones for the future? Green energy proponents would have us believe that if we build windmills, add solar panels to the desert, fill our buildings with insulation, run our cars on biofuel, build more light rail and travel by train more often, eat locally grown food and buy more foods produced at home rather than overseas, the 'green fairy' will magically wave its wand and all will be right with the world—the money expended to support these fanciful ideas will quickly be recouped and we will all be healthier and there will be less environmental damage. I think we all know that this is not the reality.
Energy dominates everything that we do. Solar and wind energy is significantly more expensive than coal, natural gas or hydro. Additionally, solar and wind energy production differs from coal, natural gas and hydro because the latter will work continuously regardless of whether there is sun or wind. This adds a new complexity to managing power supply. Wind farms and solar facilities are more often than not generated some distance from the existing grid that distributes the power around the state. This would mean that there would be a need to invest in a new infrastructure that will accommodate the new technology.
The infrastructure that currently is in place is unable to maximise the benefits of renewable resources. As an earlier speaker on our side pointed out, the power station in South Australia in times of peak load already needs to dump coal generated power. Wind and solar resources are connected to the grid as one-off solutions that are generally not integrated with other generation nor optimised as a reliable baseload energy source. Traditionally, electricity has flowed one way: from a power station to a customer. But, as more energy is generated by alternative sources, power will be entering the network from multiple locations, and most current grids are not equipped for multi-directional power flow. The installation of the equipment required for two-way power to flow is sophisticated and requires grid automation technologies to move it around and send it where it is needed.
To transfer our modern society into a green society requires an effort of staggering complexity and scale. And to do so on borrowed money on a combination of wishful thinking and bad economics is the height of economic irresponsibility. There will be ample opportunity in the future for the development of new, green initiatives that will help resolve the need to balance the environment and societal needs.
I have recently met with a number of small to medium businesses in my electorate of Forde. During discussions they have advised that they been progressively implementing green strategies for their businesses over the last number of years, as they recognise the value and the importance of wise environmental stewardship—not a government directive or piece of legislation in sight and with all their own capital. While the ARENA and CEFC initiatives are not direct consumer initiatives and given that the government's record in the area of providing assistance in energy projects, anything that improves governance standards is welcome.
I would like to provide you with a couple of examples of the misuse of taxpayers' money in trying to implement renewable energy projects. We need only look at the bungled home insulation scheme that cost in excess of $2.45 million dollars.
Why don't you name the tradies? They are the ones who messed it up.
You guys administered it, so you are responsible for it. Cash for clunkers did not fare any better and was scrapped by the government with the intention of resurrecting it, but it was again put on the backburner because of problems experienced due to inadequate preparation. Then there is the mother of all taxes—the carbon tax. The government's carbon tax is a bad tax based on a lie to the Australian people, and Australians will pay not just in this generation but also for generations to come.
No climate change?
Well, let us look at the practical environmental—
Order! The member for Bass will cease interjecting and the member for Forde will not respond to the interjections. The member for Forde has the call and will be heard in silence.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government does not have a mandate to implement this tax and we certainly want to ensure that this situation does not occur again. We now face the prospect of a minerals resource rent tax, a complex tax requiring multilayered calculations and valuations and limited to only certain resource products. As with the carbon tax, it will succeed in reducing the competitiveness of Australian and global resource companies as their cost base increases further.
The member for Robertson talked in her contribution to this debate about the long-term benefits to Australia. There are also long-term consequences which are not being discussed, such as what the negative effect will be on the share prices of and company growth prospects for those Australian companies and what the flow-on cost will be to the retirement savings of Australians through their superannuation funds. What will be the effect on future federal government budgets of increased age pension liabilities due to lower retirement savings of Australians caused by the unknown or unforeseen consequences of the carbon tax and the MRRT? In my opinion, these are important unanswered questions that go to the heart of the question about the future prosperity of this great nation.
The coalition will not oppose the passage of this legislation, but with a disclaimer duly attached. We want to ensure that the government provides suitable evidence that the administration of the spending of the funds can withstand public scrutiny. I do not believe that the Australian general public are prepared to just take the government's word anymore that it will spent the funds appropriately. The general public are still dealing with the cost of the government's previous frivolous, gimmicky, money-wasting projects.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
In the time allowed this evening I would like to make some observations about a bill that has the support of the coalition but, within that, we have a significant number of concerns about a government that has been fixated on creating new bureaucracies and authorities and at the same time has not been engaging in the difficult, grafting, adaptive work that is required to keep a health system running efficiently and effectively.
Around the world governments are focusing on quality and access in health care, and an authority is not a new conception—already, northern European economies have moved in that direction, partly driven by the need to depoliticise a lot of decisions around health care. I think here in Canberra we accept that state jurisdictions are often faced with those impossible asks of delivering perfect care every second of every day all year, and complaints can rapidly find themselves in the mainstream press with a demand for 'action' by ministers. The result has been a larger and larger bureaucracy in the main, asking more people who are not clinicians to constantly be taking a risk-averse approach to make sure 'that never happens again'. So the health authority is an effort to move away from that and to focus purely on quality of delivery. It has been a preoccupation for Western and leading health economies, and behind that has been a shift away from the global or envelope budget for health services towards activity based funding.
Here in Australia we have the Australian refined diagnostic groups—an effort to identify, both with day surgery admissions and even presentations to casualty, a way of paying for great outcomes. That means that if patients are seen and treated properly and if adverse outcomes like readmission to hospital, hospital infection rates or other detrimental outcomes occur, payments are balanced accordingly. We are trying to unshackle clinicians who are at the face of service provision so as to be able to use their ingenuity, skill and training to deliver world-class care. The alternatives, of course, are those risk-averse bean counters who are fearful of trading beyond the funding envelope and will do everything possible to make sure that no risks are taken and nothing new is tried. Somewhere in the middle is the challenge that all of us face.
I have said before that we have large public hospitals that are publicly owned, that are taxpayer funded, that are capacity constrained, and the faster they work the quicker they go broke. That is completely different to the private system where, in a world of item numbers, the faster you work the richer you get. In Australia, with these two impressive elements to the health system, we have to find a way where we do not have cost shifting or gaps left behind. The answer there is to look at those elements—and mental health is one of them—where there is inadequate compensation, to look at areas where the workforce is inadequate, and to address them. That has been a focus of exquisite attention for both sides of this House.
But at the moment the preoccupation is to establish new bureaucracies at exactly the same time that we are not doing what we need to do in basic clinical care. So clinicians are not having their creativity unshackled in hospitals; there has not been a move to genuine hospital boards that are staffed by clinical experts in their fields; and the move to health and hospital reform at state level is—dare I say it—a battered, pale, almost withered form of what was originally posed by this government just three years ago. The reality of getting it through the states means that what we have are three new authorities, each of them in the vicinity of $50 million a year to run, when many of these decisions are quite easily made and are already being made in jurisdictions. Congratulations to South Australia and to the Victorian government, who already predominantly use activity based funding to run their health systems. In fact, all jurisdictions have an element of it, and there is no problem with bringing it together into a federal approach, but the enormous cost that is being incurred by this government in the absence of any other reform is of incredible concern. My comments tonight will focus around cost shifting and cross-border concerns. That is where we see irrational, perverse behaviour by states in response to a very attractive Commonwealth-funded private system that operates in parallel. The great concern of cost shifting is no better seen than in large hospitals that operate with large, coexisting private service providers nearby. We know well that public patients are funnelled across into the private system to take the burden off a public hospital. But when you look at the legislation for this authority, it is almost silent on what can be done apart from noting it, apart from writing a report to the relevant health ministers. The great fear here is that many of these reports are not even made public. You would think there would be enormous public interest in releasing the findings of the independent pricing authority for public viewing. There is potentially some fear of telling the truth—I can understand that may exist in health—but our health system can only benefit by revealing true performance, by being honest about what can be done and what cannot be done well.
In my capacity of looking after rural health, there is no greater and no more acute debate than what can be done in a small hospital, sometimes with a shrinking population or sometimes unable to attract the medical and clinical workforce it needs for a young population that may be moving to the area for mining or agriculture or other enterprises. Queensland is a great example of that. The challenge that we have now—and I raise this because of its relevance to pricing—is that we have had a proud tradition of public and private health operating together. We have accepted that in the public system you may wait a little longer for that dicky knee to be repaired or a little longer for that cataract to be operated upon, but we know when it is done, it is done by the best hands in the land.
The problem or the dilemma we face now is that it is not in the quality of the treatment, but in the availability of the investigations that is holding us back. If you live in a regional city like Rockhampton, Bundaberg or Gladstone and you need a gastroscopy—let us use Bundaberg as an example—you are dutifully as a public patient placed on a waiting list for a two-monthly visit from Brisbane. You may have gastric bleeding and the risk of a cancer, but you will sit on that waiting list. Everything is booked out for two months, and you are lucky if you get on in four months, but more likely six months for that gastroscopy. For all the recordings that are performed by health systems, that is simply a person who has fulminant and metastatic cancer six months later when they finally get their gastroscope. They could have had the investigation six months ago and been treated, but instead they are picked up as a cancer patient and treated just the same as a private patient. It is true they get the same treatment, but the delay in the treatment cost them their life. We do not measure that; we simply measure that someone got a scope and had severe cancer and weeks later received the treatment. We forget the fact that in the private sector they get that scope the following day. They do not even get to that level of metastatic spread; they do not even get to that stage of disease because they are getting immediate access to investigations.
There is the same irrational approach with MRI scans. One single MRI certificate, one single licence, serves three major cities in Queensland. The MRI is in the back of a semitrailer. It spends four days every fortnight in one of those three cities. Here is a private hospital willing to invest in an MRI for this city. What are they told? 'You have to decommission that MRI and not use it for those four days. Transfer the licence across to this MRI that has been put in by the private sector and then let the mobile MRI sit in the dust for four days or let people pay full price to use it.'
These are the elements that we need a government addressing right now, not years away, not back-patting and congratulating themselves for yet another $50 million a year bureaucracy. That is fine, but you simply cannot forfeit the work that has to be done in the areas that could potentially save lives. In bowel cancer screening there should never have been an interruption to that wonderful program, but under this government there was at the start of this year. The program ceased early with no commitment to ongoing funding, and a world-class bowel screening process was held hostage for months in some weird budgetary process. We had to wait until there was a better understanding of where the budget would lie before we could continue bowel cancer screening for Australians.
Cross-border disputes is an area where states can sometimes act irrationally, particularly in mid- to small-size states that do not have the complete array of surgical options available in the capital cities. Tasmania is a good example, but even my state of Queensland, hard as it is to believe, does not have every subspecialist surgeon known to mankind able to do operations with the most recent training from major centres like the US and Europe. Those great surgeons may be in Sydney. Is there a way we can work together as a nation to see that someone is not disadvantaged because of their postcode? Someone who happens to have a four at the front of their postcode cannot see that surgeon who operates publicly at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. It should be easy: you should put that person on a Sydney list and Queensland Health should simply compensate New South Wales.
