by leave—I move:
That the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
In accordance with standing order 41(g), and the recommendations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Leichhardt, Lyne, Flinders, Wright and La Trobe. These items will be considered in the Federation Chamber later today.
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Madam Deputy Speaker, in recent statements I have outlined the role of the House Standing Committee on Petitions and the support role of its secretariat. Today I will discuss the responsibilities of the members of the House of Representatives regarding the petitioning process.
Members play a key role in the House's petitions process. Members' electorate offices are often the first port of call of a local citizen trying to solve a bureaucratic puzzle, vent a grievance, or simply ask about legislation or government administration. Members provide a direct and very accessible link between the House of Representatives and the citizens in the communities they represent, as you know, Deputy Speaker Burke. The ability of a person to come in direct contact with a member, and/or the small team of staff in a member's office, becomes increasingly attractive as citizens everywhere are moved further away from personal interaction due to the expansion of computerised—and often globalised—communication and transactions.
Parallel to this, the widespread uptake of internet usage and the increasing digitisation of public documents has provided much greater access to information for the average Australian in the street. This has enabled some citizens to navigate government information far more easily and to work independently towards finding a solution to their concerns. It also means people have more information—and more confidence—about what options they have when they engage with decision makers. For others, however, the ability to access or properly navigate information online may be hampered for a myriad of reasons and they may prefer a more traditional method of gathering information and engaging with their community. For example, they may prefer face-to-face contact. This means that although the Petitions Committee provides useful online resources and can assist through telephone, email and mail contact, members' electorate offices may be the first and sometimes only place that citizens will contact when they are interested in drawing up a petition.
The secretariat of the Petitions Committee provides members' electorate offices with resources to assist them to educate prospective petitioners about petitioning requirements and I thank all the members of that secretariat for the great job they do in supporting me and the committee. These include brochures on how to prepare a petition on a federal matter, along with information about the committee's website which publishes an easy to read information sheet containing a sample petition format and also publishes the terms of petitions already presented and ministerial responses to them.
As you would expect, the committee has found that members generally have a dedicated, positive and sincere attitude to petitioning. Many of their offices retain direct liaison with petitioners from start to finish. They may forward inquiries to the committee secretariat on behalf of a prospective petitioner and act as the conduit for suggestions on draft petitions. Some members provide a collection point for a petition and then deliver the petition to Parliament House. Many members do this regularly. When it comes to presentation of petitions, some members wish to do this themselves and may indicate their support for a petition when doing so. Others will simply present a petition as a service to people in their electorate. There is no obligation on members to present a petition but, because the Petitions Committee has this regular presentation timeslot on sitting Mondays, all petitions found to be in order can be presented quickly to the House. However, I stress two very important points: I urge members who receive petitions to deliver them to the Petitions Committee as soon as possible for processing—and presentation, if necessary; and I also urge members who choose to present a petition to arrange to do that as quickly as they can after it has been certified and returned to them. These things matter because the most significant follow-up action—referral to a minister for response—can only occur after a petition has been presented. So, if members find they cannot present petitions, they should return them to the committee so it can arrange for their presentation at this time on a sitting Monday. The slight downside to this is that, as chair of the committee, I present petitions and make an announcement on behalf of the committee. We may or may not agree with the content of petitions, and the individual announcements I make are neutral and succinct, although not usually as brief as today's announcement.
Finally, I draw attention to standing order 205(c) which stipulates that a member must not be a principal petitioner, nor may they sign a petition. Members may assist a petitioner to frame their request so as to meet standing order requirements—however, we expect the petition itself and the signature collection process will be owned by the principal petitioner. This does not prevent a member from lending support to petitioners, but it does help to ensure that petitioning remains a genuine and worthwhile process.
In summary, members will be aware of the way their local citizens and the broader Australian community value the longstanding democratic activity of petitioning. We recognise the diverse ways they support constituents to engage in petitioning. We encourage members to continue to assist constituents after a petition has been finalised and delivered to them. This involves passing the petition quickly to the committee and, after certification, presenting it or arranging for me to present it as soon as possible. Finally, it is worth remembering that whilst the Petitions Committee and all members have a responsibility to assist petitioners who wish to use the House's petitioning process we are, in effect, conduits. Petitions themselves belong to the petitioners and their House. Thank you.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of administration and expenditure: No. 9 (2009-2010)Australian intelligence agencies.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's oversight of the Australian intelligence community is a key element of our national security architecture. I am therefore pleased to present the ninth review of the administration and expenditure of the AIC by the PJCIS.
This review examined a wide range of aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies, including the financial statements for each agency and their human resource management, training, recruitment and accommodation. In addition the review looked at issues of interoperability between members of the AIC. Submissions were sought from each of the six intelligence and security agencies, from the Australian National Audit Office and from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.
The submissions from ANAO and the six intelligence agencies were all classified confidential, restricted or secret and were therefore not made available to the public. As has been its practice for previous reviews, ASIO provided the committee with both a classified and an unclassified submission. The unclassified version was made available on the committee's website. Each of the Defence intelligence agencies provided the committee with a classified submission. The agencies marked each paragraph with its relevant national security classification. This has enabled the committee for its 2009-10 review to directly refer in this report to unclassified information provided in the Defence agencies' submissions.
The committee also received five submissions from members of the public or public organisations, which included: the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; the Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project; Refugees, Survivors and Ex-Detainees, or RISE; and the Refugee Council of Australia. These submissions all dealt with ASIO security assessments of refugees. On 25 March 2011 the committee held a private hearing at which ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIGO, ONA and DIO appeared. On 16 June the committee held a public hearing—its first since July 2006—and heard from representatives of the Refugee Council of Australia, RISE, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and ASIO in relation to visa security assessments. The committee thanks all attendees, particularly those from organisations providing support to refugees, for the time and effort they took to put their views to the committee. Given the public interest and importance of the topic of visa security assessments in this report it is this issue that I intend to speak to at great length.
The committee notes the request from some advocacy groups for ASIO to declare its non-statutory criteria for making visa security assessments. The committee believes that making non-statutory criteria publicly available could compromise national security because applications from potentially hostile individuals could be tailored to meet these criteria. The committee therefore does not support this suggestion, and notes that since its previous administration and expenditure inquiry ASIO's visa security assessment workload has increased significantly. Processes for undertaking visa security assessments have been placed under considerable strain and, in some cases, assessments have taken longer than is desirable.
The committee takes very seriously the concerns put before it by various refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups, but it also recognises that the job ASIO has is a very difficult one. Therefore, the committee welcomes the efforts introduced by ASIO in March 2011 to streamline the process of security assessments in an attempt to clear the backlog and to process future assessments in less time. The committee is satisfied that the current regime for visa security assessments is the correct one. The committee notes that IGIS has stated that ASIO is doing its job in a 'proper and legal manner'. Overall, on the basis of information provided, the committee is satisfied that the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies is sound.
However, I note that concerns raised on the efficiency dividend's impact on agencies during the committee's Review of administration and expenditure: No. 8 (2008-2009)—Australian intelligence organisations were specifically raised in the evidence the committee took for the current review. This is extremely concerning to the committee. The committee will continue to monitor the impact of the efficiency dividend on the Australian intelligence community.
The committee was pleased with the level of information given to it on interoperability and will continue to monitor this area to ensure that interoperability management and budgetary structures are in place across the AIC. The committee thanks the heads of the AIC agencies and all those who contributed to this review. I want to thank the secretariat staff: Dr Margot Kerley and Dr John Carter who are no longer with us, Jerome Brown, Robert Little, Cathryn Olive, Jessica Butler and Gillian Drew. I commend the report to the House.
I endorse the comments of the chair and thank him for his acknowledgement of the professional staff and the assistance they give to us. I have always found our intelligence agencies professional, and they act with great probity. The Australian public might find that difficult to understand because of the nature of the work that these agencies have to undertake. The work is often covert, and it is extremely difficult to independently review those matters. It is equally difficult for a committee to comment on matters that might compromise their operations but which it would be helpful for the government to be aware of. These are matters of potential concern.
In discussing this report, I take the opportunity to identify some of the difficulties under which the agencies are operating. You will find these in the report if you look closely. For instance, under human resources, agencies have been growing to meet needs. One of the difficulties they have in ensuring their professionalism and their probity is to recruit people who are sufficiently talented and appropriate for those tasks. One of the comments made in the report is that ASIO had aimed for growth but did not meet ambitious recruitment targets while recruitment remains a high priority. I think there is a signal there for the government.
If you look at security issues, the agencies are having to address a wider range of issues. We always thought they only dealt with counterespionage. In fact, the broadening of their activities to include counterterrorism and more recently cybersecurity have put the organisations very much at the focus of protecting our national interest under enormous pressure. Coupled with that is pressure they really do not need: the security assessments that have to be undertaken on people who come to Australia. While refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups have raised issues, let me say that it is absolutely essential that these inquiries are undertaken. We know that there have been adverse security assessments. Look at the increase in the numbers of people who have to be seen. In terms of Christmas Island, from 2008-09 there were 200 assessments needed. In 2009-10 nearly 3,000 assessments had to be made. This is having very significant impact on the re-allocation of resources to a function we should not have to be doing, away from those that are absolutely essential.
There is difficulty undertaking this task when the people that you have to see actually dispose of documents that might help even understanding where they are from and who they are. Yet all of our agencies, including IGIS, the independent security intelligence review agency, have seen a significant increase in their workload. The complaints that IGIS receives have gone from 153 in 2008-09 to 1,015. We have the advocacy group saying that there ought to be a whole lot of new procedures put in place for review. Where is this going to lead to in terms of the ability and the capacity of these organisations to do their essential work?
Then we come to the unforeseen elephant in the room that my colleague mentioned: the impact of efficiency dividends. We are not able to talk about the potential of the impact of efficiency dividends but we know that the impact on small agencies—and these are relatively small agencies—can be extraordinarily significant. The committee has recommended the government review the potential adverse impact on the efficiency dividend on intelligence agencies. It would be very reprehensible if their activities were to be compromised because of the unforeseen impact of a measure of that type.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report entitled Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia and Tonga: 24September—1 October 2011. During September 2011 members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters visited Indonesia and Tonga as part of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Committee Exchange program. Indonesia, with its population of over 200 million, and Tonga, with a little over 100,000 people, are demographically very different countries in the Asia-Pacific region. One thing they have in common is that both are making the important transition to democratic governance, with Indonesia starting its democratic journey in 1999 and Tonga holding its first democratic election in 2010.
The delegation greatly appreciated the time and effort of the many individuals and organisations in Indonesia and Tonga that met with us during our visit. The program included a combination of high-level meetings and opportunities for delegates to hear firsthand the experiences of individuals of their country's democratic progress and their aspirations for a democratic future. This greatly assisted delegates to better appreciate the democratic transition underway in these still relatively new democracies.
Through its governance and electoral support programs, Australia is playing a role in assisting these countries to make practical democratic improvements. This visit provided a valuable opportunity for delegates to gain an appreciation of the strong relationships that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and the Australian Electoral Commission are building with electoral authorities and key stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific. The effective conduct of elections is an important component of good governance and viable democracies, and was of particular interest to the delegation. It is important for Australia to remain engaged in Indonesia and Tonga and the broader Asia-Pacific region, and to provide the governance and electoral support needed to help our neighbours realise their democratic aspirations. On behalf of the delegation I thank the organisations and individuals who met with and assisted us during our visit to Indonesia and Tonga. I also thank my fellow delegates for their participation and commitment to the demanding program and their contribution to a productive and informative delegation visit. I also certainly want to put on the record my thanks to the secretary of the delegation, Ms Samantha Mannette, for the excellent work that she did, and to the other staff who assist her in the secretariat of the electoral matters committee.
I commend the delegation report to the House.
I joined the delegation and rise to speak in support of the remarks by the leader of the delegation.
I attended the Indonesian part only, and I believe it was an important part of the ongoing relationship between Australia and Indonesia. The delegation had the opportunity for high-level meetings, including with the vice-president, and opportunities to meet with Indonesian people to learn of their experience of their country's move to democracy.
It is interesting in a country which of course does not have compulsory voting, that 62 per cent turned out for this mayoral election which we visited. Of the 322,000-odd eligible voters some 200,000 of them turned out to vote. This was a rise in participation compared to the 2006 poll, where only 53 per cent of registered voters cast a vote. Generally in Indonesia voter turnout has been exceptionally high in recent years, but is now appearing to drop. It was suggested to the delegation that this could be an indication of voter fatigue due to the high number of elections in the country. For example, in 2010 there were more than 240 local elections conducted.
There was an expectation that it would be an outright win for the pair who eventually won. That was the pair supported by Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, but they only achieved 48.3 per cent of the vote on polling day. Rather than have a run-off there was a subdistrict approach applied. This means that the total votes of the subdistrict are examined and the candidate to win the most subdistrict elections are declared the winners—that is, for mayor and deputy mayor. So the final winners of the election, declared some 10 days after the election was held, were in fact the pair supported by Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle.
It was interesting to watch the people line up to cast their votes. They were obviously very keen to be part of the process. It is interesting that the mark that you have voted is that your little pinky finger is dipped in ink, and that is to ensure that you are not voting a second time. It might be something that we could look at here; we do have a few people who vote more than once.
The AEC noted that their permanent presence in Jakarta has been a very positive presence. We now have an Australian Electoral Commission director and local staff, and they work together with AusAID representatives. They accompanied us around the polling stations during the voting, and at the close of the polling booths and the beginning of the count. It was interesting to see them hold up the ballot boxes. There was obviously pride taken in making sure that there was not double voting and that there was no tampering with those ballot boxes.
The AEC, in partnership with AusAID, have been working hard to build strong relationships with electoral authorities in Indonesia. Observing the Yogyakarta mayoral election was a valuable opportunity to see Australia's continuing electoral support being given to Indonesia, which was begun by the Howard government, and why it is so important. Australia provides direct support, and through international partnerships, to develop the capacity of Indonesia's electoral authorities.
I, too, would like to thank Samantha Mannette, who acted as the secretary to the committee during the visit. Her attention to detail and organising of the trip was exemplary. I think it was a useful part in continuing the important relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, I present the committee's advisory report on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—On 22 March 2012, the selection committee referred the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 to the Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for inquiry. Introduction of the bill followed a report by the Productivity Commission, released in 2010, which recommended: abolition of the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme 2008; abolition of Wheat Exports Australia and the wheat export charge; and discontinuation of the 'access test', instead relying upon general competition law and a voluntary code of conduct. The bill aims to facilitate a transition of the bulk wheat export industry into a deregulated market in line with the Productivity Commission's recommendations.
From the 20 submissions received and two days of public hearings, a divergent range of views was presented to the committee both in favour and against the bill. Some issues were identified as requiring further consideration, including by stakeholders who supported deregulation. In particular, these questions related to quality assurance, access to supply chain infrastructure and the availability of wheat stocks information.
However, there is no clear link between the current arrangements and quality assurance. In reality, quality is currently only assured through market competitiveness, not export accreditation rules or some other form of government process. Industry should manage quality and, in fact, the current law reflects this situation. I would think that the customer would let you know what he would want. The committee is aware that the current supply chain infrastructure is divided into regional monopolies developed through historical circumstances. However, delaying deregulation will not necessarily improve these trading conditions; indeed, the entrance of new players into the market may be aided by deregulation and the abolition of accreditation.
In relation to market information, the committee agreed with evidence that information relating to wheat stocks should be improved and be freely available. A number of submissions and witnesses explained that wheat stocks information currently available would be insufficient for a deregulated wheat market to function properly.
The committee has therefore recommended:
The ombudsman would be paid for by industry and by those that need to use an ombudsman—there are several models in Australia along these lines—
Finally, the committee recommends that the House pass the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the committee's secretariat, Thomas, Nathan and David, for their strong and professional work. We have achieved a lot in a short time and we have brought down a very good report. I commend the report to the House.
As Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, can I compliment the committee as a whole on reinforcing its reputation for working together in a bipartisan way on issues related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries. I endorse the opening remarks made by the committee chairman about the recommendations of the committee on this particular issue of wheat exporting.
Some of us in this place can well remember the issues centred around the Australian Wheat Board at a time when there was significant activity which indicated some graft in the marketing of wheat, particularly export wheat. It is also true to say that, at that time, the behaviour of some individual senior officials within that organisation verged on criminal activity. These are the things that I am reminded of as I make my contribution within the committee process. Whilst we do not like to think about those things, the point I am making is that there has always been controversy in wheat marketing, whether it is at the local level or at the export marketing level. Some people in this place, including myself, were criticised by elements of the wheat growing community in this country because we believed that we should be protecting people in Western Australia and South Australia who were growing export wheat from being ripped off to the extent of $60 to $100 per tonne of their export wheat just to satisfy the A and B class shareholders within the Australian Wheat Board organisation.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for the wonderful way in which we worked together to come to the recommendations that the chairman has outlined here in the House today. To the chairman, can I say that it is always a pleasure to work with him, because politics are put aside and we as a committee make our decisions on the basis of the open and transparent evidence that is taken within the committee process and on the basis of what we believe to be in the best interests of the people that we are representing. The outcome of this hearing—this recommendation that the House pass the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012—has been based on the independent evidence that we have taken and on the wonderful contributions by people within the industry. It is my hope and I know it is the hope of the committee as a whole that the House will embrace the recommendations of this committee today.
I rise today to present the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, which responds to private legislation that proposed to legalise marriage for same-sex couples.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
To use the words of Australian rugby's open side flanker: 'I believe every human being is precious and we're all part of God's family. Marriage is a beautiful thing and should not be used as a weapon to promote prejudice.'
Australians have usually been ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to removing discrimination. This nation's proud initiatives include providing the vote for women, repealing discriminatory immigration policies, protecting employment for married women and enabling Indigenous Australians to participate fully in the democracy that had blossomed on their continent, although this recognition of the first people's right to vote did not occur until after my first birthday—I am not as old as I look.
Reducing discrimination in all its forms is a matter of social justice. All Australians are people worthy of respect regardless of their age, their religion, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their occupation, their level of income, their abilities or their choice of lifestyle. In recent times, there has been growing recognition of the discrimination that same-sex couples experience, both socially and legally, as family units. I am proud to have been a part of the Commonwealth parliament that in 2008 rectified in a bipartisan way many of the financial disadvantages that same-sex couples endured compared to their opposite-sex, de facto and married counterparts. The opportunity to take the step of publicly declaring a couple's love and commitment by entering into a marriage is the final discriminatory hurdle for same-sex couples. It is indefensible and unjust that two people who love each other are unable to marry each other because of their sexual orientation. I firmly believe that marriage is still the best way to protect every committed monogamous relationship.
It is timely for me to remind everyone that God did not write the Marriage Act. It was written by lawyers and legislators in ink, not in stone, and must reflect the views and values of Australians today. Every member of parliament is charged with the duty of ensuring that all our laws best protect the values and beliefs of all the people we represent today—not yesterday and, equally so, not tomorrow. To achieve this end I fully support the legalisation of marriage for same-sex couples and the intent of both the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, introduced by the member for Throsby.
Just as we look back in disbelief to the day in my lifetime when Indigenous Australians could not vote in their own country or when homosexuality was illegal, it is now time to enact this legislation and raise future generations of children who will not believe that once upon a time same-sex couples in Australia could not marry. The love between same-sex couples is no different to that of opposite-sex couples and deserves no less of the public recognition, celebration and symbolism which the wonderful institution of marriage bestows on all committed relationships.
I encourage each member of parliament to read this report before voting on the bills. I appreciate that there are many differences of opinion among us, as there are across the country; however, we have the weighty responsibility of upholding the views of the constituents who elected us to this position. We have a duty to lead, as well as to represent our constituents, and to vote accordingly. I encourage the House of Representatives to remove this final vestige of discrimination against committed same-sex couples. Should such legislation be challenged, let us hope that the High Court recognises that the Constitution should not be frozen forever in the social attitudes of 1901 when Queen Victoria ruled the waves and this land of ours.
I congratulate Mr Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne, on being the first MP to introduce into the House of Representatives a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. I warmly thank him for his contribution to the inquiry as a supplementary member of the committee. The committee is honoured to have been part of this important debate. I thank all of the committee members, especially the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan. I thank all of the other committee members, great and small, for their efforts in carefully considering the bills and asking the important questions. Despite a considerable diversity of views among the committee, I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit shown in preparing this report to guide and support our strong and independent parliament. (Time expired)
As the person who moved one of the bills that was the subject of this inquiry, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the chair, the deputy chair and the excellent secretariat staff for the attitude that was taken towards an issue that a number of people would have some very strong views on. It is no easy feat to begin the process of canvassing the views of the Australian public about changing the Marriage Act to remove one of the last vestiges of discrimination. The fact that we were able to work cooperatively, and ultimately assess and canvass the views of over a quarter of a million Australians, is testament to the bipartisan and cross-partisan spirit of the members of the committee, and also the excellent support we received from the secretariat.
One of the things that became apparent from this committee inquiry is that the public is ready for change. We had over a quarter of a million responses to the survey that was initiated by the committee, and 64 per cent supported the bill that I and the member for Denison are cosponsoring. That number, 64 per cent, matches almost every other poll that has been taken on this subject. It is a reflection of the fact that the Australian public is now quite relaxed about two people who love each other marrying each other and expressing that love, not only to each other but to their families and to their friends. Ultimately, though, the change that we are called upon to make as a parliament should be done not just because it is popular but because it is right. There is no excuse, and the Australian public recognises this, for continuing to discriminate against a group of people simply because of who they love. It is not just those individuals, their families and their friends who will benefit from a change in the law.