The complexity is byzantine. The delays are extraordinary. One constituent from my electorate had to wait more than three months with a progressive vascular disease of the brain, simply because Queensland Health could not bring itself to arrange the transfer. No-one here would support that delay; everyone would want to see a solution. There is nothing convincing in this legislation that tells me this will be fixed. My great concern is the government—with respect, you do not need advice from me—has too much faith and too much trust in bigger and bigger bureaucracies and it is not unlocking the creativity and possibilities within health systems. It needs to unshackle those who know how to run services better and that is going to require a whole lot of political creativity to get accessibility, availability, efficiency and, most importantly of all, quality right. You just need to walk into a public hospital to see how it works. There are plenty of visiting surgeons giving their time—often for fairly low pay, certainly less than it costs to run their private practice—to teach in public hospitals. To all of them we take off our hats. We take off our hats to all of those who work in outpatients and continue those services. The great problem is that part of that honorary role, part of the MO contract, is teaching, research, service development and training. It is very hard to price. Do you want to pay a specialist to see 20 patients and do no teaching or 15 and bring on the new cadre of surgeons and specialists?
Of course we need both. But there are very limited ways to price this in to a system that relies on the cost of doing business two years ago—because that is the most recent health data available. We have an uplift for inflation, we have a slight reduction for efficiency measures, and then we have a market-forces factor where we correct for geographic variations where markets mean that input prices may be slightly different. But, after that, it just requires clinical acumen to work out in an economic sense what the prices are for a range of inputs.
I hope I have outlined what the pricing authority would do. It has already been happening in most jurisdictions for nearly 10 years, but we are yet to move to an element of free pricing where markets can set their own prices for medical services. That is the next great step and the next great reform in this area.
The member for Bowman obviously knows a fair bit about health, but he has a short memory. I was there when the former Prime Minister took over Mersey. It was great theatre and very bad for health. There have been lots of others that I can talk about as well. If the opposition were so good at it, why didn't they get it right in their time?
I would like to add my comments to the debate on the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011. Australia has a good health system but we do need to prepare for the challenges of the future. Having looked at hospitals in other countries, I can say that we do have a good hospital system. There are increased demands on our health and aged-care system due to new treatments becoming available, an ageing population, increased rates of chronic and preventable disease and rising healthcare costs. And, as I have said in this place many times before, the only certainty in health is change. The Gillard Labor government is reforming health in Australia. We are creating more beds, reducing waste and aiming for transparency. This bill is an important part of our health agenda.
The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, IHPA, is an important element of the National Health Reform Agreement, which provides for Commonwealth payments to the states for public hospital services to be based on a national efficient price calculated by the pricing authority. And the authority will take into account the cost of training and the cost of different goods across state borders.
The bill specifies that the functions of the pricing authority are, among other things, to determine the national efficient price for healthcare services provided by public hospitals, develop and maintain costing and classification specifications, determine data standards and requirements for public hospital data to be provided by states and territories, and provide assessments or recommendations in relation to cost-shifting and cross-border disputes. The pricing authority will also be required to publish information for the purpose of informing decision makers in relation to the funding of public hospitals, subject to certain restrictions.
In reaching agreement with all Australian states and territories on 2 August this year, the Australian government showed its commitment to meet the healthcare needs of Australians and to work with the states and territories to deliver a better deal for patients. A key part of the agreement is the introduction of activity based funding. The new independent umpire, the IHPA, will set the efficient price and advise governments on the implementation of this measure across Australian hospitals. The introduction of activity based funding was a key recommendation of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission's report.
Activity based funding will be introduced from 1 July 2012. From 1 July 2014 the Commonwealth will pay 45 per cent of the efficient cost of growth in hospital costs, and from 1 July 2017 this will increase to 50 per cent. In total the Commonwealth is investing an additional $19.8 billion in hospital services over this decade. This is a big reform and is a fairer system that will end cost shifting and the blame game. As a previous hospital administrator, I can tell you this is a move in the right direction. The IHPA will take submissions and engage in detailed technical work with clinicians in the setting of the efficient price for services funding by both activity based funding and block funding. Factors will include reasonable access, clinical safety, fiscal issues and efficiency. I am confident this will be a thorough process.
The main purpose of the pricing authority is to promote improved efficiency in, and access to, public hospital services by providing independent advice to governments in relation to the efficient costs of such services, as well as developing and implementing robust systems to support activity based funding for such services. Activity based funding will help to increase the efficiency and transparency of public hospital funding. This is a big departure from the current arrangements where the Commonwealth provides public hospitals with block grants through states and territories, which are not tied to the provision of services. These changes are good news for Australians using the public hospital system.
As I mentioned earlier, change is the only constant in health. These reforms will help to ensure that hospital financing can dynamically adjust to shifting populations, local demographic characteristics, changing costs of delivering medical services from technological and clinical innovation, and the complexity and location of delivering hospital services. As I have said several times in this House, diseases and cures can overcome our planning, but at least paying for services on a case basis is a sensible way of funding.
I wish to note that small regional and rural hospitals are protected under the new financing arrangements through the use of block funding where activity based funding would not be appropriate and to ensure that small rural and regional hospitals are funded to deliver on community service obligations.
As stated in the memorandum, the authority will have nine members, including the chair and deputy chair, with the chair being appointed by the Commonwealth, and the deputy chair appointed with the agreement of the states and territories. The remaining seven authority members are to be appointed with the agreement of the Commonwealth, states and territories. The National Rural Health Alliance in their submission to the Senate committee welcomed the requirement that the board include at least one person with substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in regional or rural health care, as we know full well that providing some services in rural and remote areas costs more. A clinical advisory committee and jurisdictional advisory committee will also be established to the support the pricing authority in undertaking its operations. Dr Tony Sherbon has been appointed as the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Interim Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. Dr Sherbon has skills as a senior administrator and doctor and has experience in implementing structural change, the establishment of clinical structures and the design of new public health plans and strategies as a past chairman of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. I am sure he will be an asset in this role.
The new national health and hospitals network agreement combines reforms to the financing of the Australian health and hospital system with major changes to the governance arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to deliver better health and hospital services. The changes to the funding arrangements will provide a secure funding base for health and hospital services in the future. The new governance arrangements will improve the responsiveness of the system to meet local needs, enhance the quality of services and allow greater transparency. This is a major microeconomic reform that will help to increase the efficiency of services because the introduction of price signals will mean there is an incentive for hospitals to maximise the services they deliver at or below the efficient price. This is good reform and will ensure that more services can be delivered locally. It will also be important for growing areas of Australia where often under the old system public hospital funding did not catch up with the demands that they have.
These reforms are also vital as it is important for taxpayers that their funding is transparently reported, with funding according to services provided paid directly to local hospital networks through the national funding pool. This means Australians will know what is being bought through our massive investment in hospitals—what services are delivered, by which local hospital network they are delivered and at what cost. Australians should have this information so they are confident that the money is being spent where it is needed most. Importantly, this reform will also help to identify underperforming hospitals so that those cases can be remedied and the lessons of highly performing hospitals can be shared.
The Gillard Labor government has a strong agenda for health. Everyone, no matter where they live, deserves access to first-class health care close to home. That is why we have ended the blame game through the national agreement to boost hospital funding, increase local control and expand primary and aged-care services Australia wide. I was in Tasmania when the Liberals sacked the local hospital boards. I was also there when the Liberals sacked the regional boards. I note now that in Tasmania they have a policy to bring back the regional boards after having sacked them.
This means more money, more beds and less waste in public hospitals with less bureaucracy. Hospitals will become more accountable and the doctors and the community will get more say. Plus there will be extra support for GPs and aged-care providers nationwide. Because this is a national deal, every Australian will benefit no matter where they live. Labor do have a proud record on health. In the last four years public hospital funding has gone up 50 per cent. We have tripled mental health funding, delivered 5,500 more GPs and 680 more specialists, and enacted the world's toughest anti-smoking laws.
The Liberals' 10-year record is dim. Out-of-pocket health expenses went up 50 per cent, $1 billion was ripped out of hospitals, and doctor shortages affected six in 10 Australians. I remember when the money was slashed from nurse and doctor training by the minister. Of course, I remember the great feature of the former Prime Minister taking over the Mersey hospital, which did not allow for sensible administration of health in Tasmania.
We had a mess to clean up, but I am proud to say that our national health reform is already delivering for patients. The after-hours GP advice line handled 10,000 calls in its first month of service. New telehealth services are available through Medicare for the first time. We have seen the establishment of the first 19 Medicare Locals to better coordinate frontline healthcare services and education in local communities. Projects to provide more beds have commenced in a range of public hospitals, including the great Launceston General Hospital.
A national efficient price for hospital services so hospitals are funded at a fair level for each service they deliver is vital for the future. This is very important legislation. I hope for the sake of the millions of Australians who rely on public hospital services that this legislation is passed without amendment. Patients, doctors and nurses have been waiting too long for the efficiency, transparency and proper funding that this bill will help to deliver. Our agenda is not over yet.
The finalised plans for Australia's secure, efficient e-health system were released by the government on 12 September. The concept of operations for the personally controlled electronic health record, PCEHR, system is a fundamental part of the move from paper based records to secure e-records. Patients will no longer have to remember every medical test, immunisation or prescription they have had. Doctors and other healthcare professionals will no longer have to rely on patients to accurately recall past treatment. This will enable doctors and patients to work together more easily to provide better care and treatment.
We are a government that is delivering on health. The Consumers Health Forum noted in their submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill:
CHF welcomes the establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, as we anticipate that it should result in the introduction of improved transparency and efficiency in the pricing of hospital services.
The Australian Medical Association also noted that they are generally supportive of the bill.
This is a much needed reform that will result in better hospital administration and in effect better outcomes for patients. Paying buckets of money to hospitals does not encourage an efficient service. Hospitals should be paid for what they do, not just given a bucket of money and told to make it work. There should be an incentive for increased activity. I know that the only way to save money in health is to do it right and do it early. I commend this independent hospital pricing authority bill to the House. I implore those on the other side of this House to get on board with these sensible and important reforms of the Gillard Labor government.
I rise to speak on the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011. The government's agenda for healthcare reform hinges on the proposition that the government believes that health services can be delivered in a standardised way for a standardised price. At its best, this is supposed to provide a uniform standard of service and outcome for a uniform or at least comparative price. At its worst, it could be a discriminatory funding tool which is unable to recognise practical differences in health service delivery in various geographical, economic and social environments and could lead to a deterioration of the services provided by regional and remote health services and the communities they serve.
These hospitals will be entirely dependent on a decision made by what the government says will be an independent hospital pricing authority as to whether they will qualify for continuing block funding or be subject to activity based funding at a specified level. I have no doubt that there are many hospital administrators who are very concerned about what funding model will be used in their specific case and whether they will receive sufficient funding for the quality and safety of the services they provide. They will also look at the government's national health reform process delivery document and wonder how they will manage the layers and layers of bureaucracy they will have to deal with. They are well aware that the devil will be in the detail that they are yet to see.