The attitude that this parliament takes to whether or not having two classes of people in this society will continue on into the future is significant not just for the individuals who are directly affected but for the young boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to or the girl at high school who wants to take her female partner to the formal and is told she is not allowed to do so. What the public, especially those who might not be old enough to vote, hear from us matters. At the moment what they are hearing from parliament is that their love is not equal and is not good enough. When we know that same-sex attracted people have at least four times the risk of committing suicide as the remainder of the community and that that number grows the further out from the cities and into the country you go, it is absolutely critical that we in parliament do everything we can to say to every member of the community, 'You are valued and your love is equal.'
One only needs to look at the arguments against marriage equality to understand the futility of standing in the way of change. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the proponents for the status quo said, 'Marriage should be between a man and a woman and it should be for life.' When we responded, surely people should be able to have no-fault divorce, they said, 'No, that's when the rot sets in.' It is that attitude—the fact that people who are opposing this either say there should never be any change or say, 'We do not agree with homosexual and lesbian relationships'—which shows there is no rational argument for opposing these bills. However, we have a situation where on one side of the House there is a split and on the other side of the House they are not even able to exercise their freedom of speech and vote according to their conscience.
It is for that reason that, as will be seen from the additional comments, I will not be suggesting that my bill goes to a vote soon. We need more time to make sure this reform happens. At a minimum—and I call on all members who are moving bills to adopt this position—we need the Leader of the Opposition to grant members on his side a conscience vote. That way we will see reform in the time of this parliament. (Time expired)
by leave—I table the explanatory memorandum and statement of compatibility of my bill to the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. I do not wish to speak on the matter.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
It is with great pleasure that I introduce the Protecting Local Jobs (Regulating Enterprise Migration Agreements) Bill 2012. We hear a lot about how the mining boom is creating wealth and jobs, but we need to talk more and do more about distributing these benefits in an equitable and sustainable way. There are some large numbers associated with the mining boom. The Governor of the RBA, Glenn Stevens, in his recent speech 'The glass half full', alluded to the following dramatic statistics:
… mining investment has recently been rising at an extraordinary pace. In 2005, mining investment was near its long-run average of around 2 per cent of GDP. By mid 2014 we expect it to reach at least 9 per cent of GDP. If that occurs, mining investment will be about as large as business investment in the rest of the private economy combined.
But the rise of the mining industry is neither inexorable nor universally beneficial. Australia export large quantities of iron ore and coal, but we also export a lot of dividend payments. In 2009-10 mining profits were $51 billion, of which 83 per cent, or $42 billion, accrued to foreign investors. Over the next 10 years, pre-tax profits for mining will probably be around $600 billion. At present levels of foreign ownership, around $500 billion of these profits will end up in the hands of overseas owners.
ABS figures show that in February 2012 total mining employment was 250,000, in a workforce of over 11 million. In other words, mining employs just around two per cent of the Australian workforce. Mining is, in fact, one of the smallest sectoral employers in the country. The Greens believe it is important to ensure that local workers are given the first opportunity to benefit from these jobs and that if overseas workers are used we make sure that those workers get their full wages and entitlements. This bill is one of several measures that the Greens have proposed to ensure that, as far as possible, all Australians share in the benefits of the boom.
In accordance with the original Treasury recommendations, the Greens would have improved, and will continue to seek to improve, the MRRT to ensure that by 2020 about $100 billion additional revenue will be collected, making it available for measures such as health, education, dental care and the infrastructure that the country will need for the future, when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging. The Greens proposed a sovereign wealth fund to help save for the future, but when it came to a vote the government and the coalition were not even prepared to have the Productivity Commission look at the feasibility of establishing such a fund.
This bill will help to ensure that large resource projects can only use skilled migration when all other avenues have been exhausted. Where EMAs are used, the bill will require high levels of compliance with workplace laws to ensure that all workers are protected. Disadvantaged groups will also be given priority for training and employment opportunities, and employers who use EMAs may be required to contribute to training for workers in the wider community.
As we saw recently, the current arrangements for EMAs do not meet community expectations. I agree with the Australian Council of Trade Unions that the current guidelines for EMAs fall short in a number of important respects, including, firstly, there being no guarantee that local workers have enforceable first rights to all jobs on EMA and projects and, secondly, that there is a lack of transparency regarding the contents of EMAs. This bill addresses those concerns. It improves the regulation of EMAs by putting them into legislation that sets out better processes for their establishment and ensures greater transparency for their operation. The bill will create a framework for enterprise migration agreements to ensure such agreements are used only where genuinely necessary and do not adversely affect local job opportunities. The bill will require employers to advertise jobs to locals before they can get an EMA. It will also require a local jobs board listing of those jobs in the resources sector to be maintained by the workplace relations minister. I acknowledge that after quite a long time in gestation such a board has been recently established by the government, but this bill will ensure that it stays in operation and will give it some legislative clout.
The current and future skills needs for Australia should be met through a considered approach that includes support for training and retraining of existing workers, labour market planning and forecasting linked to industry planning, and the use of skilled migration where appropriate. But skilled migration should never be a substitute for properly investing in and training the local workforce. It should be supplementary to locals skilled through domestic education and training. We should also aim to increase participation of those who continue to be under-represented in the workforce. This bill will help increase that participation.
The Greens support the making of EMAs only where every effort has been made to recruit locally. Where an EMA is established it should include a local jobs plan for the future, with a particular focus on training to be provided by EMA proponents. The plan should demonstrate how the project will reduce reliance on overseas labour by targeting training at those occupations in short supply. Unlike the current situation, responsibility for making an EMA will now legislatively rest with the immigration minister and the workplace relations minister to ensure coordination between these important portfolios.
The bill also sets out various conditions that can be included when an EMA is made. The workplace relations minister can require that the EMA participant concerned employs a specified number of Australian residents on the resource project concerned, including persons from one or more of the following groups: people living near the project, people who have been recently retrenched, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities with high rates of unemployment, people from Indigenous groups and people from regions with high rates of unemployment. The workplace relations minister can also require that the EMA participant concerned provides specified training to persons employed on the project. In addition it can also be a requirement that the EMA participant concerned provides, or contributes to, training for Australian residents other than those employed under the EMA.
The workplace relations minister must also be satisfied that the EMA participant concerned has complied, and will continue to comply, with workplace laws. This is to ensure that all workers employed under EMAs are employed under the same wages, conditions and OHS standards as other workers. We have laws to protect everybody who works in Australia and we must ensure that these laws are enforced regardless of where people come from. This is an important point. Currently there is an economic incentive to employ people from overseas because the likelihood of someone from overseas knowing their full rights and then knowing how to insist on them is less than in an Australian workforce, especially an Australian unionised workforce. To that end, I am pleased to note that my colleague Senator Richard Di Natale will be moving in the Senate to have Australia ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
This debate about EMAs does not need to be an either/or debate that pits various groups of workers against one another. What we do need to do is take greater steps to ensure that when people are working on remote projects and come to this country without an understanding of the minimum rights they are entitled to under the legal system the government takes extra steps to ensure that those people have full rights and know how to enforce them.
Lastly, this bill will require a copy of an EMA to be tabled in each House of the parliament as soon as practicable after it has been made. Transparency is not, and should never be, just be an esoteric principle—it should be practiced wherever possible. More information leads to better debate, which leads to better outcomes. As we have seen in the context of the recent Roy Hill EMA, a number of claims have been made about what is in that EMA and its benefits for the local population. Until copies of the EMA are made public and available to be tested, we will never know whether or not these agreements are delivering the benefits that they are said to. It should be very clear to an EMA seeker or participant that, if they want to get one of these EMAs, part of the condition for that is that the EMA will be made public and will need to be defended publicly.
The measures set out in this bill will ensure more job opportunities for locals and disadvantaged groups, more training for the future and more protection for those workers who bring their skills to Australia. Where EMAs are used, they will be based on genuine need and established through transparent processes. This bill is another step towards sharing the benefits of the boom, and I commend it to the House.
In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise to speak on the amendments to the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011. These amendments result from wide-ranging consultations with people involved in the aircraft industry. Following the second reading speech on this bill in October last year, I made a commitment to consult, and that process was undertaken. I will go through in a reasonably logical order, I hope, some of those changes that have taken place.
Section 10AA revolves around the need to consult and cooperate. The need for effective public consultation to become a legislative requirement is really partly the main reason for bring forward this bill. It is that requirement and the fact that Airservices Australia needs to improve its complaints reporting process that gave rise to this bill. The bill seeks to ensure that a detailed commentary on complaints is reflected in Airservices' annual reports, along with the efficiency and effectiveness of the complaints process. Following consultations, the word 'widely', though, has been deleted from section 10AA.
During the second reading the member for Makin and the member for La Trobe suggested that changes already implemented as a result of the white paper on these matters are addressing the issues this bill seeks to enact; however, not all communities are satisfied with the current consultation process. I would contend that, if the government has already made these changes, this legislation now seeks to enshrine those changes in an act of parliament so that in future they are not matters left to the whim of a particular minister or, indeed, to the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, whoever that might be, and therefore there can be no rational argument for opposition to this bill.
In relation to section 10A, 'consulting with communities', the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has a provision requiring Airservices Australia to obtain the environment minister's advice where changes to flight paths are likely to have any environmental impact. It was originally intended for the bill to include the words 'likely to significantly affect individuals' enjoyment of their place of residence'. In my view there is a need to do something about the trigger for referral under the EPBC Act, but clearly at this time the bill would not have the wide support it needs without deleting these words. It is a matter that should, though, be revisited in the future, as Airservices currently self-assess whether a change to air flight paths should trigger a referral, and history shows that it rarely, if ever, happens.
In terms of the trigger for public consultation, there was widespread concern that the definition 'any' with regard to changes to flight paths in the original bill was too wide and that it may capture minor track changes necessary for day-to-day operations due to weather or other conditions. This was never the intent of the original bill. However, in an endeavour to allay any concerns, we have proposed to narrow the scope of changes which must be referred for a public consultation process. This necessitates using the word 'significant' to define the changes which can trigger the requirement for public consultation.
Decisions about the future of air flight paths must be reached in an open and publicly accountable manner. The public has a right to expect a consistent and fair approach to decision making. They have a right to be informed of proposals and actual significant changes. That is why this bill also requires Airservices Australia to conduct a new public consultation process following the changes made in Perth in 2008. On their own admission, Airservices agree that the public consultations for the Western Australian Route Review Project—or WARRP, as it is called—was poorly managed, and the newly appointed ombudsman has had something to say about that process as well.
Section 6, dealing with board appointments, has been deleted as it was not generally supported, although it was a recommendation in the Senate report. It has been argued that since the WARRP failures, the government has appointed an ombudsman and established new community aviation consultation groups—and this is a fact; the government has—but I have to say that there are still some public reservations about the operation of the new consultative groups and the independence of the ombudsman. The previous consultative group in Perth, which was called PANMAC—Perth Airport Noise Management Committee—failed, not due to the people who were on it, but due to a lack of quality information, the lack of quality of interpretation of information and the withholding of information. These consultation groups are only as good as the information they receive and their ability to interpret and translate it, and that is a strong reason for the appointment of an adviser—an issue which I will get to shortly.
On section 74A, dealing with complaints reporting, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report recommended an independent ombudsman for aircraft noise matters. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's policy is to encourage the development of a quick and effective complaint handling practice. The bill requires Airservices Australia to advise parties during consultations that they are subject to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. We welcome the appointment of the ombudsman as it is assisting to deal with some of those complaints. The complaint system previously was appallingly managed. The new Ombudsman, Mr Ron Brent, has had quite a bit to say about the problems with that complaint process. Airservices Australia maintains that it has worked to improve its complaint-handling processes since the events of 2008 and that these measures are unnecessary. This being the case—if it has been fixed and the new approach is working—I cannot see any reason why we should not enshrine these principles in this legislation so that there will not be a repeat of the failures clearly evident in the WARRP in 2008.
On another matter—this is aside from the amendments but goes to the heart of them—an article by Andrew Cleary in the Australian Financial Review on 24 May 2012 reported Mr Alan Joyce, Chief Executive of Qantas, as warning that growth of Perth Airport was being hampered and that there was the potential that a federal bill introducing restrictions on curfews and flight paths at the facility would be a real threat to the development of WA and Perth. He said this bill should be stopped. This bill makes no mention of curfews and it does nothing to restrict flight paths, so that reporting is clearly inaccurate.
Section 160A includes provisions for the appointment of an independent adviser when a significant change to air flight paths is proposed, to ensure that the situation that arose during WARRP does not arise again. During the consultation period it is reasonable for groups such as community aviation consultative groups to have access to expert independent advice on what the proposed changes mean. As I said before, poor information-sharing and the use of technical language not understood by non-air movement specialists led to the very unsatisfactory public consultations in Perth during WARRP.
An advocate was used in Sydney and, although Airservices Australia maintains that it did not work well, discussions with the former Sydney aircraft noise advocate and other people strongly suggest that it did work. I thank the member for Bennelong for facilitating a meeting in Sydney to discuss this matter. Under the Constitution and standing orders, private members bills are not permitted to increase any appropriation for government expenditure. But the adviser can be paid for from a department's general appropriation, so such a provision would be constitutionally valid.
Once again I would like to thank my colleagues and the many other people who have continued to work with us to improve this bill—in particular, the shadow minister the Hon. Warren Truss, the member for Bennelong and the co-sponsor of this bill the member for Swan, Mr Steve Irons.
I rise to speak on the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 to highlight a range of government initiatives significantly improving aircraft noise management around Australia's airports. I do so as a member with the Canberra airport in my electorate. In rising, I acknowledge the hard work being done by the Canberra airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the surrounding suburbs. As a father of two little boys who enjoy looking up in the sky and seeing aeroplanes flying overhead, I am aware that my views on aircraft are probably different from those of many of my constituents who, while aircraft noise is not as severe in Canberra as in other cities, do note the impact of aircraft. I am in ongoing conversations with Canberra airport to make sure the impact of aircraft noise on Canberrans is minimised.
In the aviation white paper of December 2009, the government set out a path for improving the management of aircraft noise around Australia's airports. As Australia's first ever comprehensive national aviation policy statement it identified solutions and the industry's current challenges and aimed to guide its growth over the coming two decades. The white paper was the product of more than 18 months of consultations and there were hundreds of submissions made during that process. Prior to the release of the aviation white paper in 2009, the government released an issues paper in April 2008 and a green paper in December 2008.
Federal Labor has a strong record on aircraft noise. One of the important decisions we have made since coming to office was to ban the older, noisy jet aircraft, such as the hush kitted Boeing 727s, from Australia's major airports because they contributed to unacceptable levels of noise around those airports. The government gave effect for amendments to the aircraft noise regulations in May 2010. From 1 July 2010, no new services using those types of aircraft were allowed in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns, Gold Coast, Essendon, Newcastle, Williamstown, Avalon and Canberra airports. From 1 September 2010 all existing services using those hush kitted Boeing 727s ceased at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
The white paper also recognised airport operations have a major impact on community. Issues such as aircraft noise, traffic congestion and pressure on public transport all require cooperative management between airport operators, all levels of government and local communities. I am very much aware of that in the ACT, where the federal government in the latest budget put $144 million into the Majura Parkway, an arterial road that will link up the Federal Highway to the Canberra airport thereby minimising the impact of the airport on traffic congestion. That will be the largest road building project in the ACT's history. I am pleased that the ACT government has contributed fifty-fifty to that road building project, setting, I think, a good standard for other states and territories. There has been a positive response to the government's initiatives from the community and the aviation industry. Airservices Australia, our national air traffic services provider, and industry continue to express concerns over this private member's bill, even as amended. In response to the aviation white paper, the 19 federally leased airports have established local, independently chaired Community Aviation Consultation Groups to help discuss and examine a range of community related issues, including aircraft noise. These are now underway at all 19 airports.
Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented and is actively briefing all of these groups. These local groups are helping to address planning and development issues and a range of other operational matters such as aircraft noise, allowing parties to exchange information and examine concerns raised by residents. Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented on all of these groups.
Coalition members are attending these groups: the member for McPherson has attended the Gold Coast consultative group; and the member for Herbert has attended the Townsville consultative group. Of particular note for the member for Pearce, is the establishment of the Perth Community Aviation Consultation Group and the healthy engagement by a diversity of people on that committee.
Another key white paper initiative was the establishment of an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman to examine and make recommendations about noise complaint and information handling issues. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, respected former Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Ron Brent, is already making a difference. For example, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's 2011 report on complaints handling made 18 specific recommendations for improvement, all of which Airservices Australia is implementing. Similarly, Airservices Australia has accepted the seven recommendations made from the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's review on noise information and complaint resolution for Perth completed in November 2011.
This government has strengthened the environmental focus of Airservices Australia. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided a strategic direction to the Airservices board last year under section 17 of the act, which requires that Airservices effectively consult with the community on any significant developments or changes to its services.
The Airservices Australia board has itself responded by setting up a dedicated board environmental subcommittee. There are also sound governance provisions in place for Airservices Australia, including corporate plan provisions requiring the board to consider the government's objectives, which include assisting the implementation of environmental initiatives in relation to aircraft noise management.
Another white paper commitment is the planning coordination forums which are underway at every major capital city passenger airport. These are the vehicle for constructive, ongoing dialogue on matters such as master plans, proposed on-airport developments, regional planning initiatives and off-airport matters.
Minimising the impact of aircraft noise is a joint responsibility of airports and local planning authorities. It matters for long-term planning in our major cities that developments do not proceed where they will lead to public safety risks or unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. That is why the government has engaged with all states and territories to develop a set of principles for safeguarding airports from inappropriate developments in surrounding areas.
We are not aiming to constrain development but to make sure that airport and government planners work together more constructively than they have in the past, that, through the Community Aviation Consultation Groups, there is now an independent ombudsman to direct further difficulties to, and that Airservices Australia are being proactive in their engagement with communities.
It is in this context that we must question the value of the member for Pearce's bill. Compared with ongoing government aircraft noise initiatives, the bill offers a ministerially imposed, taxpayer funded community adviser scheme with the potential to make community consultation more polarised. It also proposes a reopening of established, safe flight paths at Perth and unwieldy and unnecessary additional consultation and reporting arrangements.
Lessons have been learnt on better consultation on complex air traffic issues, since air traffic changes were made to address emerging safety issues in 2008. These air traffic changes were approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and since then Airservices Australia has carried out a post-implementation review of the changes to see where improvements can be made to assist in reducing impacts on the community.
This government has established a strong platform for better aircraft noise management and consultation arrangements at our airports. We have put a white paper together when those opposite had over 10 years to do something. The frustrations around this bill were created a long time before we come to government, and the government's aviation white paper set out the initiatives for better consultation and better information to the community in relation to air traffic and aircraft noise management issues. This is exactly what is being delivered through the work of the Community Aviation Consultative Groups, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and the increased engagement of Airservices, airport and airline operators.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to the global economy.
Leave granted.
It has been my practice since the darkest days of the global financial crisis to keep the House updated on international developments and their implications for Australia. I do so today in the shadows of Greek elections overnight, just shortly before the Prime Minister meets with G20 leaders in Los Cabos. While we do not yet know the full implications of the results coming out of Greece, we do know that the G20 summit about to get underway is held at a time of heightened uncertainty in the global economy.
The Prime Minister and I have written to our counterparts outlining the need for Europe to take decisive action to stabilise their financial system and move towards deeper financial and fiscal union. All G20 members need to support growth and jobs, including through structural reforms, while putting their fiscal positions on a sustainable path. But we must be honest about the magnitude of the challenges facing Europe in particular, which no one meeting can fix entirely on its own.
I noted in the budget papers that the European economy as a whole was expected to contract in 2012 and that a re-escalation of the European sovereign debt crisis was the key risk to the global recovery. And despite a period of relative calm on global financial markets in the early months of this year, this was never going to mark the end of the global volatility. Recently, the tempo of global turbulence has risen again, this time triggered by the Greek elections and concerns around the Spanish banking sector.
Global and European o utlook
The focus is obviously on Greece today. Adjustments necessary in Greece were always going to be difficult, with a disenchanted populace experiencing their fifth year of economic recession. The official outcome of the Greek election will not be known with any certainty today. But whatever the outcome, it is important that Greece's political parties quickly undertake coalition discussions and form a stable government.
We know that fear of contagion from Greece has already put upward pressure on government financing costs across many parts of Europe. Spain has also come under increasing pressure to address the substantial weaknesses in its financial sector, while at the same time meeting its ambitious fiscal targets. I welcome the support euro area finance ministers are providing to Spain to bolster their ailing banks, but it is crucial that further details of the package are released as soon as possible. While Greece and Spain have become the recent focus of Europe's distress, we should be under no illusions about the deep-seated challenges that confront Europe more broadly. Weak financial systems and fiscal positions continue to feed off each other at the expense of confidence and growth, and there has been insufficient political accord to make changes that are urgently needed. For the European project to prevail, what is needed is a pan-European approach that, once and for all, addresses the crisis. This type of unified approach must no longer be seen as a move that will threaten the individual interests of any one country, because the interests of each and every country within the euro area depend critically on the strength of the euro area as a whole. Only by moving forward with fiscal and political integration can Europe be saved. Europe needs to outline and, more importantly, deliver credible fiscal plans—policies that in the short run boost consumption and investment, and in the long run make budgets sustainable.
Good examples bring forward infrastructure projects that create jobs and demand in the short run, and add to productive capacity in the long run—precisely the type of investment that this government has persisted with, even at the height of the global crisis. The idea that you must choose between growth and fiscal consolidation is false. You can have growth then consolidation, so long as your plans are achievable and believable. The Australian pro-jobs, pro-growth model, with a well-anchored medium-term fiscal framework, is proof of that fact. By supporting growth in the face of the worst global recession in 80 years, we have emerged from the crisis in a position of strength that is virtually unrivalled. And by setting out a strict fiscal approach from day one, we are also returning to surplus ahead of all major advanced economies.
Rest of the w orld
Against the backdrop of severe weakness in Europe, the United States economy continues to grow at a modest pace, though it has yet to achieve a self-sustaining recovery. GDP growth has improved since its soft patch in mid-2011, the unemployment rate has trended downwards, and even housing market indicators are registering tentative signs of improvement.
While these signs are encouraging, there is still underlying weakness in US labour and housing markets, and the US recovery remains vulnerable to further fallout in Europe. With much of Europe in recession and US growth still modest, the global recovery will continue to rely on emerging markets, particularly those in Asia. On IMF estimates, emerging economies contributed more than three-quarters of global growth in 2011, and this is expected to continue over the next two years. China has continued to grow at a robust, but more sustainable pace. Chinese policymakers are well-placed, if necessary, to use a range of policy tools, fiscal and monetary, to support growth—and indeed China has recently taken steps to do so.
We have seen this, for instance, through decisions by the Chinese government to speed up approval processes and bring forward infrastructure projects earmarked in the 12th five-year plan. Monetary policy has also been eased, including a reduction in the amount of funds that commercial banks must keep in reserve and a cut in the benchmark lending rate.
Australia
Amid the economic volatility now engulfing the world, Australia is recognised the world over as a beacon of strength, stability and resilience. The most recent data showcases our strong economic fundamentals that put our economy in a league of its own. Over the past year GDP grew by 4.3 per cent, the fastest pace in over four years.
We are officially growing faster than any of the major advanced economies and we are projected to outperform these economies over the next two years. While many advanced economies are not even back at the starting line yet, our economy is almost 10 per cent larger than it was just before the global financial crisis broke. Since this government came to office, over 800,000 jobs have been created. At the same time around 27 million jobs have been lost across the world.
These results have been made possible by the government's decisions to support our economy and jobs at a turbulent time. Our fiscal stimulus shielded our economy from the worst of the global recession, and our credible strategy to return the budget to surplus has underpinned the confidence that financial markets have in Australia. And in the face of rugged global circumstances we have not ignored or overlooked important investments in our productive capacity. Together, we have won the confidence and respect of the world through our actions and our resilience.
Confidence in our fiscal management is a key reason behind Australia receiving a AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies, for the first time in our history. Confidence in our financial system has ensured that Australian banks remain some of the most secure and highest-rated in the world. And confidence in the Australian economy has seen our pipeline of resources investment grow to a staggering half a trillion dollars. Over half of these projects are at an advanced stage, which provides a bedrock of support for our economy in uncertain times.
Of course, just as Australia has not been unaffected by global developments to date, we are not immune from a further deterioration in global conditions. While our economy walks tall, difficult global conditions have weighed on sentiment and demand for some of our exports, and we have seen the impact of global turbulence on our share market. Consumers are also more reluctant to take on debt, and this has contributed to subdued conditions in our housing market. And while some industries are booming, global headwinds have made it harder for some sectors already struggling from a high dollar and broader structural transitions underway in our economy.
We know there is some anxiety in our community during these times of economic turmoil abroad and structural change at home. But Australians can take great confidence in our rock-solid economic fundamentals and our standout performance in these testing times. Right now we have the best combination of impressive growth, low unemployment, contained inflation, strong public finances, low interest rates and a record pipeline of investment. We are only one of eight countries in the world to receive a AAA credit rating with a stable outlook from all three global ratings agencies. And during this difficult chapter for our global economy, there is an even greater responsibility of each and every member of this House to acknowledge the great strengths of our economy, our people and our businesses.
Conclusion
I accept that there will be continuing volatility from Europe for some time yet, but I do not accept that the pace and scale of action to address this has been adequate. As the Prime Minister gathers with our G20 colleagues in Mexico, the clear message that she and I have conveyed to our European colleagues is that we all have a responsibility to put world growth on a stronger and more sustainable path. And we will continue to remain closely engaged with our international counterparts to reinforce the strengths of the Australian economy and our region—a message I conveyed over the weekend to the managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. We will continue to confront new challenges and opportunities with the same spirit of energy and resilience that our country is proudly known for.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.
Question agreed to.
We in the coalition fully appreciate that the global economy is delicately poised, not only with headwinds from Europe but also with moderating growth in the United States and some recent signs of a slowing in China. We also recognise that Australia's economy is not immune to the impacts of the global situation. Where the coalition differs from the government is in the approach that should be taken to respond to these challenges.
The Acting Prime Minister has advised the House that he and the Prime Minister have written to their European counterparts telling them of the need to stabilise their financial situation and put their fiscal positions onto a sustainable path. Well, this will hardly come as news to European leaders! I do not think European leaders will be dropping everything to read Prime Minister Gillard's letter. It was only last November that the Prime Minister was lecturing G20 leaders in France on concerns about European financial stability and on the need to act. That lecture had no discernible impact on recent decisions by European leaders, and it is clear that they would not pay any greater attention to our Prime Minister giving her new lecture—and I do not think the Treasurer of Australia will make any difference either.
We in the coalition suggest that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should do less in the way of ink-based diplomacy, lecturing the Europeans with vague generalities about what their countries should do, and spend more time focusing on addressing the vulnerabilities which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have themselves created in the Australian economy—vulnerabilities exposing our economy in the event of a further downturn in the developed-world economy.
For the past few years, we in the coalition have been warning repeatedly of the risks that will face the Australian economy in the event of another global shock or a decline in our sky-high terms of trade. We have consistently urged the government to take the hard decisions to prepare our economy for volatile times. Unfortunately, these warnings have not been heeded by this government that has run out of ideas.
In the past few weeks we have received the news that growth in the March quarter was stronger than expected and that employment rose in May. We welcome the good news—although it is good news that comes through the rear-vision mirror. For example, it is notable that the rise in jobs in May was a reflection of the fact that we have had job growth at less than half what the Treasurer originally predicted when he boasted in the 2011-12 budget of 500,000 jobs being created over the next two years. Given that there were no new net jobs created—for the first time in nearly 20 years—in 2011, it was a pleasing outcome for May.
The more important point is that the labour market is a lagging indicator of the state of the economy. The March quarter growth figure tells us what was happening in the period three to six months ago. We now need to be focused on how the economy is travelling going forward. On that score, the Reserve Bank, which of course is forward-looking with monetary policy, has just cut the cash rate by 75 basis points over the last two months. At the same time, its accompanying statements have warned of a deterioration in financial market sentiment, of share market declines, of ongoing precautionary behaviour by households, and of further weakness in the housing market.
Then in the past 10 days we have also had current reads on both business and consumer sentiment. On the business side, the NAB monthly survey for May recorded sharp falls in business confidence and conditions, taking both back to below average levels. And on the consumer side, the Westpac sentiment index showed essentially no change in May or June from its weak levels, despite 75 basis points of cash rate cuts and a slew of government cash splashes.
It seems businesses are not impressed with a government that turns on a dime in changing its policies, including on the policy on company tax cuts, which it promised for two years and then dumped in the budget. And then, in a whimsical thought, the Prime Minister announced the other day that those cuts were back on the agenda, even though there is no money in the budget for them.
It seems consumers are not impressed with the government's attempts to buy their votes with handouts. Instead, they remain worried by this government's lack of any coherent economic strategy to lift growth, boost jobs and restore confidence. A lady came up to me last Saturday and said, 'Joe, why would I borrow money against any future earnings I have in this environment? With a government that seems to tax things out of the blue, with what is happening overseas, and with the instability in Canberra, why would I take the risk of borrowing money against any income I might get next year, and in subsequent years, to buy a home?' She said, 'I'm sitting on it. I'm sitting on what I have and, frankly, if I'm not going backwards in this environment, then I'm doing quite well.' I suppose that vox pop, if you like, in so many ways encapsulates the vulnerability this government has created.
It is not negativity from us—they keep talking about our negativity. I do not write the speeches or press releases for the head of Glencore, the head of BHP or the head of Harvey Norman. We do not write the press releases or media statements for Gerry Harvey or John Singleton. These people are at the coalface saying it is not as good as Labor say. In fact, the government are making it far worse by flip-flopping on policy and changing policy. There is no better example than the carbon tax, which so many of us are familiar with. And there are so many others, right back from 2008, when they changed employee share scheme arrangements and flip-flopped on that. They have flip-flopped on the mining tax over the years.
They flip-flopped on withholding tax. That is a classic example which will be before the House soon. The government said they wanted to reduce withholding tax in Australia and in 2008 they reduced it from around 30 per cent to 7½ per cent to encourage foreign investment, particularly in commercial real estate. The coalition praised them for reducing the tax. Now the government say they are going to increase it from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent, which in itself leaves people confused. They thought there was a downward trend in relation to the tax but now the government are doubling it. Yet the government wonder why the world is so concerned about the sovereign risk in Australia.
Then there is the narrative from the government about the economy. The Treasurer does not talk about the 'patchwork economy' anymore, because he is making it harder not easier. They are making it harder for manufacturing by imposing a carbon tax on energy, which directly affects the value-add associated with manufacturing. Then, of all things, they go ahead and massively increase the passenger movement charge on the tourist industry, which they say has been going through such difficult times.
International investors are wondering what the hell this government is about. It seems to think that the best way to make people more prosperous is to increase their taxes. This is the logic of Labor's economic narrative. I say, quite frankly, it is no wonder that when the rest of the world gets a letter from Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan they talk about it. The Prime Minister has said they are talking about that letter. I bet they are talking about that letter! They are rolling around in the aisles having a good giggle at that letter, because they are getting an economic lecture from Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan. The lecture is about how to be austere, how to live within your means. They are getting that from the Labor government of Australia and I bet they are they talking about that letter.
What matters is not just where all the risks to our economy come from but how we have prepared ourselves to deal with the risks. We remember the government's response to the collapse of Lehman Brothers after denying that there was any issue during the early part of 2008—in fact, declaring war on inflation and urging the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates at exactly the wrong time, the beginning of 2008. We remember this. We also remember that they inherited a situation where net debt did not exist—in fact, there was money in the bank. They inherited a strong surplus. The budget had recorded its fourth surplus in a row of 1½ per cent or more of GDP, and its tenth surplus of 12, under John Howard and Peter Costello.
We are not in that position today. As we stand before the House, the budget deficit has increased to $44 billion this year. Let us talk about what it actually is, not what the government are promising. They are promising a surplus that, looking at their form, they will never deliver. In the current year they said there would be a $22 billion deficit and now we have a $44 billion deficit. They are cooking the books in order to promise a surplus next year. The Greeks got themselves into a bit of trouble cooking the figures. We are not on anything like that scale, but the truth is that if you include the NBN expenditure and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation then we are running a deficit. And the debt ceiling is increasing from $250 billion to $300 billion. The Prime Minister is giving the Europeans a lecture about austerity when she is increasing the debt limit of the Commonwealth government from $250 billion to $300 billion in a year when the government are promising a surplus.
Having more front than Myer, our Prime Minister is seeking to give the rest of the world a lecture. I say to our Prime Minister, 'Remind the world of where it all started: with a surplus, money in the bank and good consistent government that delivered stability and certainty.' (Time expired)
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's advisory report on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—I am pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services June 2012 report on its inquiry into the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012. These amendments are part of the SuperStream package of measures designed to enhance the back office of superannuation. The superannuation industry is currently dominated by a large number of paper transactions that are very inefficient for both processing costs and the time taken for transactions to occur and superannuation to be deposited in members' accounts. Members of superannuation funds and employers will both benefit from these changes, and it is estimated that the SuperStream measures are expected to save $1 billion in processing costs per year, which is quite a significant improvement. When averaged over the 33 million superannuation accounts, this translates to a saving in the order of $30 per account. Research undertaken by the Financial Services Council estimated that the reforms would deliver savings of up to $20 billion by 2020.
The cost for implementing the SuperStream reform is $470 million over seven years. This will be paid by a SuperStream levy on Australian Prudential Regulation Authority regulated funds. Echoing the words of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, if you averaged the full levy increase of $121 million to apply in 2012-13 across the approximate 33 million accounts existing today, the cost is roughly in the order of $4 per account. Just to put on the record why it is that we are in this position, I want to record today what it is that the Financial Services Council described as the journey to the point we have reached. They stated:
Over the past decade, the industry has endeavoured to agree on a set of data standards for managing transaction between entities; however, we lack the capacity to compel external stakeholders and sometimes our own stakeholders to comply with industry developed standards. The introduction of these compulsory standards is therefore a welcome development as it will standardise processes for employers and funds in dealing with one another.
These comments about the need for leadership in this area and acknowledgement of the leadership shown by this Labor Gillard government are very much worth putting on the record here today. Further, I would like to record into Hansard the comments of Mr Murray who is the principal adviser on superannuation in Treasury and Mr Olesen, the deputy commissioner of superannuation at the Australian Taxation Office, who made the following comments. Mr Murray stated:
The background to these measures is that the superannuation industry has been trying for a considerable number of years to establish its own common standards and address these issues. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the industry has been unable to come to any agreement. The outcome of that has been a considerable number of different processes among the funds, there are considerable deadweight costs in the industry and they have these provisions for different requirements. The government has therefore been required to come in and become the decision-maker, to take control and push these reforms through, because unfortunately, to date, industry has not been able to come to an agreement itself.
Mr Olesen said:
I think the industry have tried at various times to develop some common data standards to use, but ultimately they have not been successful—hence, the government has taken these reforms.
I certainly stand here as a very proud member of the reforms that this government has undertaken in a range of fields but none are more important to so many Australians than this field of superannuation and financial services.
In terms of governance, the committee acknowledges that industry is seeking assurances that a sound governance framework is established to support SuperStream measures. To help usher in the changes contained in these bills the government has announced the establishment of the SuperStream Advisory Council, and two weeks ago we called for nominations from industry participants to be part of that council. This is another indication of how well this government is working with key stakeholders to make sure that we come up with policies and governance structures that advance the interests of all Australians and that we do it together. It stands in stark contrast to the carping negativity—the aggressive negativity—of those opposite.
To support that process further, a consultation paper has also been released. This paper has been met with approval by industry participants and underlines the government's commitment to working with the sector in implementing these important changes. The committee is assured that the governance framework provided through the SuperStream Advisory Council will provide an appropriate forum for industry members to speak to government on these reforms.
With regard to the levy, the committee heard from some industry participants who expressed concern not about the scale of the levy but about how the levy would be spent. These concerns, in the committee's view, are very reasonable. The committee recommends measures that the Treasury has advanced. These measures are to encourage dialogue with industry on the costs of the SuperStream levy through the release of its discussion paper. We certainly as a committee encourage the industry to use this avenue to further discuss the detail of the high-level deliverables on SuperStream that were released by Treasury during the course of this inquiry.
The committee also notes that the levy is subject to annual review and should be adjusted when appropriate. However, to address industry concerns further, the committee also considers it highly appropriate that the Australian Taxation Office provide a regular detailed breakdown of costs and expenditure of the additional levies to the SuperStream Advisory Council. These would be based on reporting guidelines obviously developed in consultation between the council and the ATO.
I would like to underline the benefits that these changes will bring. In evidence to this committee, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees focused on very significant productivity gains that this legislation will bring for industry and employers both large and small. Anything that supports productivity is something that this government is committed to assisting. The institute suggested that they expect savings of approximately 20 per cent in administration costs in the long term for the superannuation industry. That is quite a significant saving.
The committee is encouraged by the efforts already undertaken by the industry to adopt the SuperStream measures and to improve efficiencies in the administration of superannuation for the benefit of all employers and superannuation members—my fellow Australians. The committee also commends the extensive consultation and collaboration between industry and government officials that has taken place.
by leave—I too am pleased to speak to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' June 2012 report on its inquiry into the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012. I am pleased to note that there is no dissenting report from this inquiry. The coalition is broadly supportive of any approach that reduces the administrative costs on employers and superannuation funds. Coming as I do from a background in the telecommunications industry, an industry which is characterised by extensive transmission of data between different players using information technology—including, for example, the mobile number portability arrangements under which end users can have their number moved from one telecommunications carrier to another within a matter of hours using extensive and efficient transmission of data—I was somewhat surprised to discover that in the superannuation sector there is still very heavy use of paper based transactions. The inefficiencies which result from that are clear to any Australian who has ever sought to move their superannuation balance from one provider to another. Therefore, the fundamental rationale underpinning this bill is one that the coalition supports.
However, it is not correct to say the coalition has no concerns about the way the legislation has been framed, and I want, in the brief time available to me, to highlight a couple of points that were made in the committee report, noting again that it is a joint report and the concerns were therefore, to that extent, shared by all members of the committee.
The first thing I want to highlight is that the bill is riddled with strict liability provisions. Unsurprisingly, a number of submitters to the committee raised concerns about the compliance regime. The Financial Services Council, for example, submitted that the proposed compliance measures for SuperStream are 'overly severe' and suggested that the penalty regime be reconsidered.
A particular concern which emerged during the committee's deliberations was the potential for the impact upon employers, and particularly small employers, given the nature of these strict liability provisions. Consider, for example, the position of a small business owner who is diligently seeking to discharge her obligations to pay superannuation for a handful of employees. She pays the amount required and pays it on time. However, the effect of the strict liability provisions in this bill is that, if this small business owner fails to include all of the items of data that are required under the standards, it is open to the regulator to prosecute her. Because the provisions are strict liability, it is not a defence for her to say that she thought that she was doing the right thing and that it was an inadvertent mistake born of the complexity of the reporting requirements. The Australian Taxation Office confirmed during the committee proceedings that this was certainly possible under the legislation as drafted.
It was somewhat pleasing to note the advice of the Australian Taxation Office that it has some administrative flexibility to waive or limit penalties where employers attempt to comply with the data standards but commit inadvertent technical breaches. However, the coalition will be keeping a close eye on the conduct of the Australian Taxation Office as regulator to ensure that its actual behaviour is as understanding as the assurances that it gave to the committee.
The other matter that I would like to address is one that was also addressed by the member for Robertson: the size of the levy which is being imposed upon industry participants to pay for the IT, information technology, changes that are required to give effect to these arrangements. The coalition is concerned about the size of this levy. The parties who appeared before the committee raised substantial concerns about how much money is being levied. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees indicated at the hearing that the levy will mean a lot of short-term pain for a long-term gain.
To date there has not been enough information provided by either Treasury or the Australian Taxation Office about how the money will be spent and why the amount is so large. The peak body of the superannuation funds, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, indicated that the amount that they, in their own experience, have spent developing complex IT systems is of much smaller magnitude than the sums which the Australian Taxation Office has indicated that it needs to develop its new IT systems. Given that developing IT systems and operating them is a core business function for superannuation funds, that advice from the superannuation funds and their peak body appearing before the committee is advice which, in my view, should be taken very seriously. The Australian Taxation Office needs to do a better job of justifying why it requires so much money to fund these information technology systems. That is a matter the coalition will continue to monitor closely.
Let me conclude by repeating that the coalition is broadly supportive of any approach that reduces the administrative costs inherent in the superannuation system. We do, however, have concerns about aspects of the implementation of these new arrangements as I have just described.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's advisory report on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012, the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012, the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The bills make a number of significant improvements to the tax laws across five areas, each of which the committee examined during the inquiry. Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012 and of the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012 seeks to make directors personally liable for their companies' unpaid superannuation guarantee amounts. This will prevent unscrupulous directors from phoenixing their businesses to avoid their super responsibilities. This practice has cost Australian employees hundreds of millions of dollars in lost superannuation. The committee commends both the intent and the operation of the bills in this regard.
Last year, the committee inquired into a package of bills in similar terms. The committee recommended that the government should investigate whether additional defences for directors could be inserted in the bills. This has occurred. If passed, the legislation will give new directors 30 days—that is up from the current 14 days—to conduct due diligence before adopting a company's pre-existing obligations. Directors will also not be liable for a direct penalty where they took reasonable care in a matter and applied the super legislation in a reasonable way.
The committee also recommended that the government should investigate whether the provision should only apply if an individual has been engaged in phoenixing. The bills do not have this feature, and industry argue that they should be amended along these lines. Ultimately, the committee has come to the view that such a change is not warranted. The provisions will only apply when a company has not only failed to pay a super amount but failed to notify the Australian Taxation Office of this within two months of the event. The provisions are only triggered by a consistent high level of noncompliance.