The activity based funding concept lies at the heart of the government's proposed partial takeover of health from the states and territories, which may or may not ultimately lead to a more general takeover in the future, something the government originally intended. We do know that the Labor government has not delivered on its fanfare of 2007 election promises. The government promised a magic fix of hospitals by mid-2009 but failed. The government also promised to take over hospitals but has not done so. The government promised that the Commonwealth would be the dominant funder—the promise of 60 per cent Commonwealth funding was later dumped by the minister.
The government's national health reform was, thanks to the actions of state Liberal governments, at least converted from yet another debacle of a federal Labor takeover to some semblance of federal-state partnership. That state Labor leaders were prepared to sell out their constituencies and communities to prop up their federal party was sadly not unexpected, but, at the time, we could even see some Labor premiers choking on the bitter pill fed to them by the Prime Minister—they knew the deal being offered at that time was not in their states' best interests. Led by Western Australia, and joined by Victoria and New South Wales as Labor tumbled in those states and Liberal governments were elected, the states have managed to develop a partnership of sorts. Health consumers in Western Australia were, and remain, sceptical that a Canberra based, top-down bureaucratic maze of administration will be capable of running hospitals from a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 kilometres. I am sceptical that the government's proposal for a centralised Canberra health administration to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of hospitals would ultimately have been anything short of a disaster for regional Western Australian health services. As we know, a government responsible for pink-batt fires in people's roofs and cash for clunkers actually running hospitals is the stuff of medical nightmares.
A real partnership with states is a better alternative by far. This current proposal by the government will be heavily reliant on the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, the body that will compare the cost of service provision across states and territories and set standardised funding models. The functions of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority include the following: determining the national efficient price for healthcare services provided by public hospitals where the services are funded on an activity basis; determining the efficient cost for healthcare services provided by public hospitals where the services are block funded; developing and specifying classification systems for health care and other services provided by public hospitals; determining adjustments to the national efficient price; determining data requirements and data standards in relation to data that is to be provided by states and territories; determining public hospital functions that are to be funded in the state or territory by the Commonwealth—except where otherwise agreed between the Commonwealth and a state or territory; advising the Commonwealth, the states and the territories in relation to funding models for hospitals and costs of providing healthcare services in the future; considering cost-shifting and cross-border disputes; and doing anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of its functions.
Given this government's poor policy performance, some of these deserve much closer examination. The setting of a national efficient price for any health service will have to ensure that it does not disadvantage one section of the community over another, whether that is through block or activity funding. The cost of a particular service varies considerably, and it might surprise some members to know that generally neither the largest nor the smallest health service providers are the most efficient. Large tertiary hospitals are geared up for highly complex cases and can struggle to efficiently deal with less complex ones, whereas small regional hospitals can struggle to gain economies of scale.
The cost of providing a similar service in such a range of settings can, and will, continue to vary significantly. This will make the setting of standard pricing a difficult process. Although activity funding has some obvious financial advantages and is favourably mentioned, especially in Victoria, it does have a number of drawbacks. There is always a minimum base, or 'block', of funding which is not case load dependent as it is needed to underpin the running of a health service. This base funding covers administration, building and maintenance, and support services, and much of it is not reflective of hospital patient or clinical activity.
It is for this reason that hospitals are funded on a historical basis rather than an activity basis, and block funding is often the alternative name for historical funding rather than a calculated expected cost of base funding needed. For example, the cost of running a small country hospital in Western Australia may be a little over $1 million per annum whether that hospital has a bed average of two or 10. This can be because to be considered a hospital as opposed to a nursing post a certain minimum capacity needs to be maintained, such as a 2:2:2 nurse roster and cleaning and catering services. These costs exist before a single patient arrives. It is not just small hospitals or health services that face this issue. The provision of a specialist service in a tertiary teaching hospital also has to maintain a minimum capacity, even without high patient loads. There have been examples around the world of specialist units struggling to find adequate case loads to justify their existence. It is a major issue in regional communities to rationalise services, especially clinical services, whether that is the cutting of a specialist service in a tertiary hospital or the downgrading of a regional hospital to a nursing post. Therefore, the solution to this is usually to incorporate a mixture of block and activity funding in broader funding models, and generally this can provide a reasonable outcome. The block funding component is usually not that difficult to determine but will most frequently relate directly to historical funding for practical reasons.
The key for the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority will be to determine the cost variance of actual activity in different settings and make a determination on how much of that variance is actually reasonable. Hospitals will be funded according to the level of activity, the level of complexity and the cost of the service that they are providing. I will watch these decisions and the process quite closely. I hope in striving to deliver designated activity based funding services defined by the IHPA that hospitals are not forced to take shortcuts that lead to a reduction in frontline services and safety for patients—something that is particularly critical in regional, rural and remote areas, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
Hospitals will need to be able measure quality outcomes in a wide complexity of individual circumstances. I urge the minister to consider carefully the make-up of the authority in consideration of this point. We have heard about some of the appointments. There will need to be a balance of those with a thorough understanding of the needs of regional, rural and remote health services in particular with those with the capacity to set and enforce efficiency. Health experts have warned about their concerns with activity based funding and the need for an achievable time frame in relation to the delivery of this.
In relation to another function of the authority, that of determining public hospital functions that are to be funded in the state or territory by the Commonwealth, as a general rule of thumb the Commonwealth is responsible for primary care at the doctor and the chemist and for aged accommodation. The states are primarily responsible for hospitals. The state government in Western Australia, for example, is investing significantly in the Harvey Hospital in my electorate and has plans to completely rebuild the Busselton Hospital at a cost of well over $100,000 million. Millions have been invested in the Bunbury Health Campus. These investments are necessary to meet the key health needs of a dynamic and rapidly growing region.
We need the Commonwealth to perform its existing defined role in the provision of aged accommodation. Country hospitals around Australia are housing aged-care patients who cannot get into Commonwealth funded aged-care homes. Some are expected to move far away from family and friends to find a federally funded bed, and for some in particular regional areas there are no beds at all. The government needs to take this obligation seriously and fund aged-care providers sufficiently to make those beds available. Around the country, thousands of apparently 'funded' beds have not been taken up by service providers because federal funding is not sufficient. Providers are often losing money on the beds they do take up. This inequity is impacting on ageing Australians and their families all over the nation. We need the government to get this program, which it is in charge of, right. So much of what is in this bill comes down to trust. Can we trust the government to get the process right? Unfortunately, on past performance, the evidence does not support that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity.
I rise to also speak on the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011. Every member of this parliament should feel proud of the Australian healthcare system. Our health workers strive every day to improve their standards in the service of our community. Not only are our hospitals world class but they are staffed by dedicated doctors and nurses who play a vital role in our community, yet it is sadly a fact that they are often underappreciated.
I am profoundly disappointed by the Public Service wage freeze policy promoted by the O'Farrell government in New South Wales. For our health system to remain a world-class system, within the context of a population that is ageing, we should be encouraging people to enter the nursing profession rather than setting up structures that would encourage them to depart and take all that skill, expertise and care with them to other industries. We should be sending the message that our country values its nurses and health professionals, but that is not the sentiment reflected when the state of New South Wales capped the pay increases of nurses at 2.5 per cent.
In contrast, Labor understands the need to care for the caring professions and ensure a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That is why I am proud, and will always be proud, to be a member of parliament from the Australian Labor Party. As a party, we will always work to ensure that the providers of our essential services are treated in a respectful and dignified manner. I am certainly very proud of our health system and of the services that our hospitals provide, but at this time in our great history as a nation we need to expand our capacity if we are going to effectively meet the challenges of a growing and ageing population. Importantly, these pressures manifest on local and regional levels. In the suburb of Kincumber, located in my electorate of Robertson, according to the 2006 census—which will hopefully be updated very soon with the census data collected this year—25 per cent of the suburb was aged 65 and over. This percentage rate is expected to increase once the baby boomer generation nears retirement. Of course, the ageing population is an issue that has been mentioned countless times in this chamber, and it has been mentioned numerous times by me in my speeches in this place. The ageing of the nation is a sign of success though; I do not want to make it a negative thing. It is a sign of the success of 100 years of very effective and positive health and social policy. We are living longer, and that is a good thing. Despite this, the challenges of providing quality health to an ageing population cannot be ignored; and it certainly requires government action—and now.
Thankfully, this Labor government has decided to act in the long-term interests of the country—once again, the national interest—by undertaking much-needed national health reforms. I am proud to be part of a government that has health reform at the heart of its agenda. The Labor Party is doing what was not done for 11 years under the Liberals. We are bringing transparency and accountability to the health system to ensure it is sustainable as our population ages and comes to retirement.
This bill will introduce the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, and this body will determine a national efficient price for hospital services. There will be no more blank cheques from governments to hospitals with no follow-up and no accountability. The pricing authority will, amongst other things, determine a national efficient price for healthcare services provided by public hospitals and develop and maintain costing and classification specifications. Importantly, as a measure of transparency accountability, the pricing authority will be required to publish these decisions. There will be no more hiding; everything will be on show for the Australian public to see. The effective allocation of health care services, rather than simply a historical allocation of services, in a national economy requires that appropriate and effective mechanisms are put in place to make sure the most fair, the most appropriate and the most transparent pricing policies are what is actually implemented.
The establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority has been necessitated by the Commonwealth-state agreement to implement Commonwealth activity based funding. A move to activity based funding is a reform that only a Labor government could make; it is a reform that is needed to make sure we meet our future healthcare demands. This legislation is evidence of Labor getting on with the task of governing well, and it marks a real change from the Howard era, when blame shifting between federal and state governments was developed to the level of an art form.
The Gillard government has taken responsibility and sought to revolutionise the healthcare system. We have committed money and care, increasing Commonwealth responsibility and enabling us to work towards maintaining and advancing our world-class national healthcare system. Activity-based funding will help achieve this target by increasing the efficiency of public hospital funding. It is distinct from the current system, where the Commonwealth provides public hospitals with block grants from the states and territories, which are not tied to the provision of services. We have heard members on the other side wax lyrical about what a great system the current system is, yet for hospitals in regions such as mine, where we have had incredible population growth, the maintenance of historical sources of funding is an inefficient and ineffective way of responding to the reality of shifting demographics and shifting needs. As well, there is a cost in shifting a clinical practice and in changes for practitioners in the field.
Every dollar that is wasted in our health system is a dollar that could have been directed to improving health and improving lives. For the people of Robertson, my eyes are firmly focused on achieving that task locally. Efficiency in funding is vitally important and it is a vital reason as to why I strongly support this bill. I have to say that many of the practitioners in my area have spoken with great optimism about the positive change that this funding model change will make to their practice in our community.
A truly national healthcare system requires appropriate Commonwealth governance, and this is what the Gillard government will provide. The pricing authority is an essential component in ensuring that the development of an activity based funding model leads to real reform in the healthcare system. The pricing authority is independent; it is an independent statutory authority. In essence, it acts almost like a Reserve Bank for the public hospital system. It will provide advice to state and territory governments, it will be free of political pressure, and it will be advising about the efficient price for a particular procedure or range of procedures or for a particular operation or a number of operations provided in a public hospital.