Schedule 2 of the main bill is designed to ensure that the tax treatment of financial arrangements is consistent with the TOFA tax timing rules. The provisions are to be retrospective from the commencement of other TOFA amendments on 1 July 2010, and this retrospectivity was the key issue in the inquiry. Stakeholders expressed concern that taxpayers who had chosen to adopt the new TOFA rules, rather than elect to keep prior arrangements, would be disadvantaged. However, the committee accepts that the measures restore the original policy intent and that the government had previously flagged that retrospectivity will be necessary with TOFA to restore the policy intent from time to time.
Schedule 3 aims to protect a $6 billion revenue risk that has arisen as a result of retrospective amendments in 2010 in relation to consolidation rules. These changes allowed consolidated groups to claim deductions back to 2002 in relation to the residual tax cost-setting rule and the rights to future income rule. In 2011, revenue problems with the 2010 changes became apparent and the Board of Taxation conducted an inquiry into the matter. The bill largely reflects the Board of Taxation's report. Groups that have already received a refund or who have an ATO ruling will generally be protected from the retrospective changes. Given the transparency of the process and the amount of revenue at stake, the committee again accepts that retrospective legislation is appropriate.
The Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 and schedule 4 of the main bill increase the tax rate on managed investment trusts for foreign investors from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent. This is a partial reversal of the recent decreases on this tax rate from 30 per cent a few years ago. The committee is mindful that, for equity investments, the comparison rate is the company tax rate, currently set at 30 per cent. The committee noted that the industry sector was concerned about how the change would affect it. However, the committee accepts the government's argument of the wider macroeconomic importance of Australia having a sound fiscal strategy, an important driver for the whole economy.
The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012 increases the charge from $47 to $55 from 1 July 2012 and indexes it to the consumer price index. Similar to the managed investment trust provisions, the issues revolved around an industry sector being concerned about how it would be affected by a revenue increase. Once again, however, the committee supports the provisions on a national basis because of the government's overall fiscal strategy. The committee notes that the government remains committed to the Tourism 2020 initiative and continues to support the industry through programs such as T-QUAL, infrastructure upgrades and maintaining and expanding tourism attractions.
The bills represent a responsible package aimed at securing a sustainable revenue base for Australia as well as protecting the superannuation entitlements of Australian workers. The bills should pass.
On behalf of the committee I think the organisations that assisted the committee during the inquiry through making submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I rise to speak on the advisory report on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012, the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012, the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012. There was, as the chair outlined to the House, a dissenting report from coalition members with respect to each of the bills insofar as it is our recommendation as Liberal members on the committee that the bills not be passed by the House in the current form but, rather, require change.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2012 amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and four other acts to extend director penalties so that directors are personally liable for a wide range of company guarantees in relation to superannuation and pay-as-you-go withholding even if a company is placed into administration or liquidation. Liberal members of the committee are concerned that the government has not adequately addressed bipartisan concerns previously raised during the last inquiry into the measures. Importantly, the bill has failed to appropriately target phoenix activity and concerns that liability would apply indiscriminately to all directors, including those of charities and not-for-profits that are limited by guarantee, as many are. There are some 11,700 companies in Australia that are limited by guarantee.
It is typical of this Labor government, unfortunately, that directors would appear to be saddled with liabilities even where there is no illegitimate activity or undue liability. Questions were raised in the inquiry about whether the directors of the company may be liable to pay these measures if they join a board after the fact, and these questions were not adequately answered. It is repugnant not only to the rule of law and the processes of natural justice but also in terms of assigning all directors an indiscriminate liability, the history of company law and the legal principle of persona ficta.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors and many other stakeholders contend—and Liberal members of the committee concur—that phoenix activity is not appropriately defined in the bill. We as Liberal members were concerned about the need to do something with phoenixing activity. It is just that this approach is too broad and not effective in terms of its operation—and that is why we are not supporting the government's steps in this respect. The consolidation tax, cost-setting arrangements and related taxation of financial arrangements are retrospective tax changes. Liberal members of the committee are fundamentally opposed to post factum law, especially taxation legislation. This government has failed to justify both to the public and to members of the committee the retrospective aspect of this legislation.
Similarly, issues arise under the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012, which amends the Income Tax Managed Investment Tax Withholding Act 2008 to increase the managed investment trust withholding tax from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent. Both investments made, especially in infrastructure, and the reputation of Australia as a safe and stable place will now be placed at risk because of the facilitation of the government. Taxpayers who made a sound effort to comply with the prevailing law as it was when they entered into financial arrangements are particularly affected. In submissions made to the committee there were instances of entities that, with these changes in place, may not have entered into financial agreements outlined. Fundamentally it is a function of the mismanagement and, in our view, incompetence of the government that only serves to encourage the lack of certainty that already plagues public confidence.
Finally, the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012 increases the passenger movement charge from $47 to $55 from 1 July this year and indexes the charge to the consumer price index from 1 July next year. This is simply a revenue-raising measure and presents an enormous cost to the tourism sector not only directly but also in terms of the relative competitive disadvantage that it will present. Liberal members of the committee are gravely concerned that, at a time when Australia's tourism industry is already struggling, at a time when Australia has gone from being an exporter of tourism to being a multibillion dollar importer of tourism, this government is flying blind with respect to the extra impost it is putting on the industry. It is particularly obnoxious for an industry that employs roughly 500,000 Australians that this government would continue to reduce funding to that industry in real terms and at the same time impose an extra $600 million to $800 million of new tourism taxes. This is not good public policy. This is nothing other than a money-grabbing exercise from a government that has completely eroded Australia's fiscal position and now must lash out with new taxes on an industry that can ill afford it. It is a bad policy choice and all Australians involved in the tourism industry, directly or indirectly, know it to be exactly that.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's advisory report on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—It gives me pleasure today to present the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) 2012. These bills were referred to the migration committee by the Selection Committee on 10 May 2012.
The bills will introduce a charge for the issuing of hard-copy evidence that a visa is held by a non-citizen visa holder. Evidence in hard-copy form that such a person holds a visa is usually provided as a visa label or as an imprint placed in the visa holder's passport. Currently Australia does not charge a fee for issuing these visa labels and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship provided over one million labels or imprints during 2011. Despite the issue of these labels, the government actually relies on an electronic visa entitlement verification system, called VEVO, to validate a person's visa status and entitlements online. VEVO is also accessible to registered organisations which may need to verify a person's visa status as well as to visa holders themselves. According to the department, two-thirds of its current visa case load is processed electronically. Yet 90 per cent of clients at migration counters still request hard-copy evidence of their visa even though it is not necessary.
Currently, visa holders are entitled under the Migration Act to hard-copy evidence of their visa status. These bills will amend the Migration Act to introduce a charge for the issue of hard-copy evidence, on the basis that the electronic visa evidence accessible through VEVO makes the need for hard-copy evidence redundant. The charge is to discourage people requesting the hard-copy evidence. The maximum charge limit will be $250, although the department has indicated that the actual amount charged will be much less. There will be different scales of charges, exemptions to the charges and nil fees for certain visa classes. The department estimates that the charge will recover some $90 million over the three years following implementation.
The Selection Committee and members of the migration committee questioned the scale of the charges, the projected revenue to be raised and whether the electronic VEVO system really does replace the need for hard-copy evidence of visas. The committee conducted its inquiry by issuing questions on notice to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The list of questions asked is contained in the appendix to the committee's report. The committee was satisfied overall with the department's responses. The committee accepts that the main justification for introducing the fees is to encourage visa holders and registered organisations to accept electronic verification alone. This is part of a global transition towards visa-label-free travel and electronic confirmation of visas.
The committee has recommended that the legislation be passed. However, the committee does believe that the associated explanatory memoranda should be more comprehensive. Accordingly, we have recommended that the explanatory memoranda be expanded and retabled. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their work on this inquiry, especially the deputy chair, the member for Macquarie. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I rise to speak to the advisory report on the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 and the Migration Visa Evidence Charge (Consequential Amendments) 2012. When the bills were referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on 10 May, the principal concern, as the chair has noted already, was the inadequate explanation of the scope, rationale and costing methodologies for the charge in the explanatory memoranda associated with the legislation. I wish to note that the report is joint in nature and supported by coalition members. The coalition is broadly supportive of a shift in favour of electronic visa handling and is pleased that the government has indicated that this is the direction in which the administration of visas is heading. Given the current political climate, the Australian community would be interested to know of the bipartisan approach that both I and the chair of the committee, the member for Calwell, took to this legislation. I thank the member and the other members of the committee for their level of cooperation. I would also like to thank the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for its assistance in responding to the committee's questions.
The visa evidence charge bills amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce a charge for requests for evidence of the issuance of a visa as validation of a noncitizen's immigration status and entitlements in Australia. The new charge is intended to encourage visa holders to use the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's online visa entitlement verification system, known as VEVO, for visa validation. Currently, visa evidence is provided without a fee, which imposes an administrative and cost burden on the department. As mentioned previously, the committee required a clear indication of the number and type of visa subclasses to be affected by the measure and further explanation of the maximum charge limit of $250 and the $90 million, three-year revenue projection cited in the financial impact statements for the bills.
According to government figures, a total of 1.365 million visa labels were issued over the calendar year 2011. By any measure this represents an incredibly high volume of service undertaken at immigration counters both in Australia and overseas. I note that, based on the estimated revenue of $90 million over three years, the government is estimating that the number of evidences would decline by more than 90 per cent to around 120,000 per year. While I note that this is a bit of an ambitious estimate, the coalition and the committee support a move towards more efficient and cost-effective procedures for the visa process.
As the chair has already mentioned, it is the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship amend the explanatory memoranda for both bills to more clearly explain the policy rationale and costing methodology underpinning measures contained in the bills. With the passing of these bills, the committee urges the department to remain responsive, particularly to the needs of client groups, such as refugees, students and visa holders in countries that require visa evidence for exit and transit, who will be vulnerable under the transition. As the chair has noted, it is the finding of the committee that the bill would not act as a barrier to participation should visa evidence be required.
If the government is serious about generating efficiencies in the immigration budget, it would be a good idea to adopt good policy such as these migration visa evidence charge bills. The report is supported jointly in a bipartisan fashion, and I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, I seek leave to make a statement on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012 in discharge of the committee's requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill, and to present a copy of my statement.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts I make this statement, the content of which the committee has endorsed. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012 was introduced in the House on 23 May 2012. The following day, following the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts for consideration. The bill amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005.
In presenting the bill, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Burke, made some remarks about the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards—WELS—scheme, which was established in 2006, and its objectives: to conserve water supplies by reducing water consumption, to provide information for purchasers of water-use and water-savings products and to promote the adoption of efficient and effective water-use and water-savings technology.
Further information on the scheme and the ways in which changes are proposed are outlined in more detail in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Many were canvassed by the minister in his second reading speech, and I do not propose to take up more of the House's time in repeating statements that have already been made. In short, the bill proposes amendments arising from an independent review of the scheme conducted in 2010 in accordance with the original legislation. The amendments concern matters relating to governance, compliance, administration and funding arrangements for the scheme.
In his second reading speech, the minister noted that the scheme 'receives widespread support from the industries affected by it' and that, further, 'This bill has been developed taking into account extensive consultations with stakeholders as to the nature of the changes proposed.' As part of its inquiry, the committee received a private briefing from representatives of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities about the bill and its impacts. During the briefing the committee was made aware of the consultation process conducted by the department, and the committee notes that most of the submissions received are available on the department's website.
Given the uncontroversial nature of the bill and the level of stakeholder consultation that has taken place to date, the committee has determined that a more detailed level of inquiry is unnecessary. The committee therefore recommends that the House pass the bill.
The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 introduces a number of significant innovations aimed at improving gender equality. It will broaden the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to encompass women and men, particularly their caring responsibilities. Also, for the first time, employers will be required to report on the gender composition of their boards. This is particularly dear to my heart, and I am very pleased that it is included in the bill. Smaller organisations with fewer than 100 employees will not be required to report, but they will be able to access the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's advice, education and incentive activities.
It is important to note that reporting will now be made easier for businesses and that it will be more meaningful and useful to them. Contrary to what those opposite have said, the minimum standards have been developed in consultation with industry and will provide employers with the capacity to assess and understand gender equality within their workplaces compared year by year with other workplaces within the industry.
We are removing red tape by allowing businesses to report online. The requirement for organisations to develop workplace programs will also be removed, and employers will now report against a set of gender equality indicators focusing on outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. Over time, the improved and standardised data will enable the minister to set minimum standards to target attention on areas where improvements are most needed. Minimum standards would be intended as an evidence-based way to identify and focus assistance on employers that require some direction on gender equality.
I am sure that, through this new reporting mechanism, many businesses will be able to focus more on gender equality, which will have a long-term benefit for their business. We want this bill to make reporting simpler and more useful for business so that business can achieve measurable progress. Many businesses may not be aware that, for example, having more women on their board will bring a different perspective to problems and issues that arise. I have spoken to many crusty old men on boards who are really appreciative of the views women can bring to the table on a whole range of issues, such as disability and access. I am sure that they would not mind me calling them 'crusty old men', because they are the ones who brought these issues up and have acknowledged, themselves, that they are crusty old men.
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
Mr Alexander interjecting—
These are men who I have been on boards with in the past. They are wonderful men with a wealth of experience and expertise, and I am sure they would not mind me calling them that. They get it. They understand that greater diversity on their boards is in their companies' best interests. They understand it is a good thing.
We need to help more businesses realise this potential. It is reassuring that the big four banks are actually leading the way when it comes to increasing the number of women on boards. Other sectors doing well include diversified financials, telecommunications, transportation and insurance. However, companies engaged in commercial and professional services, consumer services and our big retailers rate poorly.
Another important element of this bill will enhance the agency's advisory and education functions. One of the functions of the agency will be to develop industry based benchmarks in relation to gender equality indicators. The agency will also have a more specified role in providing assistance and advice in relation to improving performance against any minimum standards, and it will have an important role in developing, maintaining and reporting on the data it collects across business, government and the community.
This bill improves the transparency and fairness of the compliance framework and the consequences of noncompliance, but it does not actually alter the compliance from the original legislation—the legislation introduced by the Howard government. Contrary to suggestions by those opposite, we have not changed it. More resources will mean the agency will be able to better ensure that all employers who should be reporting are actually reporting. The agency will be able to do small-scale compliance reviews to make sure employers are fulfilling their obligations under the act. Employers will be required to inform employees and shareholders that a report has been lodged, and employers will need to notify employees and employee organisations of the report's lodgement and be provided with an opportunity to comment.
A consequence of not complying with the act without any reasonable excuse is that in the company or business may be named in parliament or more widely. Fairer, more consistent measures for ensuring that the government deals only with organisations that comply with the act will be developed.
It is important to outline exactly what the new objectives of the Workplace Gender Equality Act will be. The key new principal objectives are to: promote and improve gender equality, including equal remuneration between women and men, in employment and in the workplace; support employers to remove barriers to the full and equal participation of women in the workforce, in recognition of the disadvantaged position of women in relation to employment matters; promote amongst employers the elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender in relation to employment matters, including in relation to family and caring responsibilities; foster workplace consultation between employers and employees on issues concerning gender equality in employment and in the workplace; and improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australian business through the advancement of gender equality in employment and in the workplace.
These new objectives are more far-reaching and put the focus more on gender equality in the workplace. The bill now strikes the right balance between the need to drive and encourage change within business, without increasing the regulatory burden.
Those opposite might try to argue against the qualities of this bill. They may try to argue it is not necessary legislation and that these are not issues our parliament should be concerned with. But I disagree. There has been extensive consultation with industry, employee organisations and the women's sector in the drafting of this legislation. There is a need for this legislation and we have reached a point where the all parties are comfortable with what we are proposing.
This is progressive legislation. It is legislation that will take Australian businesses forward and help shape the kind of workforce we want for the future. It is not good enough that in 2012 Australia is ranked 23rd on the World Economic Forum's 2011 Global Gender Gap Index, way behind countries like New Zealand, Cuba and Spain. It is not good enough that the average superannuation balance for Australian women is 40 per cent below that of men, with average payouts half those of men. It is time to take the necessary steps forward to address this gap before it gets any worse.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill is the result of an important review by the Office for Women in the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It is clear that gender equality is essential if we are to maximise Australia's productive potential and ensure continued economic growth. As I said earlier, it has been estimated that closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation could boost gross domestic product by 13 per cent. That really is the bottom line here. Gender equality is not just a social policy; it is an economic policy. The government is determined to improve women's economic security—and this begins with fair and equitable treatment in the workplace. It is simply good economics to improve gender equality in our workplaces, and this bill does so by placing gender equality in the workplace firmly under the spotlight.
This is a sophisticated and meaningful package of reforms. It is a significant step forward that will enable employers and the government to measure and drive better outcomes for women and men in Australian workplaces. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank the member for Canberra, and as an 'evergreen' male, rather than another adjective, I call the member for Mackellar.
On 9 March, when this legislation originally surfaced, I said when I was acting spokesman on the status of women that this new so-called diversity regime was the sort of thing you would expect from a totalitarian regime which would lead to 'tokenism and the promotion of women simply because they are women'. I further described the proposal as 'heavy-handed, half baked and wasting $11.2 million', which was part of an agenda to strip away the rights of employers to run their businesses efficiently and employ people on merit. I stand by those comments.
It is interesting to take a look at the explanatory memorandum prepared by the government to support this bill and read some of the interesting material that is in it, which actually undermines the manner in which the government is attacking this issue of equality in the workplace, which we on this side of the House thoroughly support. We acknowledge that the contribution of women in the workforce is essential to the performance of our economy. But the snapshot proposals that are published in the government's own explanatory memorandum make statements like:
Women are more likely to be clerical, sales and community and personal service workers, while men are more likely to be technicians and trades workers, machinery operators and drivers and labourers. Women are still substantially under-represented in the manual trades in Australia, with the number of women in manual trades being less than 2 per cent.
Australian women are more likely to work under minimum conditions and be engaged in low-paid, casual and part-time work. It says:
Women workers are concentrated in the sectors of health care and social assistance and education and training (30 per cent of all female hours worked). When combined with the retail industry, 44 per cent per cent of total female hours worked are concentrated in just three industries. There is not a single industry in Australia in which women are paid more than men.
It also says:
A woman is approximately 50 per cent less likely to be employed as a manager, despite being equally likely to be in a full-time role in a professional capacity.
I think those comments are very pertinent in setting the scene to take me back to a report in December 2006 of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, which I chaired, entitled Balancing work and family: report on the inquiry into balancing work and family. It was in that report that we made many important findings which are very supportive of the policy which is referred to in the amendment moved to this bill by the member for Farrer stating:
… whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that if the Government was genuinely committed to achieving equality for working women, it would adopt the Coalition s better, fairer Paid Parental Leave scheme …
which of course has something on the poor leave scheme that the government has put in place—minimum payments only and only for a lesser period of time than the coalition proposes. It also includes superannuation payments, which, of course, the government does not include.
In that report that I referred to we took evidence from a vast number of people, but one was from the Family Matters journal, where Matthew Gray and Professor Bruce Chapman investigated the issues of average loss of income for a hypothetical woman who completes secondary school and then commences having a family at the age of 25 with the option of further children. They said the simple fact of having a child reduces a woman's lifetime chance of being employed by seven per cent. The authors calculated that on average this hypothetical woman would lose 37 per cent of her lifetime earnings by having a child. They said the results for women with differing levels of education are similar. They went on to talk about the weekly earnings of an average employee who faces a decision, five years after finishing their education, whether to finish work, do part-time work or continue to work full time. They said employees who stay full time continue to increase their earning capacity. Those who change to part-time work or plateau and employees who leave the workforce face a reduced salary when they return, with the reduction increasing for the amount of time out of a job. In other words, at every turn there is enough evidence to say that real policies to see women remain in the workforce are gauged at enabling them to have a child, to be able to provide for that child in those early weeks with good financial backup and to feel that they can then go back into the workforce and not miss out on the important aspects that lead to increases in pay and not plateauing.
I think it is interesting to look at the statistics that came from one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us about what happens to women when they are using the education they have gained in more professional and higher-paid jobs. For instance, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia noted that, of their female membership, 69 per cent did not have children. By comparison, the current estimate for the Australian population generally is that 16 per cent of women are likely to remain childless. They said the very high proportion of childless female professionals found in the association's surveys reflects the reality that professional women with children are leaving the workforce or reducing their level of workforce participation due to family responsibilities.
It highlights one of the main reasons the government likes to criticise the proposed paid parental leave scheme that we are introducing and that would allow women to have 26 weeks at their replacement wage of up to $75,000: it would mean that we are acknowledging that there is important economic empowerment in higher-paid jobs as well as for those who are in lesser-paid jobs. This sort of inverted snobbery that the government likes to engage in does not recognise more women are now graduating from university than men. This potential to waste that education remains unrecognised by the government and, worse than that, in this legislation potential employers are being penalised.
The sort of additional red tape that this legislation imposes in its reporting requirements and the potential for so-called union involvement in investigating what is happening in small firms in particular means that people are going to be less likely to want to employ women at a higher level because of the nature of the legislation. I go to the point that we make: the failure to recognise that we want women who are utilising tertiary education to be able to do it in a way that they do not lose their place, dare I say it, in the pecking order.
When you look at the penalties that this legislation intends to impose upon firms, the Minister for the Status of Women has said:
Government trade with a non-compliant organisation will not just be discouraged, it will not be allowed by law.
Non-compliant companies will miss out on industry assistance, grants and government contracts—
and they will be non-compliant if they fall short of industry benchmarks or fail to improve over a two-year period. They will also be in breach of the rules if they fail to lodge a report as required, or fail to substantiate their report.
The fact of the matter is that this is to apply to any firm with 100 employees or more. These are the firms where we would hope that women with high qualifications would be seeking employment, yet the explanatory memorandum of the government's bill points out:
The workforce participation of mothers in Australia is low by international standards. Of Australian mothers with their youngest child under two, 82 per cent worked part-time and nearly half (45 per cent) worked 15 hours or less per week.43 The main barrier to full participation in paid work for women is difficulty balancing paid work and care responsibilities.
That is precisely what the opposition's policy is: to solve these problems so that women can continue in the paid workforce, utilise the education that they have acquired and see the statistics change so that they are not concentrated in the low-paid areas but are utilising that education to move up.
Red tape and penalising firms by preventing them from having government contracts is not the way to go. Nor is pumping $11.2 million of taxpayers' money into creating yet another piece of bureaucracy, this time called the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It may be a make-work program for a number of people in the public sector to have yet another quango, but the fact of the matter is it is not going to assist women who are coming through education, as I said, at a greater rate than men in tertiary qualifications, yet this is not yet being reflected in workplace attainment.
The way forward is certainly not the red tape way in which this heavy-handed legislation is proceeding, but by accepting that the legislation—which, should we be elected, the opposition will introduce in government—for a fairer paid parental leave scheme will be one that will give real assistance to women to utilise their skills and not to find themselves plateaued or, indeed, falling behind and not making full use of those skills. Indeed, when we did this report back in 2006—and I have mentioned this before in a speech—we commissioned Access Economics to do an appraisal of women's participation in the workforce and what will happen if we do not improve the number of women who are in full-time work as distinct from part-time or indeed failing to participate.
The Access Economics report is at the back of the report I mentioned, and it simply shows that unless we do increase the number of women moving from part-time work into full-time work our economy will be seriously disadvantaged. So I say to the minister and I say particularly to women on the government side, particularly those who have got here by affirmative action: you do tend to make yourself a permanent second-class citizen if that is the way you wish to proceed. Women in Australia, as I see them, see that there is an opportunity to succeed on merit and to have the opportunity to utilise the skills that they are gaining. But it is not being done and it is not being helped by this heavy-handed legislation that is before the House.
I ask the government to reconsider the way it views women as being a political tool, and start looking at them as individuals who want to achieve and who aspire to contribute to the overall economy as well as being fine parents. Any publication you pick up about parenting shows that the number 1 concern people have when make their decision as to whether or not they wish to become parents is whether or not they can financially provide for that child. This sort of heavy-handed legislation does nothing to alleviate those concerns, but the splendid policy that has been put forward by the opposition for a fairer form of paid parental leave does answer many of those questions, and I would commend our policy rather than the government's as the way to proceed.
I rise to speak in support of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012, and I wish to briefly pick up on the point that the member for Mackellar just raised—that is, what many women, particularly mothers, are concerned about is making sure that they can make ends meet in relation to those cost of living pressures when you have a family. Certainly, as a member of this government I am very proud of our record of what we have delivered for working families—not just the paid parental leave but the dads' and partners' leave that has recently been introduced. You can also look at the increases to the family tax benefit B, the increases to the childcare benefit and the new schoolkid's bonus, just to name a small number of improvements this Labor government has made for working families and working women.
I know, as do all women of this parliament, how far we have come as a nation to instil quality in the workforce. The Labor Party has a very proud history of promoting and protecting equality, and with this amendment bill we aim to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace by recognising the vital importance of equal remuneration and family and caring responsibilities as central to the achievement of gender equality. Equality is core to the belief and purpose of the Labor Party, which was forged over 120 years ago out of a collective struggle for equality in the workplace, and as a government we have amended or introduced over 100 Commonwealth acts that eliminate discrimination. It is well over a decade since the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act was last reviewed and the economic, social and legislative landscape has changed significantly throughout that period. That is why Labor has acted. The former Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, initiated a comprehensive review of the legislation and of the status of women and men in the workplace. That review found that the act needed to be updated and modernised to be fully effective in supporting and driving change in Australian workplaces.
I believe that gender equality in Australian workplaces is important for women, men, business and the economy more broadly. It has been estimated that closing the gap between women's and men's workforce participation could boost Australia's GDP by up to 13 per cent. Furthermore, extensive consultation has been undertaken with industry, employer organisations and the women's sector in the drafting of this legislation. We went to the people who will be directly affected by this legislation to find out what their needs are. That is why with this bill we have made sure that these changes are comprehensive, starting with the amendment of the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 to emphasise the focus of the act on gender equality, thereby improving outcomes for both women and men in the workplace. The name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency has also changed to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and the title of the director of the agency has changed to the Director of Workplace Gender Equality to reflect the new focus of the act. The objects of the act will highlight the expanded coverage to men, particularly in relation to caring responsibilities, as well as highlighting the importance of equal remuneration to gender equality. I think this is very important because in listening to the member for Mackellar's statement on this bill, at no point was it acknowledged that this bill actually picks up on men's caring responsibilities and equality across genders.
The objects also make clear the underpinning nature of gender equality to improved competitiveness and productivity, and the particular need to focus on removing barriers to women's full and equal workforce participation. Thus, this proposed legislation presents a new framework for promoting and encouraging gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill fulfils a dual purpose of supporting improved workforce participation, particularly of women and carers, as well as reducing the regulatory burden on business. We heard the member for Mackellar claiming that this bill actually increases the burden, but this bill does not introduce more compliance measures, it is based on the compliance measures in the existing legislation, which the Howard government introduced. There has been some criticism raised about this bill creating too much red tape, but in fact the compliance measures in this bill allow for processes to be filled out online—and they are simple to fill in—which has been included at the request of business. It was business in the consultation period that identified that this type of compliance system was preferred and that is what this bill proposes, so I recommend that the members of the opposition actually go and consult with those employers about red tape and compliance because this change in the bill has come about as a consequence of what employers are asking for. Relevant employers will no longer need to provide descriptions of their policies and programs, but will report against gender equality indicators, focussing on tangible outcomes and practices. Reporting, while clearly easier for business, will also be more meaningful and useful. It will provide employers with the capacity to assess and understand gender equality within their workplaces, compared year by year and with other workplaces within their industry.
The agency's advisory and education functions will be enhanced. The contemporary data focus will allow the agency to see and target advice and education as effectively as possible as particular sectoral or industry issues emerge. Smaller organisations—those with fewer than 100 employees—will not be required to report, but will be able to access the agency's expertise and expanded online resources. Over time, the improved and standardised data set will assist the minister in setting industry specific minimum standards against the gender equality indicators. The minister will consult with relevant stakeholders, as she sees appropriate, in the setting of those minimum standards. These minimum standards will help the agency maximise the impact of its education and advice. The bill provides that the agency must provide any employers who fail to meet the minimum standard with assistance aimed specifically at improving their performance against that minimum standard. We heard from the member for Mackellar claiming that it is all about a big stick in cases when a particular employer does not meet the minimum standard, but what this bill does is provide those employers with assistance aimed at specifically improving their performance and meeting those standards.
In addition to the minister setting these minimum standards, the agency will set benchmarks in relation to the gender equality indicators, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, which will not be part of the compliance framework. The benchmarks are intended as a way for the agency to collect, analyse and express the data collected from public reports in a useful and meaningful way. These benchmarks will enable relevant employers to consider their workplace outcomes and practices in relation to their industry peers and compared to their own performance from year to year. The bill facilitates the engagement of senior management and employees. The chief executive officer, or equivalent, will be required to sign-off on organisations' reports. Consultation with employees is a defined gender equality indicator. This is to ensure that the legislation is not simply about filling out paperwork and reporting, it is about meeting real outcomes.
The bill also improves the transparency and fairness of the compliance framework and the consequences of non-compliance. The agency will be able to check compliance by seeking information from employers relevant to compliance. Employees and shareholders will be provided with access to the report, and employees and employee organisations will be provided with opportunity to comment on the report. There is nothing wrong with employees having access to reports that relate to their workplace and benefits for women in the workplace. The consequences of non-compliance build on the existing provisions, but with a focus on improving transparency and consistency of application. If an employer does not comply, without a reasonable excuse, they may be named in a report to the minister or more broadly. Employers may also not be eligible to compete for Commonwealth contracts, grants or other financial assistance. This is an existing policy, but work is being done within government to ensure greater consistency and transparency in its application. To enable employers to have sufficient time to adapt to the new framework, the provisions of the bill are being phased in. The first full new reports will be due in 2014. The new framework will also enable the government, policymakers and the community to have access to better aggregate information about gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill provides that the agency report every two years on progress relating to the gender equality indicators. The bill achieves a clear balance in addressing the needs of business by making reporting simpler and more streamlined, supported by a new online interface. It also, however, ensures a much greater focus on outcomes to effect genuine and sustainable change over time.
The government has engaged in significant consultation with key stakeholders in developing the proposed legislation. In 2011, the government convened an implementation advisory group to assist with the improvements to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. Membership of the industry advisory group consists of key representatives from industry, unions and business, as well as experts in the fields of gender equality and workplace issues.
This legislation is about supporting employers to achieve cultural change; it is not about punishing employers or setting unreasonable standards that they cannot meet. Since the bill was introduced on 1 March 2012, a number of organisations and individuals have indicated support for the changes to the legislation. This support has come from industry, employee organisations and the women's sector. This amendment is one piece of a broader Labor effort to build stronger and fairer partnerships in the workplace. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 and I welcome the opportunity to speak specifically about the issue of gender equality in Australian workplaces. The bill being debated today seeks to amend the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 by firstly changing the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, with the objects of the act to be amended as wel1. The bill will expand the advice and education functions of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, with changes also set to be made to the compliance framework for employers. The coverage of the act is set to be widened, with men being covered as well as women, and it is extended to all employers and employees in the workplace.
The issue of gender equality is a very important issue for the coalition and is an issue which I personally find very significant, having graduated as a mechanical engineer and spent much of my professional working life in male-dominated industries. I would like to make it clear from the outset that women and men can and should contribute to all aspects of Australian life in their own ways. In relation to employment opportunities for men and women, I strongly believe that businesses should be employing, retaining and promoting individuals based on merit, not on their gender. It is a core belief of the coalition that government interference into the life of individuals and businesses should be minimised as much as possible. I therefore do not support efforts that seek to increase the level of government interference in the workplace.
I would like to begin my contribution to this debate by highlighting several concerns I have with this bill. I have already mentioned my objection to unnecessary government interference in businesses' ability to employ individuals based on their merit. I therefore have concerns that this bill may impose additional red tape for business and therefore unacceptable increased levels of regulation. The two main concerns that I have relate to the cost to business and whether the new reporting framework actually simplifies and streamlines the reporting requirements for employers. I also have concerns about whether the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will have the necessary resources to carry out its expanded role, and why the new term 'employee organisation' is inserted into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act.
In relation to the first issue I have, with regard to the costs to business, it seems unlikely that resourcing costs will decrease, as is claimed by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The changes proposed in this bill go further than the gender equality rules which apply now to ASX listed companies. Currently, ASX listed companies are required to comply with the ASX corporate governance principles and publish workplace gender diversity policies and have their objectives for achieving these policies disclosed each year. These companies are also required to release information that shows the proportion of women in the company and how many women are in senior management positions as well as on the organisation's board. The provisions of this bill should not be going further than the current obligations on companies, as it is likely that additional costs will be imposed on these businesses through the reporting requirements this bill proposes.
The second concern that I have relates to the bill's proposal to simplify and streamline reporting—however, it is not clear how the new reporting framework will achieve this goal. Under the proposed new reporting framework, employers must report against gender equality indicators. This must be a public report prepared by the employer and it is required to contain matters specified in the legislative instrument made by the minister. The bill, however, does not make it clear what 'matters' are to be specified and there is therefore uncertainty for employers about what they must report on under this proposed new framework. Because of this uncertainty it is difficult to see how reporting for employers will be simplified and streamlined.
This brings me to the two additional concerns I have, which, again, deal with some uncertainty with what the bill seeks to achieve and the provisions' ability to achieve these aims. Firstly, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency is given expanded roles to provide targeted advice and assistance to relevant employers, so that they can promote and improve gender equality in relation to minimum standards. As this is an expanded role, it appears that the agency would require additional resources to effectively undertake this role; however, it is unclear from the bills whether these additional resources will be provided. Secondly, the term 'employee organisation' is already given meaning under section 12 of the Fair Work Act 2009; however, this bill also inserts a new term into the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act. Clarification needs to be made in relation to this provision, as it seems unnecessary to include a new term when it already exists in the Fair Work Act. These are the technical issues with the bill; however, we must remember that there are larger issues relating to female participation in the workforce which deserve greater scrutiny.
I would now like to highlight some recent statistics which give us an idea of how the current workforce as a whole looks. The recent labour force statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give us a snapshot of the female participation rate in our workforce. I have picked a period from earlier this year. The participation rate for females during the February period, seasonally adjusted, was 58.7 per cent. This is significantly lower than the male participation rate during the same period, which was 71.7 per cent. I would also like to point out that the number of females employed in total for February is significantly lower compared with males. According to the ABS, there are over 5.2 million females employed, while there are over 6.2 million males employed. More than double the number of females are employed part time compared with males, with figures showing part-time female workers at about 2.374 million compared with just over one million males employed on a part-time basis. If we look at the employment of women in different industries, it becomes clear that there are specific industries where the employment of women is significantly lower compared with males. A look at 18 different industry groups reveals that only six industries have a majority of women employed either part time or full time. These industries are retail trade, with 56.4 per cent; accommodation and food services, with 55 per cent; financial and insurance services, with 50.9 per cent; administrative and support services, with 52.3 per cent; education and training, with 69 per cent; and health care and social assistance, with 78.8 per cent. A further seven industries have female part-time or full-time-equivalent employees at levels that are below 40 per cent: agriculture, forestry and fishing; mining; manufacturing; electricity, gas, water and waste services; construction; wholesale trade; and transport, postal and warehousing. The construction industry was at the lowest level, with women comprising only 11.6 per cent of employees. These statistics clearly demonstrate that we need to get more women into the workforce and improve their representations in industries almost across the board.
I am an enthusiastic advocate for improvement in the labour force participation rates for women and know that we can enhance our contributions to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia. In fact, earlier this year I raised these issues in this place and emphasised the need for work to be organised so family responsibilities can also be balanced. The figures I mentioned earlier regarding women predominantly taking up part-time work further justify my claim.
In concluding today I repeat my call to break down the barriers impeding improved female participation rates in the workforce and getting women back into the workforce. If we are serious, we need to identify what those barriers are and we need to take positive action to encourage and support more women in maintaining their place in the workforce or re-entering the workforce. Two issues have been identified to me very clearly within the electorate and quite widely around Australia. The first issue is good-quality and affordable child care. The second is an issue that, as I have indicated previously, I have touched on already in this place—work organisation to make it more appropriate and more attractive for women with family responsibilities to re-enter the workforce.
I rise to voice my strong support for the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is the next step in the Gillard government's assault on inequity and discrimination in Australian workplaces. On this side of the House we can hold our heads high in this regard. We have delivered Australia's first paid parental leave scheme, which provides real support to working mums and dads and their young families—truly momentous. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff; it is a practical, fair and sustainable scheme that provides financial assistance when they need it most.
For women the road to equality has been a long and difficult one. Along this road we often take baby steps—and I use that term deliberately—but we are getting there. Australia was one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote and to sit in parliament. We were just pipped by New Zealand. After that, it was not until 1949 that our first female federal cabinet minister was appointed. That took 49 years. Up until 1966—which is not that long ago, as 1966 was when I was born—women working in the federal Public Service were required to resign when they married. In the last 50 years much has been achieved for women in equality in education, in the workplace and in things such as safe contraception and access to childcare facilities. In 1984 the federal government banned discrimination on the basis of sex. Today, more women than men are educated at secondary schools and universities and more women graduate from university with bachelor degrees. In 2006, women made up nearly 55 per cent of tertiary students and 47.5 per cent of students enrolled in vocational education and training courses. Forty per cent of Australia's small business operators are women and 57 per cent of the Australian Public Service are women, with around 36 per cent of senior executive positions. It is a different story in the private sector, where, sadly, only 12 per cent of management jobs are held by women. Progress is continuing but more needs to be done.
Let's have a look at parliament: there are currently more women parliamentarians in the Senate than at any other time since Federation, with 28 women out of 76; but, sadly, the number of women in this chamber dropped at the last election and is now less than 25 per cent. So 111 years after Federation we are down to less than one in four members of this chamber being women. Of course, in the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, we have Australia's first female Prime Minister, and likewise in Quentin Bryce we have Australia's first female Governor-General—a proud Queenslander, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
It is interesting to see how the Liberal National Premier of Queensland dealt with women in the workplace when he was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I have spoken about this with one of the councillors in the Moreton electorate and that is Councillor Nicole Johnston—now an Independent but previously a member of the Liberal Party. She was the councillor assisting Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, as he then was, before she decided that her job as a Liberal councillor for Tennyson required her to speak out on behalf of Sherwood residents about the bus depot that was rather hastily foisted on the local community. After Nicole dared to speak up and voice local community concerns, she says that she was frozen out by Mr Newman. He refused to speak to her. Thankfully, she was re-elected, not for Labor but as an Independent, at the recent council elections. Unfortunately, I have heard the now Premier Newman bagging the hardworking Nicole Johnston to all and sundry. He was quite indiscreet, in fact, in the past. Perhaps things might change now that he is the Premier. This might suggest poor judgment, a personality flaw or a huge lack of respect for women; we will see. Obviously, Mr Newman has a long way to go if he wants all Queenslanders to believe that such treatment is behind him.
In Queensland, of the 78 seats held by the LNP, less than 17 per cent are female. The LNP's representation of women is in line with countries like Kazakhstan and Venezuela. Obviously it is not good for a modern political party to have such disregard for equality. There is no minister for women under the state LNP government, and who knows what they will axe next? We will wait and see. There are still some sections of the community—both broadly known and smaller pockets—that are coming to terms with the proper way to treat and provide equal opportunity for women.
This bill before the chamber delivers on the Gillard Labor government's commitment to improve the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. The bill changes the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, because this is about improving outcomes for women and men in the workplace. The bill also changes the emphasis of the act to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace and achieve equal remuneration and a stronger focus on family and caring responsibilities. The bill also introduces a new reporting framework which requires employers with 100 or more employees—so not small businesses—to report against a set of gender equality indicators. A new online reporting facility will be easier and more useful, and will enable businesses to compare how they are travelling against other workplaces in their industry. Over time the data will enable the minister to set minimum standards for employers.
The renamed Workplace Gender Equality Agency will also be required to develop industry based benchmarks regarding gender equality. They will then use these indicators to assist industry to meet these benchmarks. Employees and shareholders will be provided with access to a business compliance report, ensuring greater transparency and accountability for meeting gender benchmarks. I am pleased to see that extensive consultation has been carried out through the review of the act and broad consultation has continued throughout the reform process. I particularly commend the Minister for the Status of Women, Julie Collins, for her work directly engaging with key stakeholders in the development of the bill. This is an important piece of legislation in efforts to improve gender equality in the workplace—something that I am sure all members of parliament and all Australians would support.
Back in 2009, I was part of an inquiry into pay equity as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, chaired by the then member for Hasluck, Sharryn Jackson. The report Making it fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce made 63 recommendations. Unfortunately, I cannot stand here today and hold up that report and say that we have achieved all 63 of those recommendations, but nevertheless it is a bit of a guide—a path that this parliament might go down to achieve true equality. This bill implements some of those recommendations, particularly around better reporting, because it is through the information of reporting that businesses, governments and other institutions will be able to say: 'We've done this so far and we'll now be able to take the next step in achieving equality in the workforce.'
I take you back to some facts that are quite disconcerting: not that long ago, only 46 years, when a woman was married, the social expectation was that if she was in the federal Public Service she would resign, with the presumption she would be supported by her husband. A lot has been achieved, and I would like to particularly commend the efforts of the Prime Minister as she has quietly in her steely, strong, determined way gone about proving that women can do anything in Australia. I have often had people in my electorate come up when I am with the Prime Minister to say that they respect what she has done for their daughters and their grandchildren and to say thank you for leading the nation in such a way. Whilst there are suggestions from both sides of parliament, it is complicated when you look at the data and say that merit will out. The reality is that when half of the population is female but less than 25 per cent of the MPs in this chamber are female there is something going wrong—otherwise you must make the flawed presumption that half of the women in Australia do not have the same merit when it comes to being a proper representative. This bill is a great way to go. It is a step in the right direction and I commend the bill to the House.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I rise today to congratulate two outstanding Territorians who I have mentioned in this place before. Des Abbott and Joel Carroll were today named in the Australian Kookaburras hockey team going to the 2012 Olympics. These two Darwin athletes are cousins and are fantastic Indigenous ambassadors. They are fantastic sports ambassadors for all Australians. This is an outstanding achievement for the Northern Territory as it will be the first time ever that two Northern Territorians compete together on the same team at the Olympic Games.