This independent advice will also enable the development of robust systems to support activity based funding for these much-needed services. Really, this is what people expect, and it is certainly what the healthcare system needs—clear, transparent and accountable funding decision-making. No funding should be made in order to score cheap political points, yet that is what we saw time and again under the leadership of John Howard and those who are now sitting opposite in prominent positions, where the scoring of cheap political points seems to be a game that is being played out at the cost of the nation.
In relation to its management of public hospital funding, the pricing authority will take submissions and engage in detailed technical work with clinicians in the setting of efficient prices for services funded by both activity based funding and block funding. The factors that the pricing authority is going to take into account include reasonable access, clinical safety, fiscal issues and, of course, efficiency. As stated, a purpose of this bill, in addition to the entirety of the Gillard government's National Health Reform Program, was to best ensure that our health system can cope with the pressures of an ageing population and our changing demographic overall.
An independent pricing authority is, however, just one of the planks in a broader reform agenda. We will also see a national health funding pool to replace the current inefficient funding system. The funding pool will bring state and federal health funding together into one source. This will ensure that both levels of government are always aware of where health funding is spent, and every health dollar will be spent and accounted for. The funding pool will be run by an administrator and it will be paid directly to the local health networks. This will ensure that records are able to be kept for every expense and that a fair national price is paid for each activity.
I am happy that the Central Coast finally has its own dedicated health region. With a population of almost 300,000, we are as large as Canberra but far less well-resourced; we certainly are not a beneficiary of historical block funding. I expect that services on the coast will significantly improve for my community under this Labor reform. Equity of service and equity of funding will be provided like never before through greater local responsiveness. Being lumped in with North Sydney, as we were, did no favours to either of the regions for the provision of health services. I am glad that Central Coast locals will be saying where the money will be going on the Central Coast.
We in Robertson were gifted with some wonderful news from Minister Roxon recently. The Woy Woy Hospital rehabilitation facility has been revived by the Labor government's investment of $12.7 million and $9 million over the next two years of forward estimates to make sure that this much loved health service will mean that locals on the peninsula will be able to stay close to friends and family while they are receiving ongoing care in recovery. This government is clearly dedicated to providing more assistance to primary health care and, through the provision of additional subacute beds to Woy Woy Hospital to assist individuals, we are making this idea a reality. It is not a blank cheque, however, for state governments. The beds that have been allocated will be assessed and monitored to ensure that funding is being directed to the most effective care. By increasing the number of subacute beds, emergency departments across the country will be able to deal most effectively with the people that are in need of immediate care.
We are taking the necessary steps that state governments failed to take in order to bring efficiency and accountability to our health system and improve the health outcomes for all Australians. This policy enacted in legislation acknowledges that, while a national system of public hospital funding is needed, local factors always need to be taken into account. I regard this as a vital consideration because the local health needs of my electorate of Robertson differ substantially from those of electorates in other parts of the nation.
This reform and the establishment of the pricing authority will help ensure that hospital funding can dynamically adjust to shifting populations, to local demographic characteristics, to the changing costs of delivering medical services from technological and clinical innovation, as well as adjust to the complexity and location of delivering hospital services. Importantly, this policy takes account of the fact that activity-based funding is not appropriate for small regional and rural hospitals. It will be adjusted to fit the context. Such hospitals will be funded by block funding to help them ensure they deliver on community service obligations
As a member of parliament for the Australian Labor Party, I am proud to be part of a government that has made the hard decision to embark on significant health reform. It is not reform for the sake of reform, but reform that is clearly directed to better ensure that we meet the challenges of providing for all Australians with access to a world-class healthcare system wherever they are. It is a reform that will work to ensure that money allocated by the Commonwealth on the basis of activity will be efficiently spent in the nation's public hospitals. Importantly, the Commonwealth's commitment to activity-based funding provides a greater incentive for investment in primary care services. That has to be good for all of us and for our communities. Because the Central Coast is a retirement destination, primary care really has a vital role in addressing healthcare needs early without visits to hospitals being necessary. For these and so many other wonderful reasons that will improve our health outcomes in this country, I commend the bill to the House and I urge its prompt passage through the parliament.
Government has an obligation to ensure that the health services it provides are relevant and effective for patients. Government has an obligation to provide quality health services while also achieving value for taxpayers' dollars. Today we address an amendment to the National Health Reform Act 2011. The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 seeks to establish a new authority, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, the third and final statutory authority committed to under the then Rudd Labor government health reforms.
The main objective of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority is to promote improved efficiency in, and access to, public hospital services by providing independent advice to the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in relation to the efficient costs of services and developing and implementing systems to support activity-based funding for those services—in other words, to deliver value for money in the provision of health services. At first glance this is a commendable objective. However, as we have come to expect from this incompetent Labor government—a government more skilled in spin than substance—the legislation is long on rhetoric but short on detail.
The people of Macquarie—a vast electorate that spans both the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains in Greater Western Sydney—are fortunate to have the services of many hospitals: the Blue Mountains District Anzac Memorial Hospital at Katoomba and Springwood Hospital, in addition to St John of God Hospital at North Richmond and the Hawkesbury District Health Service at Windsor.
There are some serious flaws in this legislation that may prove more of a hindrance than a help, particularly for the delivery of health services to the people of Macquarie. The first is that the pricing authority is supposed to be established and operating by July 2012 with the main functions being, firstly, to determine the national efficient pricing for healthcare services provided by public hospitals where the services are funded on an activity basis, secondly, to determine the efficient cost of healthcare services provided by public hospitals where the services are block funded and, thirdly, to publish this and other information for the purpose of informing decision makers on the funding of public hospitals. The mechanism for the authority to determine pricing is through the activity based funding, known as ABF. This model relies on a classification system to define and count hospital activity, each patient classified according to their diagnosis, surgical procedure and other data. There are around 670 patient classifications with a different price paid for each one. This funding model is already being used in the private hospital sector and by Medibank. The outcome of the ABF model is to determine the Commonwealth's contribution to hospital funding and there is support for this model which could provide estimated annual savings of between $0.5 and $1.3 billion.
A significant flaw in the legislation is that it does not acknowledge the economic modelling that underpins the differences between private hospitals providing public services, and public hospitals. A submission by Catholic Health Care Australia, a major private/public hospital provider, states that for the bill to be effective it needs to have regard to the unique nature and the slightly different legal status under which public hospital bed services provided by the private sector actually operate. The Hawkesbury Hospital at Windsor operates in this way. It is a private hospital with a private/public arrangement where public patients in the Hawkesbury arrive at the hospital and are treated as public patients.
It appears that only the largest hospitals—a minority of the nation's hospitals—will actually operate under an activity based funding model. I call on the government to clarify what funding models will apply to smaller and regional hospitals and how they will survive if their needs and their circumstances are not considered. Hospitals in my region are entitled to know exactly what it means for them.
There is a great deal of scepticism about the start date, given the enormity of the task ahead in setting an efficient price for every hospital activity across every jurisdiction and then deciding which hospitals will be funded solely by ABF and which will continue to be provided with block funding, and there is cause for the concerns expressed by a number of submissions to the Senate inquiry. All the work of the authority in setting pricing is for 'advice only' to the states and territories, who will still have the power to decide what to pay. This sounds similar to the Petrol Commissioner, Grocery Watch, or Fuel Watch. Are we revisiting these approaches? On the one hand, the authority will provide certainty on pricing, but as the advice is not binding and the states and territories retain their discretionary powers to determine the price paid, uncertainty will prevail and fights about the adequacy of public hospital funding by each level of government will continue.
Another function of the authority will be to investigate cost shifting and cross-border disputes. The authority can report on its website instances of cost-shifting disputes and make recommendations to the minister, but those recommendations are not going to be publicly available. This raises questions of transparency and accountability, especially when the two subcommittees to be established by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority—the Clinical Advisory Committee and the Jurisdictional Advisory Committee—have limited public reporting requirements. The coalition has been critical of the establishment of subcommittees as there is no formal mechanism in the bill to facilitate cooperation. This could give rise to issues of duplication, or even triplication, with the inevitable consequence of a blowout of costs. Given the government's poor record of managing programs, how likely is it that without formal guidelines this major hospital reform will also end up in a costly, unworkable mess?
I note that in a number of submissions to the inquiry there were questions raised about why the private sector was not consulted. It is essential that the private sector with expertise in activity based funding, governance and nongovernment hospital service provision, be represented on the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority board of management and on its subcommittees.
While the coalition does not oppose this bill, we are sceptical about what it can deliver. When you look at this bill closely, it is more about creating the illusion of reform, because of its lack of detail, guidelines, transparency and accountability. The one thing it does is create another bureaucracy funded to the tune of almost $100 million over the forward estimates and, when fully functional, will have, I understand, a full-time staff of 42 and could cost about $31 million this year. It remains to be seen whether the authority can justify this price tag and deliver real reform, or whether it will be another case of waste and lost opportunity to fund other major issues such as mental health, transport, infrastructure, education and environment.
Never have so many angry words been said in support of a piece of legislation by those on the other side of the chamber. I am delighted to be speaking on this bill because it is a part of an important package of reforms that the Gillard Labor government has underway.
Since coming to office, this Australian government has been working hard to deliver better health services for the Australian community and to work with the state governments to deliver better hospital services to our community. Most importantly, these changes are benefiting patients right now in hospitals and medical centres around the country including in my electorate, in Throsby in southern New South Wales.
The reforms are significant. In total, the Commonwealth is investing an additional $19.8 billion in hospital services over the decade. This stands in stark contrast to the situation we found ourselves in when we took office in 2007, because it came after a decade of those who sit opposite bleeding the health system of funds—over a billion dollars—that should have been spent on fixing up the mess in our public hospital system and training more doctors and nurses, and we have had to fix this mess up. We now have a truly national health reform agreement with every state and territory government signed on, on board and committed to improving hospital services and health services in our community. We have local hospital networks across four states. We have established new subacute beds opening in every state. We have 19 Medicare locals operating across the country, with more to come in the coming months. I was very pleased that, when the Minister for Health and Ageing visited my electorate and the electorate of my colleague the member for Cunningham this week, she was able to announce that the Illawarra Division Of General Practice had been awarded the contract to operate the Medicare local in our electorates and in our regions. That is great news for the Division Of General Practice and great news for the residents and citizens of the Illawarra.
We have a GP after-hours phone line that has already taken over 41,000 calls, and we are connecting patients in regional and outer-metro areas with medical specialists through telehealth and videoconferencing. I am delighted—probably more delighted than the member for Gilmore, in whose electorate the town of Kiama exists—that it has been selected as one of the trial sites for rolling out the government's new telehealth and videoconferencing facilities. This joins up, of course, with that other great government initiative, the National Broadband Network, to ensure that Australians, wherever they are around the country. Whether they are in Dapto in my electorate, in Kiama in the member for Gilmore's electorate, in a town in the electorate of my colleague here the member for Braddon or in the inner leafy suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne they have access to some of Australia's finest medical minds through NBN enabled telehealth and videoconferencing facilities.