Des and Joel are cousins who have played together before at the national level. Most notably, they both played in the 2010 men's hockey Champion Trophy where they won gold. Des and Joel also won gold at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. They have a good track record.
This is not the first Olympic Games for Des. In 2008, he went to Beijing with the Kookaburras where they won a bronze medal. I know everyone in the Territory and around the nation will be watching the 2012 London Olympic Games very closely—even more so now that we have some home-grown talent on the world stage. It is great to know that the Kookaburras are going to the Olympics as the gold medal favourites. On behalf of all Territorians and the coalition I wish Joel and Des the very best of luck at the Olympics. We look forward to them bringing home the gold.
I rise to make mention of renowned north-east Tasmanian artist Mr John Gibb. Last week I attended a viewing of John's watercolour exhibition. John has a passion for Tasmania's natural beauty, painting fascinating and impressive Tasmanian watercolour landscapes. John has been painting for over 30 years and was previously a teacher at the local Scottsdale High School. I was very impressed by the paintings that he created and I saw, not only in this exhibition but a previous limited edition exhibition, wonderful works about the Tasmanian landscape.
John has a particular interest in the diversity of landscape in Tasmania. He has done such a wide range of views of landscapes including mountains, beaches, country fields and rivers. John is provided with an abundance of inspiration by the state of Tasmania. John has said that there is also a creative perspective to his work, encapsulating his memories and recollections of a place in his work rather than just what is obvious to the eye at any exact moment.
I would like to congratulate Mr John Gibb on his wonderful works capturing some of Tasmania's stunning iconic scenery. The exhibition Aspects of Tasmania: works by John Gibb continues at the Country Club Tasmania until 12 August. I encourage all locals to go and look at this amazing artwork by this outstanding Tasmanian artist.
I rise to acknowledge the nearly 50 million people worldwide who are living with epilepsy, including 185,000 Australians. More prevalent than Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis, epilepsy is according to the World Health Organisation the most common serious brain disorder in the world.
For sufferers, seizures can be regular and harmful, making a normal life hard to live. Afraid to tell their friends, many keep their condition private, conscious there is a social stigma attached. That is why we should celebrate initiatives like Purple Day, which is a global day of epilepsy awareness. Purple Day was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, a nine-year-old Canadian girl living with epilepsy who was, in her own words, determined to show that people with epilepsy are ordinary people like everyone else. Indeed they are.
This year on 26 March I joined families, the CEO of the Epilepsy Foundation of Victoria, Graeme Shears, and Epilepsy Foundation of Victoria staff, and Claude Ullin, chairman-elect of the Epilepsy Patrons Council of Victoria, for Purple Day. With the Foundation's Victorian headquarters based in my electorate of Kooyong, the morning tea was a great opportunity to share stories and hear why we need to build greater awareness, provide better support services and invest more resources in important medical research in the field. I know I join all my colleagues in this House in saying to all those living with epilepsy: you are not alone and you have our strongest support.
This morning I had the pleasure of co-convening with Senator Lisa Singh and Minister Kate Lundy the second meeting of the Labor Friends of Early Childhood Education and Child Care which was attended by early childhood educators and childcare centre operators from all around Australia who came together in support of the United Voice Big Steps campaign to achieve better conditions for educators in this sector.
There is no question that child care and early childhood education is one of the most valuable kinds of work done in our community. It is a foundation stone for the education and socialisation of kids, which is essential for their development. It is also an essential part of providing the support framework that allows women to remain engaged in the workforce. The fact that educators are drawn to do this work and motivated by their commitment to the children in their care should not be exploited through the holding down of pay and conditions—which happens far too often in areas of vocational employment that tend to involve very high proportions of women, like child care, early childhood education and aged care.
Poor pay and conditions for workers in these roles is forcing them to leave the industry in droves because they cannot afford to stay despite the fact that they love their jobs. This is leading to a crisis in the industry with parents, childcare centre operators and workers calling for further reform and funding to deliver appropriate professional employment conditions for early childhood educators. I fully support the Big Steps campaign and pay tribute to all those working in the vital area of early childhood education.
I rise to inform the House of a significant fundraiser being run in New South Wales and Queensland. In the true spirit of State of Origin, the two states have joined together to raise desperately needed funds for flood victims in parts of my electorate. The two states are having a 'pie of origin' with the Old Fernvale Bakery Cafe in the Brisbane Valley, owned by Bill Rose and renowned as one of the best pie shops in Queensland, having a 'pie-off' against Rob Pirina of Glenorie Bakery in New South Wales. These guys will be selling their pies, and for every sale $2 will go towards charity for the Queensland flood victims. All good Queenslanders and tourists know where this bakery is, so take the time to find it. If you do not know where it is, it is west of Brisbane. I encourage all good Queenslanders to get behind and support Queensland.
The winner of the competition between the New South Wales bakery and the Queensland bakery will obviously be whoever sells the most pies and whoever raises the most money. I am sure we will hear during the proceedings from the member for Berowra, the father of the House, who will speak on behalf of the New South Wales bakery. It is a true testament to the spirit of Queensland to support functions like these.
ABC's Radio National is one of Australia's great public institutions, and I rise to speak about the late Alan Saunders, who died unexpectedly last Friday. Alan Saunders spent 25 years with Radio National. He moved to Australia in 1981 to pursue research at the Australian National University's History of Ideas unit, where he received a PhD. He received the Pascall Prize for critical writing and broadcasting in 1992. He contributed to programs about food, design and philosophy. As Amanda Armstrong put it:
He was equally at home talking about Plato, the role of vampires in popular culture or the history of the restaurant. He wrote like an angel, and had a deep knowledge of music, among many other areas, including philosophy, gastronomy, architecture, design and film.
I knew Alan Saunders mostly as a listener—delighting particularly in the By Design program—although I did get a chance to speak with him on Australia Day last year about social capital and some of the ideas in Disconnected. The topics to which Alan contributed are important. Others, such as Elizabeth Farrelly and Tim Soutphommasane, discussed design and philosophy, but none so gracefully as Alan. He will be greatly missed.
I thank the member for Wright for drawing to the attention of the House this very important competition between New South Wales and Queensland which is underway at the moment. I suspect from the draw of the speakers that Queensland seems to be getting an inside run, but let me just say that, according to the reports I am receiving, this competition is very close and only the final match will decide the result. Notably, I am barracking for the Blues.
It is not the State of Origin: it is the Pie of Origin. It is the brainchild of Rob Pirina of the Glenorie Bakery. He challenged Queensland to the best pie competition but agreed that we should raise money for the Queensland flood victims. The challenge has been accepted by Bill Rose of the Old Fernvale Bakery, but I am confident that New South Wales will be on top and victorious in this epic contest. I commend the competition to all members of the House. I hope you will barrack for the Blues. Find your way to Glenorie: the pies are outstanding but the cause is good. I hope members will give their full support to it as a competition between the Blues and the Maroons, but I hope the Blues win.
I rise to congratulate Mr Brett Austine on being awarded the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday lists. Mr Austine is an outstanding example to young people within our community and a tireless worker within the field of gymnastics, first as a competitor and then as an Olympic judge and a really outstanding coach.
Mr Austine is the sports coordinator at Belmont High School in the Shortland electorate, and he was a driving force behind Belmont High School having a new gymnasium built. His father was also a gymnast and a national coach for about 15 years. Brett is one of those inspirational people that you feel very privileged to meet. He said that receiving the order of Australia was a humbling experience. I have to say it is an honour that has well and truly been earned. I congratulate Brett, and I know that the whole of the community that I represent, and all the young people he has coached over the years, also congratulate him on being given this award.
Yesterday afternoon, Sonia Farah, mother of Wests Tigers captain Robbie Farah, lost her battle with pancreatic cancer at the young age of 63. Robbie is a well-known and much loved local hero of the Bennelong region, and has inspired all around him with his love for and devotion to his mother.
During last year's Four Nations tournament in the UK Robbie first learned of Sonia's condition, and he immediately flew home to be by her side—the same place he was when she passed away. Robbie's team mates observed a very emotional minute's silence prior to yesterday's game. Their great respect for their captain was highlighted by coach Tim Sheens, who said in his postmatch interview:
To talk about the game today seems a waste of time. It's something I'm not particularly interested in. … It's a close club and the team will be there for Rob and his family
Robbie Farah became a hero for all of New South Wales last week when he gave the man of the match performance in State of Origin game 2. After the match he said he had been looking up into the stands for his mother, who had been admitted to hospital earlier that evening. On behalf of the Bennelong community I offer my deepest sympathies to Robbie and the entire Farah family.
On indulgence—as a minister this would not normally be the case with 90 second statements, but as the member for Grayndler, which is home to Leichhardt Oval and the home of the Wests Tigers—I associate the government with the comments of the member for Bennelong and express condolences to Robbie Farah and his family, and indeed all the Wests Tigers, on the loss of Robbie Farah's mum Mrs Sonia Farah.
This afternoon the parliament welcomed Mr Ross Robertson, Labour member for Manukau East in the New Zealand parliament, Deputy Speaker in that parliament and also the international President of the Parliamentarians for Global Action. I acknowledge Mr Robertson in the Speaker's gallery right now. Mr Robertson came to Canberra from New Zealand today for the purpose of reinvigorating the Australian branch of the Parliamentarians for Global Action which was formerly led by the member for Lingiari, now a minister, Warren Snowdon. The PGA is the largest transnational network of individual parliamentarians from all regions of the world. It is an action oriented body—
Order! It being 2pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the acting Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Francis (Frank) John Walker QC be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time this week as she is representing Australia at the G20 leaders summit in Mexico and the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Brazil. I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister name a single head of government at the G20 conference, apart from the Australian Prime Minister, who has hit workers and families with an economy-wide carbon tax of at least $23 a tonne?
Good question!
Opposition members: Name one—just one!
Order! Do the opposition want to hear an answer or not? The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
I have been to a few G20 conferences and, as I have sat at the table, there is one thing that all the developed economies there around the table know—there is no stronger developed economy in the G20 than Australia. There is no stronger developed economy in the G20 than Australia. But, of course, what do we get here? Day after day, the opposition comes into this House—and goes around the community—and talks our economy down, deliberately insulting all those hard-working business owners and those millions of workers who have worked hard to make our economy strong.
I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition how many countries around the G20 table are putting in place policies to deal with dangerous climate change and creating situations where they can reduce their emissions. Seventeen of the G20 members, or 85 per cent, are putting in place emissions trading schemes at a national or subnational level. That is what is going on in the G20. I tell you what, if those on the other side were at Los Cabos, they would have been terribly embarrassed, because the G20 nations with developed economies and developing economies do appreciate the need to deal with reducing carbon pollution, and are putting emissions trading schemes in place at a national or subnational level.
Let us just go specifically to some of the countries that are sitting around the table.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Acting Prime Minister if he could name a single country with a $23 a tonne carbon tax—a single one.
The Acting Prime Minister is answering the question and has the call.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am certainly happy to address it directly. Over the four years to July 2011, European carbon prices have traded in the range of $16 to $50. Now, what countries could there be around the G20 table who might be in that situation? There is France, there is Italy, there is the United Kingdom—there is a whole range of developed economies that are part of the European scheme. Those opposite will come into this House and maintain that the European price is low at the moment, but there is no reason it will stay there. What we do know is that carbon prices in the European zone have traded between $16 and $50 over the four years through to the middle of 2011. I think that answers that question pretty clearly. You on that side of the House are so embarrassed by your performance here. Countries around the world are putting in place emissions trading schemes, because those countries understand the importance of dealing with dangerous climate change.
I have a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister: can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House when the European carbon price ever hit $50 a tonne and can he please tell the House what it is now?
Government members interjecting—
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister: will the Acting Prime Minister update the House on recent data that highlights the strength of the Australian economy? How does this compare with developments overseas?
I thank the member for Deakin for that very important question. All Australians have justifiable reason to be proud of the remarkable economic achievements of Australia. These achievements have occurred in some of the worst global conditions since the global financial crisis and, of course, the global recession.
There is no doubt that when it comes to the developed world, the Australian economy is the standout performer. That is occurring at a time when many developed economies are experiencing mass unemployment, but there are more Australians in work here than there have ever been at any time in our history. There have been something like 800,000 jobs created in Australia since this government came to power—and that is in the face of the extraordinary challenges that we are experiencing emanating from Europe, particularly at the moment. And that is why the Prime Minister will make this point at the G20 meeting: how important it is, particularly for the policymakers of the European region, to put in place policy reforms which will boost growth and restore the sustainability of public finances in the eurozone. We need to see consistent and determinate action from the Europeans to ensure that growth is restored.
No economy is immune from the turmoil in Europe, but here in Australia we have been a beacon of strength compared to what is going on elsewhere in the developed world. So much so that the Australian economy is now 10 per cent larger than it was prior to the global financial crisis. What a substantial achievement that is for Australia, when you consider that there is barely a developed economy that has got back to where it began at the beginning of the global financial crisis. Everybody on this side of the House cheers that performance.
Those on the other side of the House were so embarrassed when the national accounts came out two weeks ago that they were in the stand booing the performance of the Australian economy. No-one was more disappointed with those results than the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer over there on that side of the House. On Tuesday, the shadow Treasurer said that the Australian economy was underperforming, and then on Wednesday he said the performance was extraordinary—what a backflip! Underperforming one day, extraordinary the next—but it was not a backflip, it was just a big belly flop, Madam Deputy Speaker. No-one was more embarrassed than the shadow Treasurer. On this side of the House, we celebrate the fact that we have the best combination of growth—strong growth, strong employment growth, strong investment—with contained inflation and interest rates coming down. This is a great result for Australia, but it is one that those opposite do not support and continually run down.
My question is again to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer him to electricity price increases on 1 July of up to 20 per cent in New South Wales, 18 per cent in South Australia and 15 per cent in Victoria, due in large part to the carbon tax starting at $23 a tonne. What will the electricity price increase be when the carbon tax is $350 a tonne, which is that e government's predicted carbon price by 2050?
The premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is simply wrong. First of all he is claiming that the increases in electricity prices are principally the result of the carbon price. That is a lie, and it has been demonstrated to be a lie by the decisions that have been taken—
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister is not entitled to use that kind of language to describe the opposition, and we would ask him to withdraw it.
The Acting Prime Minister will withdraw and will answer the question.
It is simply untrue—
The Acting Prime Minister will withdraw.
I withdraw. It is simply untrue to claim that the great bulk of those price increases are the result of the carbon price. They are not and he knows that to be false. The fact is the impact on the average household from the carbon price when it comes to the average electricity bill is $3.30 a week. He knows that is the case, but he is out there not telling the truth about the impact.
We have the Leader of the Opposition walking back from what he was saying a week or two ago about the impact of the carbon price. First of all he said it was going to put a wrecking ball right through our economy. The wrecking ball has gone out the door, and he is now saying it is going to be a python squeeze rather than a cobra strike.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the huffing and puffing of the Acting Prime Minister is not answering the question, which is what the price is going to be when it is $350 a tonne.
The member for Sturt is not to use points of order for debate. It is an abuse of the process, and I will be calling people to account in the future. If it is relevant then get up and make a stand on a point of order on relevance.
Whether it is a cobra or a python, it does not change the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is a snake oil salesmen. He has been slithering around the country with a whole series of poisonous messages and a forked tongue telling untruths about the impact of the carbon price on electricity. That is what he has been doing, and it is not true. Now we have been told that this is responsible for what is going on in New South Wales. I tell you what: there is a choice in New South Wales. From the billions of dollars that Barry O'Farrell is getting from the electricity generators, why doesn't he give it back to the people of New South Wales in cuts to their electricity prices? They are the ones that are principally responsible for price increases.
The Acting Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair. The difficulty is that when the question is framed as such I am put in a precarious situation.
The impact of the carbon price for the average household will be $3.40, for which they will receive average compensation of $10.10.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Industry and Innovation. Will the minister outline why the government is tackling climate change? In doing this, how is the government helping households, including protecting them from unjustified price rises with the introduction of the carbon price?
In response to the member for Capricornia's question, scientists have been advising governments for a long period of time that climate change poses significant risks. To Australia the risks are from higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, more extreme weather events and rising sea levels. These represent serious economic risks—risks that you should take as serious economic risks. They will have impacts in many different industries across our economy, like agriculture and tourism, and in our society. Faced with that scientific advice, governments have a public policy responsibility to act. That is why this government is putting a price on carbon. The carbon price will create an incentive for the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in our economy to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, because it will require them to purchase a permit for every tonne of greenhouse gas that they emit. We are doing this not only in an environmentally effective way and an economically responsible way but in a socially fair and just manner. The price impacts will be modest at only a 0.7 per cent increase in the CPI. As the Treasurer and Acting Prime Minister just indicated, the modelling showed that the average electricity price impact will be $3.30 a week per household across the country.
The Leader of the Opposition has previously described the price impact as 'unimaginable'. But the fact of the matter is that state pricing regulators are now confirming the Treasury modelling and they are consistent in the price impacts with that which was suggested by the Treasury modelling—$3.30 a week averaged across households. In South Australia, the average is just under $1.50 a household. The government is assisting households with an extra $10.10 a week through tax cuts, higher family tax benefits and increases in pensions. It is targeted to assist low- and middle-income households. The government is also funding the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission so that it can tackle businesses which try to rip people off with false claims about carbon pricing. Today the ACCC announced a carbon claims hotline to make it easier for people to make complaints. For those listening to the broadcast, it is 1300 303 609. The ACCC, importantly, points out that price increases associated with carbon pricing should be 'truthful and have a reasonable basis'. This is advice that the Leader of the Opposition should take. (Time expired)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister talked about what we are doing in Australia to address climate change. How are we playing our part in the global efforts to tackle climate change?
I thank the member for Capricornia once again, because tackling climate change is an international problem and countries around the world are taking steps to deal with it. Australia needs to pay its fair share in these efforts. Ninety countries have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through to 2020, and at the UN climate change conference late last year all countries agreed to negotiate a new treaty that would apply from 2020 that would introduce binding obligations on all of the major emitters to reduce their emissions. That includes our trading partners. That includes our partners in the Asia-Pacific region: the United States, China, Japan and South Korea. Countries including India have also made those commitments.
This has very significant implications for this country and for our economy. If we do not start making sensible, gradual changes to reduce the emissions intensity of our economy and we do as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we can do—travel to 2020 and have emissions continue to grow—we will be hit with binding obligations to reduce our emissions. It will hit our economy with the back of the axe. The only responsible course of action is to take action now. (Time expired)
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's assertion that petrol prices will not be touched by carbon pricing. How does he reconcile that statement with the view of the petroleum distribution and retail association ACAPMA that the carbon tax will put upward pressure on petrol prices because it will push up the cost of fuel production, distribution, retailing and service station operations?
There are a couple of very simple points that I will make. All of those claims, at the end of the day, will be tested by the ACCC. We will have a test of these sorts of wild claims about pushing up prices. There are going to be a lot of them made. They have been made by those opposite. Of course, they would not pass the ACCC test if it applied to them; they have already failed it massively. But the fact is that the impact of this on the general inflation in the economy is less than 1c in the dollar. That is the truth of it. The fact is that most of the claims that are being made out there, particularly from those opposite, are inaccurate, but they can be put to the test if those claims are going to be made.
Although I have missed him, we did have with us Ross Robinson, a member from the New Zealand parliament who is an assistant speaker. He has had to leave before I got the opportunity to recognise him, but I did want to note his presence.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. In last year's New South Wales budget the matching funding of $3.5 billion for the completion of the Pacific Highway by 2016 was not allocated—in the same New South Wales budget where $9 billion was allocated for Sydney transport. Minister, in light of this, what urgent steps are you taking now to re-engage New South Wales and finalise a signed and formal agreement to complete the Pacific Highway by the agreed and promised bipartisan date of 2016? (Time expired)
I thank the member for Lyne for his question and for his ongoing commitment to upgrading the Pacific Highway. Indeed, in the federal budget this year we did announce an additional $3.56 billion funding for the nation-building program and we indicated that it would be available for the Pacific Highway on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. We also indicated that it was possible to achieve the joint objective, first put down by the Howard government, of a full duplication of the highway by 2016. So I was very disappointed by the fact that the New South Wales government has failed to step up to this opportunity in spite of the fact that year after year they made promises that they would deliver matching funds for the Pacific Highway and that they were committed to the full duplication by 2016. They failed to deliver.
Premier O'Farrell, Deputy Premier Stoner and Minister for Roads and Ports, Duncan Gay, are all on the record time after time saying they would make it a top priority. They now say that the reason was a $5 billion cut in funding for New South Wales in terms of revenue expectations. But the fact is this government found space to provide increased funding in the nation-building program even though there has been a $140 billion drop in revenue as a result of the global financial crisis. The NRMA came out for New South Wales to match the funding. But it gets even worse. Last year, the state government Treasurer, Mike Baird, said in his budget speech:
In its last Budget, the Commonwealth allocated $750 million …
… we are determined to provide the funds needed to match the Commonwealth offer.
In their budget papers of last week that figure has become $468 million—that is, they have cut funding for the Pacific Highway by $300 million on what they promised just six months ago.