It does not stop there. We have finalised the plans for e-health records, with the national infrastructure now being built. We cannot underestimate this, because a number of Australians do not consult a consistent medical practitioner week in, week out, year in, year out, for a range of reasons—they may move around and live in different places or consult different medical practitioners depending on where they are when they have an ailment. Having an infrastructure in place which enables records to transfer the record of that patient around literally saves lives, and it certainly saves thousands and thousands of dollars.
We also have a $2.2 billion mental health package, the biggest in our nation's history, and there is also much, much more happening. We have doubled the number of doctors and nurses in training, which is going to make a significant difference. We are going to be able to fill that gap that many members in this place are very aware of: the gap in the demand for GP services and the number of GPs available to service that demand.
The bill before the House is another piece in this puzzle. It will bring into effect yet another key part of the government's national health reform agenda. It establishes the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. Through this bill it will help to deliver a more sustainable, efficient and transparent health system for all Australians. The main purpose of the pricing authority is to promote improved efficiency in, and access to, public hospital services by providing independent advice to governments in relation to the efficient costs of such services, as well as developing and implementing robust systems to support activity based funding for such services.
The main functions of the pricing authority are, amongst other activities, to determine the national efficient price for healthcare services provided by public hospitals, to develop and maintain costing and classification specifications, to determine standards and requirements from public hospitals, and to provide recommendations in relation to cost-shifting and cross-border disputes. In addition, the pricing authority will be required to publish this and other information for the purpose of informing decision makers in relation to the funding of public hospitals.
A key part of the National Health Reform Agreement that was reached with all states and territories on 2 August this year is the introduction of activity based funding, which will occur from 1 July next year. The introduction of activity based funding was a key recommendation of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission's report.
From 1 July 2014 the Commonwealth will pay 45 per cent of the efficient cost of growth in hospital costs, and from 1 July 2017 this will increase to 50 per cent. The very real impact of this is that we will be relieving state governments of the great burden of the increasing cost of health care, particularly hospital care, funding, which is projected to well exceed their projected revenues by 2035 unless some other system is put in place. The bill creates a new independent umpire, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, who will set the efficient price and advise governments on the implementation of this measure across Australian hospitals.
This bill is a direct result of the Council of Australian Governments agreement with all states and territories. The Commonwealth will be a true partner in the hospital system, with a commitment to funding 50 per cent of the growth funding for hospital services. This extra growth funding will apply to the increase in the cost of services as well as the increasing demand for new services with the ageing of the Australian population. This commitment to growth is vitally important as the states will not have, as I said, the capacity to fund the increasing cost of services on their own. It also creates a better incentive for the Commonwealth to invest in primary and preventative health services to keep people healthy and out of hospital.
These reforms will help to ensure that hospital financing can be dynamically adjusted to accommodate shifting populations, local demographic characteristics, changing costs of delivering medical services from technological and clinical innovation, and the complexity and location of delivering hospital services. It is important to note that small regional and rural hospitals are protected under the new financing arrangements, because although we are introducing case based funding to the hospital networks the use of block funding where activity based funding would not be appropriate will be introduced and will ensure that small rural and regional hospitals—and I have a few of them in my electorate—are funded to deliver on community service obligations.
As I said, last week I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Illawarra, to my electorate of Throsby. When we were there we had the pleasure of opening the new GP superclinic at Shell Cove. This is an investment of over $2.5 million, to provide GP services to this high-growth area in the Illawarra. It is an announcement that was very well received by the entire community and, I have to say, even by the member for Gilmore, who was there at the opening.
Debate interrupted.
On 17 November 2009 the Tiaro home of Ricky Walker and his partner Billeena Chapman and their six children was engulfed by fire and reduced to a smouldering wreck of stumps, ashes and twisted iron. Ms Chapman and her children were lucky to escape with their lives, fleeing from the flames which quickly gutted the old Queenslander. The fire totally destroyed their home and all their family possessions. It began approximately three hours after insulation was installed under the government's disastrous Home Insulation Program. Sadly, the Walker family, who are of limited means, had not renewed their insurance on the property and suddenly found themselves homeless. Unaware of local support services, they tried to manage the situation as best they could, by living in a tent, a shed and eventually emergency accommodation for quite some time before coming to me for assistance.
The Home Insulation Program has been linked to more than 200 house fires. It has become infamous as one of the worst programs ever administered by a government for its waste, mismanagement and loss of property and lives. In response to the tragedy that the program caused, the government revised the safety regulations, but the Walker home installation occurred before these changes were made and even before authorities were alerted to the dangers of insulation-caused fires.
According to the fire report, the fire started in the laundry area where the electrical switchbox was located. If the installation of the insulation interfered with this old home's electrical wiring—cables were disturbed, broken, stapled, cut or shorted—I think it is reasonable to conclude that it could have caused a fire to begin in the switchbox. Such was the intensity of the blaze, Queensland Fire and Rescue were unable to determine the ignition factor. After Mr Walker contacted my office for assistance he lodged a right for information request in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the cause of the fire. In an internal email exchange between Queensland Fire and Rescue officers on 6 September 2010 it was revealed that the reported cause of the fire would likely have been different had the national warning been received earlier. The email goes on to say:
On the balance of probabilities (it is more likely than not), this fire was a direct result of the installation of ceiling insulation. Queensland Fire and Rescue cannot make a more conclusive determination.
I raised the Walker home fire in question time on 29 September 2010 and later discussed the case with the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I acknowledge his assistance in the case, although the government was not willing to pay the compensation I was seeking. While the Walker family home was not insured, the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the insulation installers were required to have insurance cover for the work that they performed, and in this case the insurer was QBE. Mr Walker contacted QBE to make a claim against the installer's insurance policy but QBE denied the claim. I contacted QBE, providing more details on the links between the insulation and the switchbox in the laundry, and asked them to re-investigate the matter. They re-examined the claim and, after interviewing the person who installed the insulation, they formed the conclusion that insulation was not the cause of the fire as the installer said he did not enter the laundry area where the fire started.
The QBE decision is most disappointing. It is just the kind of action that gives insurance companies a bad name. In this instance, they were happy to collect millions of dollars in compulsory premiums but unwilling to pay a reasonable claim where the cause cannot be established without any doubt. QBE is asking me to believe that it is just a coincidence that a 100-year-old house burnt down just three hours after insulation was installed. Only a cold hearted, uncaring, ruthless, out of touch, multinational corporation could treat a poor battling family like this. I am disgusted with QBE and again I appeal to the company to reconsider their rejection of Mr Walker's claim and help this family to get a new start.
I wish the Leader of the Nationals well in getting that sorted out, because I think that is appalling. Last week I had the pleasure of opening the much-awaited Alexandra Secondary College BER facility in my electorate of McEwen. This was an exciting project to see delivered because after years of neglect by the former Liberal government, this school has seen an investment of $2.12 million in a new state-of-the-art science centre. That was done by the Gillard Labor government.
This science and learning centre is one of only 500 across the nation and will deliver opportunities to kids that they may never have had under a Liberal government or without the highly successful Building the Education Revolution program. The community of Alexandra is appreciative of the fact that this government has invested in the school and their children's future by building this magnificent science wing. The school now has a building to be proud of and I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that they are proud. In fact the school made the decision to name the science wing after a much-loved former science teacher, John Taylor.
John was exceptionally well-respected and this decision to name the science wing after him was very popular with the local community. I had the pleasure of opening the John Taylor science wing in the presence of John's family—his wife, his children, his parents and many of his close friends—who had travelled from afar to be there to pay their respects to John for having this building named after him. This is what the BER does. It delivers valuable 21st century facilities for our valued and skilled teachers to work in. This in turn gives every child every opportunity to learn, to grow and to reach their full potential. It is something this government is very proud to strive for. We know that allowing young people to learn and take their careers the way they want will strengthen and grow our nation's productivity, and the BER is giving young people opportunities at home and in their communities. This is something the opposition do not want. They do not want schools to have modern facilities and they do not want local communities to have investments which give confidence in the schools' futures.
Whilst attending the school science wing opening I also paid a visit to the construction of the much-hailed and much-wanted TTC. The trade training centre building in Alexandra is part of the $11.3 million Central Ranges Trade Training Centre that was announced earlier this year. This school is one of the 13 schools which formed a consortium to build facilities that will benefit many kids in rural areas. The public and private schools and the special school have all come together to invest in the future of our young people. These schools include Broadford Secondary College, Alexandra Secondary College, Assumption College, Seymour College, St Mary's College, Wallan Secondary College, Whittlesea Secondary College, Yea High School and Euroa Secondary College.
It is only Labor that is investing in education in McEwen. Under the Liberals the schools in my electorate never received the much-needed upgrades they have now. The Liberal Party opposed the BER and they oppose trade training centres. They might be okay to stand here and say it, but I doubt they would front communities like Alexandra or many other rural communities in my electorate and tell them that.
I would like to also acknowledge the superb work of the City of Darebin's Mayor Councillor Diana Asmar. Diana hosted the 2011 Mayoral Fundraiser Ball, with a theme this year of 'Unmask a Cure for Multiple Sclerosis'. Mayor Asmar has been a strong community advocate and leader in the City of Darebin over her three terms as mayor and has continued to drive innovation and progressive policies across the community. She said about the evening:
There is a lack of funding for MS research so I would like to undertake as much fundraising as possible to help bring researchers closer to finding a cure.
This will be an exciting event that will bring people together from across Darebin to raise funds for a significant cause.
And she was right. There was a raffle on the night, a silent auction and a live auction, including some expensive diamond jewellery. The entertainment for the night was provided by Masquerade and The Signoras. There were fundraising activities such as 'Sparkle in Sparkling', where those who attended could purchase a glass of champagne and go into the draw to win diamond earrings. The guest speaker for the night was the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, and he spoke very eloquently about the opportunities that have been identified as part of the NBN.
What made this evening so special was the insight Diana has into living and dealing with MS. Diana's own remarkable personal story of coming to terms with and forging ahead with MS was inspirational to say the least, and her speech of her own trials and tribulations of living with MS certainly captivated the 2,000 business and community leaders in attendance. It was also an honour to have Professor Claude Bernard there to share the evening. (Time expired)
It is very interesting that the member for McEwen mentioned Senator Stephen Conroy, because I will be mentioning him as well—but in a far lesser light, shall I say. I rise tonight to speak about this government losing control of their NBN rollout and the rorting that is occurring.
Recently I was contacted by Richard and Denise Mahlo, who were building a retirement property in the Barossa region of my electorate. The Mahlos purchased a house and land package through a major developer, Hickinbottom, in the picturesque town of Nuriootpa in August. In September, the Mahlos were sent a bill for $2,500, which was later changed to $995 by Hickinbottom's affiliate, Construction Services Australia, and the Mahlos were told this cost was needed to make the house NBN compliant. What is more disturbing is Construction Services Australia went on to tell the Mahlos that if they were not interested in paying the $995, they would have to sign a disclaimer, warning that they would face 'long-term consequences'. This cost was apparently to have a home phone installed and have internet connections put in. If the couple did not proceed they were told there could be significant costs if they later changed their minds.