What does the National Party do about this? The Leader of the National Party goes out there and says that 2016 cannot be achieved and he would be very disappointed if duplication was not completed by 2020. He would not commit one cent of additional funding for the Pacific Highway in spite of the fact that we have already committed $4.1 billion dollars. They committed $1.3 billion over 12 long years.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in light of your answer, the very public dispute of the last week between the Commonwealth and the state of New South Wales, and that the Pacific Highway has been historically funded 80-20 or fifty-fifty, will you right now agree to release all documents and all correspondence on the history of the Pacific Highway between the two governments so we can all establish who on earth is telling the truth? (Time expired)
We certainly will, in terms of the member for Lyne's request. The fact is that the government had introduced additional funding for the Pacific Highway through the economic stimulus plan, including the Kempsey bypass. The longest bridge in Australia is being constructed there. Indeed, on the weekend we opened—through Senator Thistlethwaite, the duty senator for Cowper, and the state National Party member—an interchange on the Kempsey bypass. There is not one cent of state government money going into that section of the highway. They are happy to turn up to the openings but they do not want to actually deliver.
I table for the benefit of the House my letter to Michael Daley, the New South Wales Minister for Roads, indicating my disappointment with the funding for the Pacific Highway that the former state Labor government that did not do well enough on the Pacific Highway had done. I table the Sydney Morning Herald article 'Rees bungle costs state $50 million' about how I reduced funding for New South Wales due to the failure of the former government to deliver. I table the letter from David Campbell, the then Minister for Transport and Roads in the New South Wales government, asking for 80:20 funding for the Pacific Highway, and I table my response rejecting the proposition of Minister Campbell for the New South Wales government. (Time expired)
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister update the House about the importance of transparency when it comes to the impact of carbon pricing?
I thank the member for Banks for that very important question. The government has been absolutely open about the impact of carbon pricing on the general price level, and we know that it will impact on inflation by 0.7 per cent, less than one cent in the dollar. We know that the great bulk of businesses will do the right thing; they always do. But, for any business that is thinking of misleading claims about the impact of carbon pricing, they will have the ACCC down on them like a tonne of bricks, because it is simply not going to be justified for people to be making the sorts of claims that were made by the shadow minister before without that going through full ACCC scrutiny.
It is the role of the ACCC to examine unreasonable claims. It is the role of the ACCC to put in place fines if those claims are found to be false and misleading, so that is what we have done with the ACCC. We have funded them. They are establishing a hotline that consumers can call, but not just consumers, because it could be other businesses that will become the victim of this process. It is there for business as well as consumers, on 1300 303 609. As I have said, we have put in place the appropriate funding, and there can be fines of up to $1.1 million—up to 1.1 million reasons for people not to rip off consumers or other businesses.
The opposition have been running around the place, saying that the impact on prices is going to be unimaginable; they are going to go through the roof. We have also had a further Treasury study, and this new Treasury analysis once again shows a price impact of less than one cent in the dollar in the September quarter of 2012. This is a study of what markets are expecting from the impact of the carbon price, and it has confirmed the original Treasury modelling. But, despite all of this, we have got the opposition running around with their scare campaign, whilst at the same time you have got opposition backbenchers over there investing in coal companies, which the Leader of the Opposition tells us are going to be wiped from the face of the earth.
The fact is—and this is a simple fact—that on 1 July we will see the true test of Tony Abbott's slippery scare campaign. The fact is that 1 July will reveal the Leader of the Opposition as a dodgy snake oil salesman—nothing but deceit and negativity.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I refer the minister to his claim that the number of companies required to directly pay the carbon tax will be considerably lower than the 500 previously thought. How does he reconcile that statement with the fact that 1,200 mostly small and medium Australian companies that import refrigerants will be hit directly by the tax? Why does the minister continue to mislead the Australian people about the impact of the world's largest carbon— (Time expired)
There is only one of side of this parliament where there have been misleading statements made. As I was making the point before, it is on that side, and if they were running a business the ACCC would be jumping all over them for the claims that they have been making. Under the Clean Energy Act, the Clean Energy Regulator is required to publish a list of liable entities on a public information database, and that database was updated for a second time last Friday. Organisations are placed on that that are expected, on reasonable grounds, to be liable for the carbon price mechanism in the relevant financial year. The number of entities published by last Friday is 294. It includes 34 local councils and resolves issues that had fallaciously been raised by those opposite. On current information available to the regulator the list comprises 294 entities. The regulator has also advised that it is in discussion with a number of other liable entities who want to use the act's provisions allowing them to transfer liability within their corporate group or amongst joint venture partners, and that will ultimately add to the list as entities access those provisions under the act. They are well aware, however, of their responsibilities under the act.
In relation to the issue of synthetic greenhouse gases, it was the Howard government that introduced legislation regulating and placing a levy upon the importation of synthetic greenhouse gases, and the government has ensured that a carbon price applies to those cases.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. How is the government making sure that hard-working families, seniors and small businesses are getting a fair go with the introduction of a carbon price?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. Pricing carbon is the cheapest and most efficient way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and tackling the challenge of climate change. It is a significant economic reform that will drive investment in clean energy and will help cut greenhouse gas emissions by 160 million tonnes in 2020. That is the equivalent of the emissions generated by 45 million cars. At the same time, by 2020 our economy is projected to grow by around one-third, with 1.6 million new jobs being created and average incomes rising by around $9,000 per person. Because we are a Labor government we are determined to implement this important change in a way that ensures we look after hard-working Australians. That is why we are increasing payments to families, pensioners and eligible self-funded retirees. That is why we are also providing tax relief to individuals and small businesses. That tax relief not only involves incentives like the instant asset write-off, but it also involves the tripling of the tax-free threshold.
We know that there is a lot of misleading information being spread out there about the carbon price but, for the record, the carbon price will have an average impact of 0.7 per cent, or less than one per cent. That is less than one cent in the dollar. This is less than one-third of the impact of the GST when it was introduced by the previous government. Today the ACCC has launched a new hotline and an online forum where Australians will have the opportunity to report businesses that they suspect are making false and misleading claims in relation to the carbon price. We know that most businesses will do the right thing, but rest assured that those businesses who jack up prices and falsely blame the carbon price will have the ACCC to deal with. The ACCC, of course, has the power to seek penalties of up to $1.1 million per contravention. While the government is out there trying to crack down on misleading claims, the Leader of the Opposition has been out there making a few of his own. Not only is he out there making misleading claims, he now thinks it is okay to encourage businesses to do the same. We all know he has been out there saying that price rises would be astronomical and that they would be unimaginable. He said that the coal industry would be killed off and that Whyalla would be wiped off the map. We have heard it all before from the Leader of the Opposition—first it was going to be a cobra strike, but now it is going to be a python squeeze. The only thing we can guarantee is that it would take a python to squeeze a few facts out of the Leader of the Opposition.
The minister's time has expired.
Before I call the member for Stirling I want to recognise in the gallery today Peter Morris, a former minister in the Labor government and the former member for Shortland.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I remind the Acting Prime Minister that before the election the government promised that there would be no expansion of processing centres in Australia, and that since the election there have been 4,300 new beds added at centres including Curtin, Scherger, Wickham Point, Darwin, Broadmeadows, Pontville, Inverbrackie and Northam. Given the spate of illegal boat arrivals at Cocos Island, will the Acting Prime Minister guarantee that the government will not open a detention centre there?
It is quite ironic that the party that has come into this House and refused to support overseas processing then comes in and complains about an increase in arrivals. It is just quite extraordinary. They have got a real hide to come into this House after they sabotaged the Malaysian arrangement, which would break the people smugglers' model and put us in a position where we can send that message to the region about not jumping on a boat. But having wrecked that, they then come into the House and make all these others claims that we have heard from them both here and outside the parliament. There are no plans for Cocos Island from this government, but I can tell you this: we are going to hold you accountable for your failure to support in this House legislation that would break the people smugglers' model.
On a point of order: the Acting Prime Minister was asked whether he would rule out a detention centre at Cocos Island and that is the question that he needs to answer.
The Acting Prime Minister will refer to the question before the Chair.
I have already answered the question.
I have a supplementary question. As the Acting Prime Minister has refused to rule out opening a detention centre at Cocos Island, can he inform the House how much it is costing the Australian taxpayer to fly staff and resources on charter planes to Cocos Island and to fly asylum seekers from there to Christmas Island?
If the opposition were concerned about the costs of processing anywhere they would support our legislation in the House.
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on Australia's commitment to protection of our oceans? Are there any risks to delivering the policy? What are the implications beyond Commonwealth waters?
I am glad that there is a side of the House willing to ask a question on this issue. It was extraordinary that those opposite were willing to damage the national interest on this issue with their talk of a 'killer attack on the way'—and we have all been waiting with suspense. Well, a major announcement was made last week. Australia has always been one of the world leaders in national parks on land. Yellowstone and the Royal National Park were the first two national parks on land in the world. Last week Australia also became the world leader on national parks in the ocean. That is something that this side of the House is very proud of and it is something on which—despite the games that are being played by those opposite—it was thought there was a level of bipartisanship. The principles and the plan were first put forward under the Keating government, but the commitments that were made internationally were made at a conference known as Rio+10 in Johannesburg, where the representative of Australia was a bloke by the name of Kemp—Environment Minister Kemp—when the other side signed up to the words that it would be a 'representative, comprehensive and adequate network' of marine national parks.
Since then the objections have come—with Ron Boswell, interestingly, becoming the person to commit the opposition to try to tear this apart—on grounds relating to the impact on commercial fishers and rec fishers. Let us look at each of them. In terms of commercial fishing, the impact on the gross value of production is between one and two per cent of the total industry—a one to two per cent impact. On rec fishing, which has been the principal issue that the Leader of the Opposition has identified as being his concern, if you are on the east coast and you are anywhere south of Mackay, you have got to get out in your tinny almost to Lord Howe Island before you find the first area where rec fishers are not allowed to go. Even if you are in Mackay you have to take your tinny for 400 kilometres before you reach Marion Reef. Once you get to Marion Reef you are banned from fishing on it but you are still allowed to fish around it—containing the key pelagic species that the rec fishers are after. We have a situation where, in relation to the fear campaign that they have wanted to run during the last 12 months, the time is up. Rec fishers know that this is in Commonwealth waters, a long way away from the areas that they want, and Australians are proud to be the world leaders in establishing protection of the oceans.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the minister's comments on the need for global action on our oceans and our environment. How will Australia be advancing this at the Rio+20 conference?
I am very glad that question was asked. To ensure that all of these reforms are best practice you want to make sure that you go as far as possible in the world coming closer to the good standard of fisheries management that Australia has and the good standard of marine parks that Australia has. That is why it used to be bipartisan that we would have an involvement in the Coral Triangle initiative. That is why it used to be bipartisan that we would engage in the Earth Summit and the meeting of environment ministers that happens once every 10 years. It is not necessarily the summit itself; it is the bilateral meetings that you have on the one occasion when all the environment ministers of the world are in the same place. It should be bipartisan that you will have those negotiations country after country. Yet the exact same officials who were organising bilateral after bilateral, back to back—not the meetings on the beach that the member for Flinders said that he wanted to be able to attend when he was on TV on the weekend but the bilaterals where you advance the national interest—and meeting after meeting are now cancelling those meetings. The same pairing arrangements that caused the Leader of the Opposition to play 'chasings' in and out of the chamber and caused chaos on that other side mean that even this has to be turned into a political game. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for . I remind the minister that in 2004 the compensation for fishermen in marine industries to rezone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was originally capped at $10 million but subsequently blew out to close to $250 million. How has the minister arrived at a figure of $100 million as the cost of compensation to rezone an area 10 times that size?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for opening up the cost blow-out that was administered by the other side. The bioregional planning that is taking place takes place under national environmental law—the legislation that was introduced by a bloke you might have heard of by the name of Robert Hill. Across our oceans there is one region that was done by the previous government—one region only—and that was the south-east. When the south-east was done that provided the template for displacement policy, and that is exactly the template that the government is providing and is following through on.
Where was the member for Leichhardt saying, 'It is an outrageous package,' when it was being implemented by the Howard government? Where was the member for Leichhardt when he was wanting to claim—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked how he arrived at a figure of $100 million for an area 10 times the size of the Great Barrier Reef. That is the question that he needs to answer.
The member will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Not only were the principles that were arrived at by the previous government in terms of displacement policy the principles that we are now following through on, but the science which was delivered by the previous government has formed some of the scientific foundations for the principles that we followed. The south-west would be the biggest one. On the south-west document there—the bioregional profile for the science—you will see a photograph of a bloke that you might recognise. He used to be the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.
The minister will desist from using the prop. The minister will not use the prop.
The member for Wentworth authored the document that provided the scientific foundation for the south-west. The previous government authored the policies that have dictated how we will run the displacement policies throughout this process. What we have got is a situation where the opposition have decided that environmental protection is something that they need to say no to at every single location. You will not find the member for Leichhardt talking about the impact on his electorate for the dive industry, because the dive industry, a cornerstone of the tourism industry in Cairns, has been out there backing this. They know that Osprey Reef in particular—one of the top five dive sites in the world—is now on the global map in a much stronger way because it has been given the level of marine protection that it always should have had. But no—no mention from the member for Leichhardt of the benefits for some of the tourism sectors in his own electorate—
The minister will return to the question.
because, when the option to say no is there, it is irresistible for them.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The frontbench are denying the member for Makin the call. The member for Makin has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness. Will the minister advise the House of the benefits to the Australian economy of decisive action on the pricing of carbon? What would be the implications for Australian competitiveness if decisive action were not taken?
I would like to thank the member for Makin for his question. Far from going it alone on carbon pricing, by next year Australia will be one of more than 50 jurisdictions with emissions trading schemes. In fact, 94 per cent of OECD members have or are developing emissions trading schemes at either the national or the subnational level. The Gillard government, of course, has had the wisdom and the foresight to anticipate these developments and implement an Australian emissions trading scheme as promised by the Howard government, supported at the time by the now Leader of the Opposition. Australia's scheme is going to position our country to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the inevitable global transition to a clean energy future, and that will enable our businesses to participate in international carbon markets, a very important opportunity. Indeed, the anti-price-gouging measures announced by the ACCC will help ensure our businesses do not have their competitiveness impaired by unscrupulous business behaviour.
There are threats to replace this market based mechanism with a centrally planned direct action scheme, and those threats are undermining business confidence. The coalition is supporting a central planning scheme and Labor is supporting a market based mechanism, so there is the irony. All of this is being done not because of a commitment to central planning—although I sometimes suspect the opposition leader has one of those—but for the basest of political motives and for that irresistible urge on the part of the opposition leader to say no, no, no. The opposition leader is a self-declared weathervane on climate change. He supported an ETS. He supported a carbon tax. He said that climate change was 'crap' and he is now supporting central planning.
Businesses want certainty about climate change policy, not weathervane economics. They certainly do not need the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer talking down the economy. There were good figures out a couple of weeks ago. What do we have? 'Glum and Glummer' over there always talking down the economy. The only way of getting business certainty is to support the Gillard government's policy over the rank political opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. Say goodnight, Glum and Glummer.
My question is to the Minister for . I remind the minister that Australia imports over 70 per cent of the seafood we consume and at current consumption levels we are projected to require an additional 850,000 tonnes by 2020. Given that the minister plans to deny access to valuable fisheries across Australia as a result of his massively expanding marine parks, what will the impact be on the price of seafood as Australia imports more and catches less locally?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not surprised, given the distance all these zones are from Mackay, that he has gone off any questions about recreational fishers and gone to the commercials. I am not surprised at all by that. He wants to know what the commercial impact will be. When the impact on the gross value of production is in the order of between one and two per cent then that will be the impact. Between one and two per cent is the impact.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The member for Dawson has asked his question.
It is interesting when we hear the claim from those opposite—
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The member for Dawson is warned.
about to what extent we are already importing seafood that people eat, because it is true we import extraordinary amounts at the moment.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under standing order 94a. The minister will resume his seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appeal to you respectfully: given the minister is clearly refusing to answer the question he was asked, is it any wonder the member for Dawson is frustrated? I would ask you to bring the minister back to the question.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under standing order 94a. I gave the member for Dawson significant opportunity to rein himself in. I understand his frustration, but it is not in the standing orders to hurl abuse across the chamber. The minister has the call and he will return to the question before the chair.
The member for Dawson then left the chamber.
The question referred to the extent to which we import seafood. It is also important to remember that, as a trading nation, we also export massive amounts of seafood. If you go through our highest value fisheries like the southern bluefin tuna fishery, we export 98 to 99 per cent of that catch. You have large amounts of export with the WA rock lobster industry as well. So to simply look at the import figures and make those sorts of assertions does not add up and shows a lack of understanding of how the Australian fisheries industries actually work. We have had similar claims about the impact by references to a large trawler that is allegedly coming into Australian waters, whereas in fact that trawler has made no application to do so at all. What we have there is the classic example of a fear campaign running off the back of one to two per cent of gross value of production.
If we had not conducted the level of consultation that we had and simply gone with initial maps then you would find a much larger impact. But, as the consultation took place around the country, we made sure that, from the initial scientific basis wherever we could shift a boundary to minimise the impact on commercial fishers but to get a similar environment impact, we made those changes—and we make no apology for doing that. Wherever it has been possible to improve the socioeconomic outcomes without in any way reducing the environmental outcomes, we have done that. We have done that with the direct opposition from those opposite, saying it should be science based and nothing else, but that is exactly the approach which has minimised the fear campaign that the member would otherwise be wanting to refer to.
What he is saying there ultimately has no foundation when you get to your one to two per cent across your oceans figure. What we have is an environmental outcome that is world leading and done in a way that respects the people who want to get in a tinnie and fish and the people who make a living from fishing. You only have to look at the direct impact on those who have made comments, such as ones within the electorate of Leichhardt who have said what they want now is certainty to have the negotiation with government and know exactly what the outcome is. Tourism gets its benefit and you get the economic decisions made using the template that was given to us when the south-east was done by the Howard government.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is helping Australian families make ends meet? How is this support being delivered and what would be the impact of withdrawing it?
I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. As she knows, this Labor government is all about giving back to ordinary Australian families. We are making sure that we help those families make ends meet.
I can inform the House that in the last couple of weeks around 1.6 million Australian families have received payments to help them with their bills and to help them over coming months. This week families will start receiving the schoolkids bonus. It will go straight into their bank accounts and make sure that families get the help that they need with the costs of educating their children.
What we know is that it is important to also give support to pensioners, and so for those who are on the pension we have had around 3.2 million Australian pensioners also get increases straight into their bank accounts over the last few weeks. If you are a single pensioner, you would have received $250, and $380 for couples combined, so that is already providing extra help for those pensioners. This, of course, is on top of the historic increases that this government has provided to Australian pensioners of around $150 a fortnight, making a huge difference to the needs of pensioners. From March next year, we will be providing ongoing and regular increases to pensioners.
For a family that is on around $75,000 a year with two primary school-age children, this will mean that they will get around $1,000 in tax cuts and increased payments. For this family with two primary school-age children, they will also receive the schoolkids bonus and increases in family payments next year.
What we know is that this Liberal Party is hell-bent on clawing this money back from families and pensioners. We already see it in Victoria, where the Liberal government is clawing back their school start bonus. We know Barry O'Farrell is doing the same to pensioners in public housing: clawing back the pension increase and forcing up public housing rents. We know that this Leader of the Opposition is going to do exactly the same: claw back the pension increase and claw back the family payment increase—just like his Liberal colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor dated June 2012, entitled Australian National Audit Office: IT audit capability and resourcing.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I present the following Auditor-General's Performance Audit reports for 2011-2012: Audit report No. 38, Administration of the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program in New South Wales; Audit report No. 39, Management of the National Solar Schools Program; Audit report No. 40, Interpretative Assistance for self managed superannuation funds; Audit report No. 41, National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy; and Audit report No. 42, Management of the multicultural servicing strategy for the delivery of Centrelink services.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
I move:
That the leave of absence granted to the honourable member for Greenway, for purposes of maternity leave, be extended from 18 June through to 13 August 2012.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Frydenberg and Mr Tehan be appointed as supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the National Integrity Commissioner Bill 2012.
In speaking to this briefly, Deputy Speaker, I have no objection to these two members being appointed but it was my understanding that each side of the House could appoint a supplementary member to a committee, not that one side of the House could appoint two supplementary members. In moving this I would ask for clarification of that. If that is the case then this will be revisited and the opposition can decide whether they want Mr Frydenberg or Mr Tehan to be the supplementary member of that committee.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 19 June 2012 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 12 noon;
(b) during the period from 12 noon until 2pm any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and
(c) during the period from 12 noon until 2pm if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
I thank the opposition for their cooperation in this matter. It is the government's intention to try to get through this last sitting fortnight of the session without extending sittings into the late night. I note also that the press gallery have, for some reason, put their major function of the year on next Wednesday night. Normally we would sit on the Wednesday night before the last sitting day, so we will have to be a little bit more diligent if people wish to be able to attend that event. Tomorrow we will discuss with the opposition which bills will be discussed between 12 and 2pm but there will be no votes during that period.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Energy use in the Australian Government’s operations—Report for 2009-10.
Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Act 2008—Review of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, 22 May 2012.
Debate adjourned.
I am very pleased today to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. This is a very timely and important bill to ensure that we progress gender equality in the workplace.
The campaign for women's equal representation in the workplace is one many decades in the making. We have seen various triumphs for women over the years at a national and international level. When I was researching this speech it was very interesting to hear many stories of women who have really put themselves out there to draw attention to this important issue. One of these was Zelda D'Aprano, who chained herself to the Commonwealth Building in Melbourne while campaigning to ensure equal pay. This was really important and the legislation before us today builds on the legislation and the many achievements that have gone before it.