When the Mahlos contacted the NBN hotline number, the person was of no assistance and had no idea about this type of situation. The Australian quoted Hickinbotham Group estate manager Cassie Ostle as saying:
The advice the company had from the NBN was that a minimum requirement for a compliant connection was one data point for the internet and one phone point with quality cabling known as category six. The Housing Industry Association also advises that new dwellings should use this cabling.'
The Australian quoted Ms Ostle as saying:
The advice received from the NBN is that NBN cannot be connected unless wiring is in place inside the house.
The article continued:
Ms Ostle said the Barossa Estate was the first estate that would be connected to the NBN and future stages in the firm's other greenfield developments 'will have the same requirements'.
But NBN Co spokesman Andrew Sholl said the Nurioopta estate was 'not an NBN development', meaning 'we are not installing nor have been asked to install the fibre there'…
Mr Sholl was further quoted as saying:
'… in new developments, as in existing premises, people don't need additional internal wiring to be NBN compliant. We simply require access to a power point so that the (network termination device) power supply unit can be plugged in.'
It is my understanding that NBN Co. still has not signed construction contracts to begin work in South Australia. So not only do we have potential rorting happening, but the NBN is way behind schedule. According to the maps on NBN Co.'s website, there are no networks built, no work being undertaken and no planned rollouts in Barker in the next 12 months.
I am very concerned this is exactly the sort of rorting and cost blow-out the coalition warned communications minister Stephen Conroy about. The coalition has warned the government all along that the NBN was a big mistake and would end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
The Mahlos wrote to my office to thank me for my assistance. In their email, the Mahlos said they should be able to stand up for themselves without being dictated to by big companies. The Mahlos said they would rather spend their money at local businesses than on an internet service they did not want or need. On behalf of the Mahlos and all homeowners in Barker, I call on the minister to come clean about hidden costs and rorting and how many other people like the Mahlos have already been ripped off. What will the minister do to ensure that these rip-offs do not occur again in the future, and what will he do to help those already ripped off by this NBN system?
I can assure the member for Barker that the NBN is going very well in Tassie, particularly in my electorate, so I hope what is happening with your allegations is not a reflection on the member and the NBN rollout in your neck of the woods.
We're not getting a rollout!
They are getting a very good rollout, by the sound of it. Anyway, on to happy times. I live in a very old home, built in 1875, in a historic village between Ulverstone and Devonport on the north-west coast. The village is called Forth, its original name was actually Hamilton-on-Forth, and it is on the Forth River. In 1879 a town hall foundation stone was laid at Forth by Edward Braddon, who happened to be a resident of Forth, and in 1880 the town hall itself had been completed and was opened by Edward Braddon. I think it is a nice coincidence in history that I have the house next door to the town hall at Forth, my electorate is the beneficiary of the name Braddon and he would have ridden past my house. He was a very active character and the town hall at Forth had a very active life.
It still does.
I'll tell you some stories later, Patrick! At that time it was very much the centre of life, along with the church, the local school and the more or less sober 'uncle', the pub. But the town hall was very much the centre of activity and it had a very illustrious history. Unfortunately, it was burnt down in 1922 by an accidental fire. It took another 11 years before it was rebuilt and reopened and it was a different type of town hall then. It was opened by the local senator, Senator Hays. It has seen many things happen, and I know many members here have halls in their local communities where the same sorts of things happen: kitchen teas, farewells when people leave the district or go away on war service, coming-of-age parties, wedding breakfasts and receptions, dancers and balls—the memories are flowing now—and concerts and theatre restaurants. I actually acted in a couple, including one memorable performance at the town hall of Dimboola, when people thought we were taking the micky out of the local population. There have also been film evenings, church services, service club activities, local government forums, sporting activities, card nights, bingo, yoga classes, arts and crafts, and end-of-year school celebrations. Indeed, both my sons, who went to the local Forth Primary School, had their end-of-year celebrations there, but they are not held there anymore because the massive BER investment in our schools means the school now has its own magnificent multipurpose complex.
Anyway, times change, as you all well know. A lot of towns had populations that did not work in the towns, as businesses spread out, and they became more dormitory like. So there was a real threat that in time the Forth Town Hall would fall into disuse, and for a lot of councils the increased costs meant they were looking to get rid of halls. Indeed, I got an evaluation on the Forth Town Hall for fear that it would be privatised. I thought I would not like to live next to a privatised space, in particular a privatised town hall.
The council reviewed the use of the hall in 2002 and since that time the Forth Valley Lions Club have turned the town hall back into a shining example of community use. It is magnificently refurbished. The federal government was able to contribute $60,000 towards its refurbishment and there were very generous sponsors, such as the Forth Valley Blues Festival Committee and the local Art and Craft Committee as well as the Forth Valley Lions Club, giving thousands of dollars for the refurbishment. I had the great pleasure on Friday, 28 October, of reopening the refurbished town hall. There is nothing like a town hall not being used for community activities. It is like a consecrated space: there is something odd if it is not used for the community. I want to sincerely congratulate the Forth Valley Lions Club on the fantastic job they have done under the auspices of the Central Coast Council. (Time expired)
Before I call the honourable member for Forde, on behalf of all honourable members I thank the member for Braddon for his history lesson. The member for Forde now has the call.
I rise tonight to recognise the anniversary on 31 October of the Australian Light Horse Brigade. Their website opens with this quote from Genesis, chapter 21, verses 25 to 31:
Then Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water which Abimelech's servants had seized. And he said, You will take these seven ewe lambs from my hand, that they may be my witness that I have dug this well. Therefore he called that place Beersheba, because the two of them swore an oath there.
The 31st of October is a significant moment in our national history. It is a moment that, for me, is a day on which the bravery and daring our nation became known for at Gallipoli was once again demonstrated; a day which I believe we fail to recognise the importance of. It was in the early hours of the morning on this day in 1917 that the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade penetrated the Turkish defences and secured control over the town water wells of Beersheba. The wells were a coveted prize, as shortage of water in any desert warfare is a significant disadvantage.
Edmund Allenby, commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, was given the task of capturing Jerusalem by Christmas 1917. In order to ensure the fall of Jerusalem, Allenby needed to first break the Turkish line at Gaza-Beersheba. The 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade was formed under Brigadier-General William Grant. Earlier Australian General Sir H.G. Chauvel had been ordered to take Beersheba and immediately directed Grant and his troops to mount a charge. To quote one of the troopers on that day:
It was the bravest, most awe inspiring sight I have ever witnessed, and they were ... yelling, swearing and shouting. There were more than 500 Aussie horsemen. .. As they thundered past my hair stood on end. The boys were wild-eyed and yelling their heads off.
So said Trooper Eric Elliott. Trooper Elliott was acting as a range-finder for the artillery when he crept to a hillock within two miles of Beersheba. He noticed a cloud of dust and then the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade was on the move, a thundering line of light horsemen appearing over the crest in an extended order. Then a second line followed and a third. Elliott was directly in their path, so he quickly mounted to get out of their way.
'Speed and surprise were their one chance', as historian H.S. Gullett wrote. Four miles ahead lay the Turkish trenches with no cover, many had been cleverly disguised and concealed even from aircraft reconnaissance. The Turks lay in wait in the nearby hills with machine guns and artillery positions. An all-day battle ensued with the Australian Light Horse Brigade finally penetrating the Turkish defence before they could contaminate the water supply. Without water the whole Sinai-Palestinian campaign would have been halted for months, and the Gaza-Beersheba line would have remained unbroken. The Battle of Beersheba was a critical element of a wider British offensive known as the Battle of Gaza. Two previous attempts to breach this battle line had failed. Having secured the capture of Gaza, Allenby turned his attention to the fall of Jerusalem which he succeeded in securing the following month.
The Battle of Beersheba was an outstanding, swift and decisive victory. Using tactics from an earlier military age, the 4th Light Horse Brigade's stunning achievement is still revered but unknown to many in Australia today. On a beautiful, sunny Canberra afternoon on 31 October 2011, an intimate Beersheba Day ceremony was held at the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial on Anzac Parade. A small gathering of New South Wales Lancers and family members of the World War 1 Light Horse gathered to lay wreaths and swap stories that have been handed down. Next year will mark the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba—a battle that holds great historical significance as it was the last successful great cavalry charge. (Time expired)
Early this morning, I convened a breakfast roundtable in Parliament House to discuss with 13 ACT community sector leaders the issues of poverty and disadvantage in Canberra. This is the second of these forums that I have arranged and the focus of today's discussion was on financial literacy, debt and savings. Attendees emphasised that financial problems can be caused by stress factors, such as family breakdown, mental illness, substance abuse and problem gambling. Conversely, financial problems can also cause disadvantage, with money problems leading to health problems, family stress and gambling in an attempt to 'win back' losses. Some attendees commented that crisis services are now seeing people who they call the 'working poor'—such as apprentices and community sector workers. They also pointed out the challenge of high housing costs in the ACT. For people caught in a debt cycle, community leaders pointed out that life is a constant juggling act. People often borrow from their friends and neighbours, and these personal debts can take priority over paying utility bills. One attendee quoted a person in crisis who said, 'Debt makes me feel like half of me is in the grave already.'
Solutions to debt traps include access to hardship funds operated by utility companies and schools. It is important that these funds are well publicised and that people are able to access them anonymously—particularly in small school communities. And while this government recognises that short-term, small-amount loans or payday loans can be useful for helping people through a crisis, they also create the risk that too much of people's money can be lost to interest and fees. In the ACT, payday lenders are subject to a 48 per cent interest cap, which includes all fees and charges. At a national level, this government is working through COAG to develop a national regulatory system for payday lenders. That would mean equal protection across states. And through Centrelink, income support recipients can apply for no-interest loans of up to $1,000. Other programs encourage savings, for example through matched savings schemes, to encourage people to build up a nest egg for when they need it most.
We also need to improve financial literacy. As one attendee pointed out, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics' 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, 79,000 Canberrans lacked the literacy skills to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in a knowledge based economy. There are also gaps in financial knowledge. Attendees talked about the challenge for some households in managing budgets, as well as money management skills like paying off high-interest debts first. The Australian government runs programs to boost financial literacy, including the MoneySmart program. Many community sector groups also operate their own financial information programs, as do some schools. It is important that these programs be rigorously evaluated. Overseas experience has shown that financial literacy programs which sound good conceptually do not always perform as well as expected. I would encourage governments at all levels, as well as community organisations, to evaluate financial literacy programs, using randomised trials wherever possible.
The discussion also raised ways of reducing costs for low-income earners. Some initiatives are already being pursued, such as the ACT government's energy outreach program and the federal government's record investment in affordable housing. In early October, the federal government announced that the National Rental Affordability Scheme will fund more than 1,500 dwellings in Bruce, Nicholls, Harrison, Bonner, Crace and Watson. Last Friday I opened a new social housing development in O'Connor which will add to the public housing stock, including for tenants with a disability. Attendees emphasised the need for solutions to be holistic. They pointed out the challenge for community sector organisations using multiple funding streams, and the problem for clients of having to meet with many different service agencies. Providing holistic services while ensuring effectiveness and accountability is a major challenge for policymakers in the future.
Finally, I would like to thank the attendees for participating in today's roundtable: Fiona MacGregor, YWCA ACT; Lynne Harwood, Communities @ Work; Shannon Pickles, St Vincent de Paul; Carmel Franklin, Care Financial Services; Jenny Kitchin, Anglicare ACT; Amy Kilpatrick, ACT Human Rights Office; Roslyn Dundas, ACTCOSS; Dira Home, Belconnen Community Services; Alicia Payne, ACT ALP Community Services Policy Committee; Gordon Ramsay, Uniting Care Kippax; Camilla Rowland, Karralika Programs; and Rhonda Daniell and Judith McDonnell, Gungahlin Regional Community Services. I appreciated the willingness of all attendees to work together to reduce poverty and disadvantage in the ACT.
I rise this evening to speak on a very important issue in my electorate: fishing. Sadly, fishing in the Territory is under threat and my constituents are not happy. Conservationists are lobbying the federal government to close vast stretches of Territory coastal waters. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Australian Marine Conservation Society, AMCS, is trying to establish nine no-go, no-take zones off the Northern Territory coast.
My colleague in the other place Senator Scullion has already indicated that green groups behind this push will not stop until all waters are covered by no-go zones, and they will destroy both the recreational fishing industry and the very important commercial fishing industry. There is a suggestion by the AMCS that only one per cent of our waters are protected. The fact of the matter is that 100 per cent of our waters are protected under a variety of acts, such as the Northern Territory Marine Act, the Fisheries Act and the Maritime Safety Act, as well as acts on mining in northern maritime waters. It is quite plain to see that there are many layers of protection in NT waters.
We all know that a plan to make areas no-go zones will not work. What it will do is concentrate fishing in other areas and make them unsustainable in the longer term. The coalition's policy at the last election was to put on hold and then restructure the marine bioregional planning process. We will base marine protected areas on science, not just a green take-and-plunder plan. So concerned are my constituents they are organising a rally this Saturday, 5 November, at Stokes Hill Wharf. I have said that I will join the hundreds of very upset fisherman and fisherwomen who are protesting against the proposed no-go zones. Thanks to keen fisherman Clint Jebbink and his friends for offering to take me on their boat.
When reporting on the rally last week, NT News.com.au had a catchy headline, 'Here's some boat people to truly fear'. Rally spokesperson Pete Davies offered a message to the Prime Minister in relation to the peaceful protest, 'Hey Julia, try stopping these boats'. Pete has indicated that there will be at least 100 boats on the harbour at the one place protesting against the ridiculous proposed no-go zones.
I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who all say they are afraid that the Gillard Labor government, after being pressured by the Greens, might have a similar knee-jerk reaction to when they placed a blanket ban on live exports. I would like to share with the House some of what my constituents have said. Chris F of Larrakeyah said:
I feel strongly about this because the organization AMCS has not done the necessary investigations before proposing the bans … Recreational fisherman are the eyes on the water particularly here in the NT where there is such a small population and lack of resources to police these types of areas … Living in the NT fishing is a dominant part of our lifestyle and we do it responsibly, adhering the strict bag limits.
Paul S of Jingili said:
I am appalled at the unnecessary and unwanted intrusion on the Territory way of life by the AMCS in seeking to close the vast areas of the territory fishing areas.
Luke H of Millner said:
We fishermen of the NT have always led the pack in terms of fisheries management and we will continue to. … Fisherman of the NT will happily look at fishing reform when the science supports it but we will not stand by and accept no-go zones especially when the available science does not support it
Ted Dunstan said:
I cannot imagine anything more likely to kill off the NT hallowed lifestyle. The AMCS's call to the federal government to establish non fishing zones in the top end waters is the mark of abject ignorance of what makes the Territory so special to all who value it. Our boating and fishing is almost sacred. No truer word has been said.
I would like to use what little time I have left to wish Margot Cox, a constituent of mine, a very happy 80th birthday. Today is her birthday. I spoke with her earlier this evening, and she said she had had a wonderful day and was delighted with having received over thirty calls from well wishers. Margot has lived in the Territory for 60 of those 80 years. She has lived in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin. She now lives in Palmerston and is an active member of the Palmerston community. She volunteers her time for a number of organisations. She is a member of the Senior Songsters, who are legendary in the Palmerston area. I wish Margot a very happy birthday.
Industrial relations is on the public mind again. It is on the public mind because of Qantas's behaviour in locking out workers and leaving customers in their thousands stranded on the tarmac. No doubt it is also on our minds because of the behaviour of those opposite during this unfortunate dispute. As the days and hours unfold, many people in this place are wondering whether those opposite have had some role in conspiring in this unfortunate series of events.
This evening on ABC television we saw the spectacle of the member for North Sydney confirming that Qantas had told him that the grounding of the fleet was on the cards. When pressed about when he first heard this issue, Mr Hockey said he could not recall, but when asked if he had heard it personally in a meeting from a Qantas representative, he confirmed, 'Yeah, sure, as did others.' So there are many people tonight watching the ABC interview with the member for North Sydney and wondering whether thousands and thousands of people would have had their holidays and trips disrupted if the member for North Sydney had been acting in the public interest instead of in his own political interests. This of course is a reminder of the need for an industrial relations system that provides minimum standards, rights and responsibilities for workers and employers engaged in negotiations but also provides a mechanism to resolve disputes when they get out of hand, when they are causing damage not only to the industrial parties but also to innocent bystanders. Thankfully, we do have those laws and we have a Prime Minister and a minister who were willing to act. They did not keep it a secret, like the member for North Sydney did; they acted in the national interest to get passengers back on the planes and parties back into negotiations.
Mr Speaker, you would know that 2009 was a watershed in the way we deal with industrial relations in this country because it saw the passage of the Fair Work Act. After 11 years of experimenting with the extremism of Reith, Abbott, Andrews and Hockey and after 11 years of stagnation in productivity and days lost to industrial disputes three times what they have been under Labor, we saw the introduction of a fair and balanced workplace relations act, the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act re-established awards and protected penalty rates from the unmitigated theft under Work Choices. It gave workers a say in how they would bargain. It gave them the right to vote for collective bargaining and a means of resolving disputes when they got out of hand.
This system is under threat today because today we have seen members opposite re-engaging. Their masks have slipped. A few weeks ago they were lovers of the workers—they could not get closer to someone wearing a hard hat and a blue singlet—but today their masks have slipped and we have seen them cheering the employer who locks out their workers and abusing employees engaged in an industrial dispute.
Lockouts were relatively unknown in Australia until 1996. Although the right to lock out did exist under Australian law from 1993, it was barely used under ALP governments. There were a handful of lockouts between 1996 and 2000 but then they literally exploded. I quote from the report by the knowledgeable Dr Chris Briggs of the University of Sydney entitled Lockout Law in Australia. He found that over that period the proportion of working days lost to disputes involving lockouts had increased almost six-fold. He said:
This reflects a four-fold increase in the number of working days lost to industrial disputes involving a lockout during the second half decade …
Employer lockouts, not strikes by unions, were responsible for most of the long disputes in the second half-decade of enterprise bargaining.
We have heard today reference to very famous disputes, including the G & K O'Connor abattoir dispute in your state of Victoria, Mr Speaker, and the Hunter Valley dispute between 1997 and 1998. We saw long-running disputes with workers locked out, lost production and damage to the community and the economy, but where did we see the workplace relations minister and the Prime Minister in each of those disputes? Intervening in the courts, telling the courts to stay out of it and saying to the employers, 'Go your hardest and stay your longest, because we love a lockout.' Their masks have slipped. (Time expired)
When travelling around and talking to residents in my electorate of Cowan, one of the main concerns raised with me is that of personal safety. People are deeply concerned about crime in their local community. Graffiti, vandalism, hoon driving, underage drinking and antisocial behaviour are too prevalent on our streets. What concerned me most was the feeling people had that it was not worth reporting such problems because nothing would be done about it. They felt their concerns were not being heard. For this reason, I established two local crime prevention initiatives: the Cowan Community Watch and the Junior Cowan Community Watch.
Through these programs I encourage local residents to become more aware of their surroundings and to report crime and antisocial behaviour. These crime prevention and infrastructure-fixing programs are designed to encourage the power of the individual and the sense of personal responsibility. It is my belief that I have a responsibility to foster and encourage willingness for action by not only adults but also children. That is why I encourage children from as young as 10 years old to be observant of problems in their local area and report those problems to my office through the Junior Cowan Community Watch program. Of course I do not mean dangerous crime and direct intervention, but more like local infrastructure problems that need to be fixed. They contact me and I ensure the relevant authority is asked to fix it. The child, young person or adult that reported it is then given feedback on what took place. This is often the most important part because too often the lack of information fed back to the reporter discourages them next time and makes them feel powerless. Everyone in our community must feel that they have a part to play in a better and safer community and that if they report something it will be acted upon.
For example, just last week I was contacted by a resident who informed me of a number of street lights that were out in a street in Marangaroo. The resident was concerned that the extended sections of darkness along her street could make the area and all the houses more appealing to burglars. As a result, I drove out to that street that night and found that there were 11 street lights that were out. I recorded the numbers and reported them to Western Power, who indicated that repair action would occur within five days. I then wrote to residents in and near that street informing them of the action I had taken to rectify the street-lighting problem, while providing them with my 12-point checklist to reduce the risk of burglary that they faced.
I work very closely with local police. Each week I receive an email from the officer in charge of the North West Metro Crime Prevention and Diversity Unit of the Western Australia Police. In these emails he outlines the statistics regarding burglaries and vehicle thefts in the northern suburbs of Perth, many of which are Cowan suburbs. A couple of weeks ago he commented in relation to the northern suburbs:
No one area is any different than another, it is only a problem when residents and owners of their assets do not take the precautions to firstly secure their homes and secondly do not leave their car keys laying around on bench tops etc, making life easy for these low lives. In relation to their electrical items such as laptops, iPods etc, they should record the serial numbers, mark their property and advertise the fact by joining Neighbourhood Watch and putting the stickers on their widows stating 'All property has been marked for Police Identification'.
That is the advice of Sergeant Bob O'Sullivan of the North West Metropolitan District police.
In considering what Sergeant O'Sullivan said, I have long believed that a better and stronger community is achieved through everyone in that community acknowledging their need not only to look after their own property but also to see themselves as part of a strong community fence, to look after and control the street in conjunction with their neighbours. By being concerned about what is happening beyond the walls of their house, by pushing the area of responsibility they feel out into the middle of the street and beyond, we can ensure that those moving around and up to no good will be identified. It is important that people feel safe and secure in their homes. Security measures for our homes are part of that, but, even more so, criminals or those up to no good, as I say, should feel that they are under observation and that a step out of line will mean that they will be reported. Of course, the other aspect to it is that everyone must be prepared to act where possible, making it clear that crime is rejected by all those in the local area. People must be prepared to go to court and testify against these criminals.
I applaud the tough stance on crime that the Western Australian government is enforcing, but we must remember that crime prevention is not just about government. It must be about local people taking responsibility and working together to control their streets and create a better and stronger community.
I rise tonight to speak about a significant event that I attended last Saturday. It was a tremendous honour to participate in the annual Deepavali festival at the Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple in Carrum Downs. I celebrated this event and met many people who attended that night, including the committee of management and the state member for Narre Warren South, Judith Graley.
Each year the Hindu Society of Victoria celebrates Deepavali, the Festival of Lights, which is an important five-day festival for the Hindu religion. It is celebrated on the new moon day of the Hindu month of Kartika, which occurred this year on 26 October. The celebrations involve wearing new clothes, making and sharing sweets, decorating houses with rows of lamps and lighting firecrackers. It was estimated that over 5,000 people attended the Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple on Saturday to commemorate this festival.
The collection of people, Hindus and non-Hindus alike, that attended the temple celebrated something very special indeed. Deepavali involves the lighting of small clay lamps filled with oil to signify the triumph of good over evil. These lamps are kept on during the night to make the goddess Lakshmi feel welcome, while firecrackers and fireworks are used in order to drive away evil spirits. Day-long religious services began at 9 am and the festival continued all day, with the climax of the festival being symbolically held at sunset, and soon afterwards the fireworks display commenced.
I have mentioned the Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple in this place before, but I would like to revisit some of the aspects which make this temple and this community, particularly the Indian segment of this community, so significant in the social and religious life of Australia. I have always been struck by the beauty of the temple, which is surely one of the most beautiful and ornate places of worship in Australia. The Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple is unique in the world. This is because the temple was built as a traditional Hindu temple in which Sri Shiva and Sri Vishnu poojas are actually adorned in the same temple, as the temple name suggests. This union of two Hindu deities is what brings people from all Hindu backgrounds together at the same temple. I am told it is one of the few such temples in the world.
The Carrum Downs temple was built by Hindu community members from countries such as India, predominantly, Sri Lanka, Fiji and South Africa. The building itself is a monumental piece of architecture, a credit to the community and one visited by many dignitaries, including Hindu spiritual leaders His Holiness Kanji Sankarathariar, Swami from India, His Holiness Shivaya Subramaniya, Swami from Hawaii, and His Holiness Thri Thandid Chinna Jeyer, from India.
Just observing the spiritual adoration of these poojas and the ritualised traditions that are orientated around these poojas was enlightening on a personal level. The rituals include Ashtanga Namaskaram and blessings using the offerings of oil, fresh fruit and ash undertaken by the Hindu priests. The musical instruments, meditative mantras and aromatic incense all contributed to making a holistic experience for all of the senses and a symbolic journey of the spirit.
The vision, the dedication, the courage and the spirit of the Hindu community of Victoria give the people of Victoria a priceless and everlasting legacy in the form of this truly magnificent temple. It is shared with the rest of the community and is accessible to the rest of the community. This was its purpose.
The educational aspect of the temple ground will soon be extended into a new Hindu cultural and religious education centre currently being constructed on the temple grounds. This centre will include a heritage centre with ancient exhibits, a function hall for events such as weddings, an auditorium, a library and an education centre to cater for Hindu students and the growing number of people who want to learn about Hinduism.
I am proud that this temple is built in the region around Holt—in fact, it is in Isaacs; the federal member for Isaacs is present in the chamber—and I am proud that those with the vision, dedication and courage to build and maintain such a magnificent structure are from in and around the Holt area, some of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and congratulating for their ongoing efforts.
The Deepavali festival is a ancient festival which celebrates the victory of good over evil with the help of the divine. These are universal ideals that were particularly poignant on a very tough weekend for Australians, in particular in coming to terms with the loss of three soldiers in Afghanistan. I think it is useful for all of us, regardless of our religious background, to celebrate these sorts of events, which strengthen the things that bring us closer together and renew our commitment to each other.
I rise tonight to give an update on the vision for improved education and employment prospects for the Dunkley community and the greater Mornington Peninsula-Frankston region and what has been happening of late. I was pleased to see the member for Isaacs venture down south of his electorate into the electorate of Dunkley to unveil the plans for the trade training centre involving a number of secondary colleges and Chisholm TAFE. It is great to see the Labor Party finally coming to realise that this is an important project for our region.
Back in 2007, there was a commitment to construct an Australian technical college to service the greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsula region, a key initiative that was extremely well supported by my electorate, particularly in light of the fact that vocational education and post-secondary education in the greater Frankston-Mornington Peninsula area is about half of the Victorian average. So there is a real need to open up opportunities and to build aspiration for our young people about these possibilities for future life careers and for improving their skills, knowledge and academic attainment. They need to understand that these opportunities are actually within reach.
Part of the vision that I outlined in 2007 was for an Australian technical college. Alas, the election did not go the way I had hoped and the Gillard-Rudd government was elected. Rather than proceed with purpose-built, dedicated trade training or vocational education facilities, the Labor government wanted to sprinkle a bit of money around a whole lot of secondary colleges, just to maybe slightly improve the kitchenware in home economics resources at secondary college or update the technology in the mechanics space—just slightly tart up what was available in the existing facilities. What was needed was a dedicated purpose-built facility. I continue to argue for that, in spite of the Labor Party's objection to a dedicated facility. Thankfully, they have finally come around to the vision of a purpose-built, dedicated technical and vocational training facility to service our region.
It was great to see the member for Isaacs turn up at the plan unveiling. Labor have finally got with the program. I am happy that this project is proceeding. They could not bring themselves to call it the Australian Technical College. They gave it a name change; it is now called a trade training centre. That is okay with me. They needed to change the moniker just to get with the program for the initiative—that is perfectly fine by me—but at least it is happening. I am encouraged that it has finally resulted in the member for Isaacs visiting our community to unroll the origami, the great challenge of those plans. I wish all the parties involved with that process all the success under the sun.
But we need to do more. We have underparticipation in tertiary education from students in our region. I accept the conclusion of Kwong Lee Dow in his recent review of a tertiary education provision plan for south-east Melbourne. He makes the point that participation is often linked to the accessibility and the attractiveness of the territory education courses within reach of the student population. I was pleased to be able to bring more than 200 extra university places to the Monash University Peninsula campus to bolster its health focus with occupational therapy. Speech pathology will be the next cab off the rank, followed by physiotherapy and a number of other courses. That has really added to that vision.
I was thrilled that the focus on health sciences, social work and other courses that we brought was supported by a $5 million commitment from the former Howard government. My ambition was that the facility that would be built with that $5 million of assistance would collaborate with the local council, the university and other providers to build a health, aquatic and wellness centre. We could not get the previous state Labor government over the line on the aquatic centre, so Monash was left with no option but to proceed with the activity and recreational centre. I was delighted to tour that facility recently and see the continuing investment in the post-secondary education infrastructure in our region. But we need to go further. The specific focus on health and wellness at the Monash University Peninsula campus does not offer the range of courses that our community and economy needs.
I have outlined a vision for BASE: business, arts, science and engineering. Those are the next courses that we need to pursue. We are blessed to have Monash committed and active and very successful in our community, and there is a fantastic TAFE provider through Chisholm. By combining those two great institutions, I think we can expand the range of tertiary education available to our community. With the strategic investments that the Urban Renewal Authority has made in downtown Frankston we can see an investment in infrastructure to support the vision to revitalise the CAD of Frankston and give a much richer and more meaningful range of tertiary education opportunities for our community to see their participation and aspiration lifted. (Time expired)
I rise this evening to mention a number of associated events I have been privileged to be part of over the last few weeks with my friends from the Indian and subcontinent communities. On Sunday, 14 August I joined the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and a number of other colleagues to attend the United India Association's India Australia Friendship Fair at Sydney Olympic Park. The UIA's motto is 'unity in diversity', which eloquently sums up what makes this country great. Australia is a country united in its blend of races and cultures, and our local communities are stronger for the contribution of our new citizens. It is indeed a privilege for me to represent such a large number of residents of Indian descent in the electorate of Greenway.
The India Australia Friendship Fair celebrated both India's independence and the vibrant multicultural nature of modern Australia. It brought together a fusion of various dances and music, and a variety of traditional and contemporary cuisines from all around Sydney, displaying the exciting contribution of the Indian community to the Australian way of life. The day highlighted the strength of multiculturalism in Australia and reaffirmed the shared and important cultural, economic and social bonds between our respective countries.
I would like to put on the record my sincere thanks to the President of the United India Association, Mr Amrinder Bajwa, for his steadfast commitment to the betterment of the Greenway community and the wider community. It is organisations like the UIA that make my community the amazing place it is. I thank them for their promotion of a harmonious relationship between all Australian citizens, including those of Indian descent.
Following the India Australia Friendship Fair, I had the privilege of attending the Karwa Chauth festival in Blacktown in my electorate. This festival is dedicated to the prosperity, longevity and wellbeing of all families, particularly highlighting the love and respect of women for their husbands, and vice versa. It was again a fantastic reminder of the great community spirit that exists in my electorate. The Karwa Chauth festival highlighted another great reality that exists in my electorate: the youthful nature of Greenway. The Greenway electorate is the second youngest in the country with 8.2 per cent of its population aged zero to five years. This was certainly on show during the Karwa Chauth festival, which was great to see.
Similar to the comments by the member for Holt, last Sunday I again joined with the Indian community from my electorate and from all over Australia at the Parramatta Stadium to celebrate the Deepavali Festival. Also known as the 'festival of lights', Deepavali is one of the biggest celebrations of the year for those of the Hindu, Jain and Sikh faiths. It transformed Parramatta Stadium with rows of lights and fireworks celebrating the triumph of good over evil. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Hindu Council of Australia, including its chair, Professor Nihal Agar, and his entire team for organising such a wonderful day. As I mentioned, the festival celebrates the victory of good over evil, as well as knowledge over ignorance. It is marked by placing diyas around the home, as it is believed that a light shining from a diya will bring hope and prosperity to all.
Over the last few weeks, Greenway has been invigorated with a very festive atmosphere brought on by the Deepavali celebrations. Last Wednesday thousands of people filled the Gurudwara temple in my home suburb of Glenwood to celebrate Deepavali. Houses have been decorated with lights in just about every street, and business owners throughout the suburbs of Seven Hills, Pendle Hill and Toongabbie adorned their shopfronts with Deepavali decorations and offered me far too many sweets and samosas as I visited their small businesses last week. Deepavali is a festival which at its essence is about joy, happiness and peace, and this was also on show last night, when I joined with the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Kate Lundy, to celebrate Deepavali in Parliament House.
I feel very strongly about multiculturalism and the role it plays in our society. The diverse range of cultures contributes to the vibrant nature of our lives. I am reminded of this at every citizenship ceremony I have the privilege of attending over the Blacktown, Holroyd and Parramatta local government areas. I would like to thank the Indian and subcontinent communities in my electorate for their contribution to our society and reaffirm my commitment to multiculturalism in Greenway and around the country in general.
House adjourned at 22:30