The legislation goes back a long way, but in 1972 the big decision made by the courts was to grant equal pay for equal work. This was a very important decision because it put into law that women who were doing the same work as men, alongside their work colleagues, would get equal pay. We have continued to see some inequities in the area of equal pay, which I will talk about shortly, but that decision was a very important one in ensuring the start of equal opportunity in the workplace.
Twenty-eight years ago the Sex Discrimination Act was introduced and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was introduced two years later. This was important legislation and there have been some important inroads made in this area. There was a government review in 1999 which looked at this issue and again some improvements were made—but one would agree that more than 10 years after that review it is important that we review the act again. In 2008, the then Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, announced a review of this legislation. It was very important that this take into consideration the many stakeholders and interested parties to ensure that we got this legislation right for the next decade. The legislation in front of us today makes some important improvements to the legislation. In particular—and it does a number of things—the bill amends the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, which emphasises the focus of the act on gender equality, thereby improving the outcomes for women and men in workplaces. The name of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency will also be changed to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. This will be important to equip this agency to prepare to move into the future. As I mentioned, things have changed: we hopefully do not have to have women chaining themselves to Commonwealth buildings to get fair pay, but we still have to make sure that we are approaching and tackling gender inequity in our workplaces, and this sets the agency up to be very much focused on its task ahead.
The bill amends the principal objectives of the act to reflect on a new focus to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace, with special recognition of equal remuneration and family and caring responsibilities as issues central to the achievement of gender equality. While we have come a long way in remuneration and ensuring that women and men get paid equally, we still have a long way to go. It was only very recently that we were able to celebrate—and I certainly welcomed—the decision by Fair Work Australia in the fair pay case. That recognised that there has been systematic underpayment of women, depending on which areas of work they take up, and that the structural inequity must be addressed. That was a very important decision, one that I welcomed, but I am also proud to be part of a government that not only welcomed that decision and what it meant for many women workers around the country but also responded practically by putting its money where its mouth was in terms of fair pay for women. I encourage all the states and territories to do the same. We need to work with the states and territories to ensure that the fair pay decision becomes realised. I am very pleased that this Commonwealth Labor government has made that commitment.
Family and caring responsibilities are issues central to the achievement of gender equality, and so often it is women who take on the brunt or the burden of caring. Many women are very pleased to take this on, whether it be for children or older parents, and they are pleased to be of service and want to do this. However, we must recognise that this can affect the participation of women in the workforce. Without having the proper flexibilities and the proper frameworks in place this can, for many women, affect their participation in the workplace and does not allow them to achieve gender equity.
It is not just in the workplace that this is an issue but also in the future with superannuation. For many women who take on part-time roles and balance their caring responsibilities with their work responsibilities, who take time out of the workplace while raising children, there will be inequities in superannuation. This is a very important area that we must continue to focus on as to how we ensure that women are not disadvantaged—not just at work but also in retirement. I am very pleased that the objects of this act will be amended to ensure that family and caring responsibilities are issues central to the achievement of gender equality.
This bill also proposes to improve the coverage of the act to include men as well as women. Agency advice and assistance functions will not be just for those companies that are required to report. Under the legislation employers of 100 or more employees are subject to the reporting requirements. This suggests that only those organisations could get advice and assistance from the agency. I am very pleased that this bill will ensure that the agency's advice and assistance will extend to all employers. So if that employer is a small business looking at gender equality and equity issues it will also be able to access advice. I encourage those small businesses that may be interested in this area to get in touch once the new agency is providing this advice to get some ideas about this.
The bill also introduces a new reporting framework in which relevant employers are required to report against gender equality indicators. This will commence from 1 April 2013. Obviously, this provides employers with some time in which they can get their information together. It has a phase-in period. The requirement for the equal opportunity in the workplace program will be removed and the reporting will be simpler as well as more meaningful and more useful.
One of the really important things in this bill is that it will allow employers to both measure and understand gender equality within their workplaces but also compare themselves to other workplaces in their industry. I think this is important because it will allow the agency to target assistance and, over time, will also allow employers to really gauge how they are doing on issues of gender equity. Over time, the improved and standardised data set will also allow the minister to set minimum standards. This will be important to communicate clearly to businesses what these minimum standards are. They will be based on a standardised set of data, recognising that things change from industry to industry. The functions of the agency will be to develop industry based benchmarks in relation to gender equality indicators. The agency will also have specific roles in providing assistance and advice on improving performance against minimum standards. The bill also clarifies and improves transparency associated with compliance with the act and the consequences of noncompliance.
This bill builds on this Labor government's achievements when it comes to women's participation in the workforce. We have introduced key things. I have mentioned the fair pay decision and the commitment by this government to put money up to fund that decision. When we were first elected, we addressed the issue of childcare costs. We moved from a 30 per cent rebate to a 50 per cent rebate for childcare costs. That was very important. I was very proud to be part of a government that introduced paid parental leave for the first time in this nation's history. This paid parental leave ensures a continuing connection with the workforce for women taking time out of the workforce to have children, being able to re-enter the workforce if they desire. I am very pleased that this Labor government delivered that.
I think that this bill builds on a lot of advances that we have made in terms of gender equity in the workplace. I was very concerned to hear—back in my home state of South Australia—the state Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, say, when asked what she would do if she felt she was being discriminated against on the basis of gender, 'Look, I just put up with it and hopefully it will go away.' I do not think that is an appropriate response. I think it was a very concerning message to many women out there that they should just put up with it, that it should be just part of work. You feel discriminated against, you get passed over for promotion. There is not a sense that you are actually being recognised; you should just put up with it and ignore it. I do not think that is the attitude of most places. I do not think it is the attitude of most in this parliament. We need to ensure that there is gender equality in our workplaces right around Australia, that women and men get a fair go in terms of their time at work and ensure that their rights and ability to fully participate are encouraged.
On that note, I think this is a very important development on the bill. As discussed, a number of ministers have widely consulted on this and I believe this does strike a good balance in ensuring and progressing equity in our workforce but also in ensuring that it is easier for business to deliver.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Kingston in speaking to this Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012. This bill amends the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 to deliver very importantly on a 2010 election commitment by the government to improve women's workforce participation. This proposed legislation presents a new framework for encouraging gender equality by removing those disincentives that mitigate against the equal participation of women in the workforce. It also fulfils a dual purpose of supporting improved workforce participation—particularly that of women and carers—as well as reducing, more importantly, the regulatory burden on business. This is a timely bill and the government must be commended for its determination to implement these important changes because they are defining changes that will make a real difference to women and men in the broader workforce.
Many of us still struggle to comprehend in today's society—living in one of the most democratic countries in the world—why it is that wage parity, practical employment structures and cracking that infamous corporate glass ceiling sadly still elude many women. In contemporary Australia, where women are encouraged to achieve and contribute to the workforce, the issue of gender inequality as a significant disincentive to women's workforce participation must be challenged and addressed. While much of this workplace discrimination may not be intentional, it does highlight a need to challenge the manifestation of entrenched views based on gender differences in the workplace. Many of those entrenched views stem from practices that are driven very much by gender stereotyping and expectations.
One of the most obvious differences and, therefore, stereotyping practices is that women are by nature designed to bear children, and men are not. With that comes a whole lot of other gender intricacies. Rather than be left to continue to make it difficult for women to participate in the workforce, these intricacies should be embraced and catered for, knowing that one size does not fit all in the workplace and that we need the flexibility to accommodate and therefore maximise workforce participation for women and men. The truth is that many prospective employers do tend to adopt an attitude that avoids employing or promoting women because it is perceived that they are more likely to have family-work balance issues that, if the truth be said, are not necessarily problems for prospective male employees. That is not to say that men do not have responsibilities to their families, but existing traditional workplace conditions together with social expectations have created a workplace culture which traditionally made it easier for men to participate and harder for women to participate. So we need to change our attitudes and, if we are to change the culture in the workplace as it relates to the participation of women and men, we need to encourage more women into the workforce and we have to act via legislation to ensure that these changes are implemented and we get a more equal playing field. That is why I support this bill.
Our community has changed and is changing around us, and it expects government to act and to respond to those changes. The introduction of this bill ensures that we are steadily working our way through our attitudes and practices on gender equality issues and the responsibilities of both genders when it comes to the balance between work and family. The introduction of this amendment bill follows a review that found that, since the act was last amended in 1999, there have been a number of economic, social and legislative changes that require the agency to provide a more contemporary response to these changes. The government undertook extensive consultation with industry, employee organisations and the women's sector and, in doing so, drafted legislation that is finely balanced—legislation that all parties are comfortable with and which is very much about supporting employers to achieve cultural change. It most certainly is not about punishing employers or setting unreasonable standards that they cannot meet.
Importantly, the government is acting by introducing this amendment bill because the review made it clear that gender equality is essential to maximising Australia's productive potential and ensuring continuing economic growth. Closing the gap between women's and men's workforce participation is estimated to have the potential to boost gross domestic product by some 13 per cent. But, more importantly, it also has the potential to improve the lives of the broader Australian community in so many ways beyond the GDP.
I do want to draw the House's attention to the recently released report by the Grattan Institute, Game-changers: economic reform priorities for Australia. In that report it is affirmed that the participation of women in the workforce is one of the three major areas that were identified by the Grattan Institute for increasing Australia's GDP. The issue of women's participation is a game changer. It is worth up to $90 million or so in GDP increase over the next decade. So it is a significant issue and cannot be ignored.
This bill makes the appropriate changes in order to take advantage of the participation of all Australians—in particular, women—in the workforce. It changes the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and the name of the agency from the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency.
The principal objectives of the amendments are to promote and improve gender equality, including equal remuneration between men and women in employment and in the workplace. It aims to do this by supporting employers to remove barriers to the full participation of women and men, recognising the disadvantaged position of women in relation to employment.
I cannot see how the aims of this amendment bill can be anything other than positive. Gender equality in Australian workplaces is important for women, it is important for men, it is important for businesses and it is important for the economy. And it is very much a win-win for all—for employers, for employees and especially for women. And it is, of course, a win for Australia's GDP capacity.
I know that my constituents would benefit greatly from achieving gender equality in the workplace. They certainly will be better off with the stated aim of this bill, which is to close the gap between men's and women's participation. Many people in my electorate talk about their responsibilities to their children, their aged parents and their disabled family members. They all talk about their ways of finding strategies to balance these responsibilities with the need to work. So I am absolutely certain that they will welcome this bill. In particular, there are many women in my electorate who go about the daily business of balancing work and family commitments. These are women who must look after their children but must also work, and in most cases they are the low-skilled women who are also in low-paid jobs. Then there are the young women in my electorate—those who are single and those who are highly-skilled, career-focused women who will largely rely on changes in the workplace culture to pave the way for a change of attitude that will enable them to face less discrimination as they pursue their careers and life's ambitions and choices.
So I am familiar, as all of us should be, with these community attitudes and how this bill will assist in making their lives a little easier as it will allow them to participate in the workforce. This is especially so for the women in my electorate, and I want to make a special mention of the many refugee women who have settled in the federal seat of Calwell. These are women who have come from less democratic and equitable societies—women who, in addition to working to support their families, have also to pick up the pieces of broken lives and lost homes; women who have fled war, who have feared and continue to fear for the safety of their loved ones, but especially for the security and the future of their children; women who have overcome horrors that we here in Australia have never experienced. Yet these women persevere, and they form a part of the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of the Australia community and, indeed, the Australian workforce. They are grateful to be here, as waves of migrants before them were; they are grateful for the opportunity. But they are more often than not the most likely to be excluded from workplace participation and they, like the rest of the Australian community, deserve a fairer, more equal playing field. We all deserve a society and a workplace that caters and allows for greater gender equity and flexibility. That is how we ensure a happier, fairer and more equitable society. Of course change is never easy, but in some circumstances it cannot be brought on soon enough. The time has come to address the obvious and allow workplaces to meet the needs of our changing societies, and I commend the bill to the House.
I thank all of those people who made contributions on this important bill. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999, delivering a significant package of reforms promised by this government during the 2010 election. These reforms are aimed at improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. For improved workplace participation and workplace flexibility for women, these reforms will help to improve productivity and address current and future skills shortages. It has been estimated that closing the gap between men's and women's workforce participation could boost gross domestic product by up to13 per cent.
The bill has been developed in close consultation with key stakeholders including industry, employee organisations and the women's sector. The government believes the bill strikes the right balance between the views of these stakeholders. Since its introduction on 1 March 2012, the bill has received widespread support from across the sectors.
The government will not be supporting the opposition's amendments to this bill. The second reading amendment proposed by the opposition, that implies the government is not genuinely committed to equality because we are not adopting the opposition's paid parental leave scheme, really is laughable because it is this government that took the historic step of delivering Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. We now have more than 160,000 expectant and new parents who have applied for the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. Our scheme is affordable. It is fair for families and fair for businesses. We waited 11 years for those opposite to deliver this important reform, but they said no. Now they are proposing a $4.5 billion plan that ironically, from what we have heard in their contributions to debate on this bill, whacks a tax on business to pay for itself. The detailed amendments moved by the opposition are inconsistent and impractical and have the potential to increase red tape for businesses and for the agency.
What the government is aiming to achieve through this legislation is cultural change—that is, change that will come from employers receiving education, assistance and support to make their workplaces more gender equal, and change that will benefit women and men, businesses and industry, and the Australian economy. A review of the current act by the Office for Women found updates were needed both to the act and to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency to provide a contemporary response to national challenges. The review also made it clear that gender equality is essential to maximising Australia's productive potential and to ensuring continued economic growth.
The bill changes the name of the act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 to emphasise this new focus in the act on gender equality in the workplace. Similar changes are made to the name of the agency, which is to be called the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The government is providing the agency with an additional $11.2 million—a doubling of funds—a part of which will be used to provide practical help and advice to business.
The principal objects of the act are amended by the bill to reflect the focus on gender equality in the workplace, and include the promotion of matters such as equal remuneration, support for employers to remove workplace participation barriers for women in particular, and improved productivity and competitiveness of Australian businesses through the advancement of gender equality. Importantly, the coverage of the act is expanded to include men as well as women, particularly in relation to caring responsibilities.
Under the new, outcomes based, streamlined and more transparent reporting requirements, relevant employers will prepare and lodge public reports containing information on gender equality indicators for the reporting period commencing 1 April 2013. Smaller organisations with fewer than 100 employees will not be required to report. In other words, not one small business will be affected by the reporting requirements but they will still be able to access the agency's free advice, education and incentive activities if they wish. Relevant businesses will be able to complete and submit reports online using a secure web portal. Businesses have wanted this change and it will save them time and money.
The reporting changes will represent the first opportunity for the agency to gather and analyse a rigorous and standardised data set and will mean employers can measure their performance against other employers in their industry. This new reporting will mean less red tape. Businesses will no longer need to provide lengthy descriptions of the programs and policies they have in place. When an employer lodges a public report, employees and shareholders will be informed, and employees and employee organisations will be given an opportunity to comment.
Under the amended legislation, the minister will be able to set industry specific minimum standards in consultation with industry and experts. These minimum standards will be determined before 1 April 2014. The minimum standards will be evidence based, clear and fair, and will take into account industry characteristics and circumstances. We will be setting these minimum standards in close consultation with industry to make sure of this. This bill is not about punishing employers. These standards will be about identifying which employers need the most intensive assistance and education in order to achieve cultural change within their organisations. The bill also improves the transparency and fairness of the compliance framework and of the consequences for non-compliance.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, said in a media release that the bill was: 'a strong step toward improving women's workforce participation and, thus, closing the gender gap in Australia's workforce'. Westpac has also welcomed this bill. The Head of Diversity and Flexibility in the Westpac Group, Jane Counsel, said the reforms will provide a catalyst to drive concrete change through creating more focus, accountability and transparency to ensure all organisations are committed to delivering more inclusive and flexible workplaces.
The CEO of Citi Australia, Stephen Roberts, is happy to be on the record as saying he welcomes this legislation and the contribution it will make to improving gender diversity in the workforce. He says:
A diverse team is invariably smarter, more resilient and more productive—all of which is required for success in business.
The YWCA Australia executive director, Dr Caroline Lambert, has also commended the government 'for taking action to strengthen the tools for gender equality in the workplace'. She says:
YWCA Australia welcomes the focus in the Bill on caring responsibilities. This legislation will contribute to real change in the lives of women and men in workplaces across Australia, and we look forward to its passage in the Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to say that time has arrived. This new legislation puts gender equality in the workplace in the spotlight and it shows the determination of this government to advance gender equality between women and men and to strengthen our economy.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Farrer has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (9) together.
(1) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (line 8), omit "13C and".
(2) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (lines 8 and 9), omit "sections" (wherever occurring), substitute "section".
(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (lines 10 to 20), omit section 13C.
(4) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 46, page 12 (line 31), omit the note to subsection 14(2).
(5) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 48, page 13 (line 21), omit "13C,".
(6) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 15 (lines 24 and 25), omit "gender equality indicators, ".
(7) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 16 (lines 15 to 29), omit section 19.
(8) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 55, page 19 (after line 32), after section 19E, insert:
19F Agency to make publicly available the names of employers who submit compliant reports
The Agency shall make publicly available the names of relevant employers who regularly submit reports which comply with this Act.
(9) Schedule 1, Part 1, item 71, page 21 (after line 23), after section 33A, insert:
33B Minister to repeal a legislative instrument when a new instrument is made
If making a legislative instrument under this Act which imposes a requirement on employers, the Minister must cause an existing legislative instrument which imposes a requirement on employers to be repealed.
As the Minister for the Status of Women, who is at the table, reminded us, this bill was introduced into the House on 1 March. It has finally lurched to its conclusion. It has taken months and yet there is not a single member of the government behind this minister here and now to wave this exciting piece of reform through, even though it has been described as such by every single speaker from the government.
If this bill made a single bit of difference to the women that I meet in my life as an opposition spokesperson and a local member—women struggling with participation in the workforce, with the cost of child care, with working the hours they want to work at times they want to work and with balancing very difficult work and family responsibilities, with, as my friend the member for Calwell said, issues surrounding recently arrived migrants and refugees—I would be supporting it without hesitation. But, if we apply the ultimate barbecue stopper, what members of the government will be going out into their electorates after today and talking about this bill? What members of the government are writing this bill up in their local newsletters or issuing media releases to say, 'Everybody, we've created a new agency. It's called the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It's led by a new individual called the director of workplace gender equality. Our departments are putting together gender equality indicators and then there will be an enormous amount of ministerial discretion over how to apply the new rules that we have not yet worked out in the workplaces of Australia'? Mind you, it only affects private workplaces. If you work in public workplaces, this bill does not apply to you. We think that is incredibly unfair, by the way.
What members of the government are talking this up? I would challenge any one of them to send me the literature that they are putting out in their communities to support this, because this is meaningless. It is meaningless to the average Australian who is struggling with the cost of living and the issues of balancing work and family, which are supposedly what this bill is about. As I said, it covers a new agency, new indicators and vast-ranging ministerial discretion to do things which we are not sure about. The minister at the table said, 'Relax, it won't apply to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, so small businesses won't be affected.' But, because the discretion exists, it actually might. Articulated in this legislation is a mandate to consider these businesses as strategies are developed around resources et cetera. Those businesses are not automatically removed or ruled out of this legislation. In future this legislation may capture businesses with fewer than 100 employees. As it is, every business in Australia will be caught up in learning about this new legislation, what it means, whether they have to report, to what degree they might have to report and whether something will come down the track that will trap them into more red tape, more regulation and more explanations.
We are moving amendments to this bill, and I encourage members of the government and the Independents to consider them carefully. The amendments are varied, but the key amendment which I think should wave a red flag in this place is the one that says that, for every piece of regulation that is added for businesses under this bill, we expect one piece of regulation to be taken away. We do not think it is fair. I have heard speaker after speaker explain that this will take away the burden of regulation on businesses, so I would like to see that demonstrated by the government. I asked for that in my second reading speech, but I have not heard back. I can only assume that this is going to add to red tape and regulation.
The coalition has formed the view that this bill, which is being promoted as a bill to increase gender equality in the workplace, is in reality an artificial contrivance by the government to increase union power and leverage in workplaces. The government, when questioned about the impact of this bill, is unable to tell us how many more women will be employed, how many more jobs will be created or what is to be the actual increase in gender equality in the workplace as a result of the measures provided for in this bill. It is employers that will have to implement these proposed workplace changes, not the public sector, unions or lobby groups. It is employers that will have to bear the additional costs of these changes, notwithstanding that the government cannot tell us what those costs are. Our amendments are very much in the interests of the employers, the families and the communities that we on this side of the House speak up for.
As I indicated previously, the government is not supporting the amendments. To be honest, the amendments as distributed would actually cause more red tape for businesses and for the agency. I particularly note that the member for Farrer talked about the last amendment of the legislation removing red tape. It is interesting and quite unusual, because the opposition are asking the minister to cause a legislative instrument to be repealed, which I cannot do because that is the role of the parliament. That indicates what these amendments are about. The government does not support the amendments. We have consulted widely with employers on this legislation. I believe that most employers understand the need for this legislation, because they know it will be good for businesses. I stand by the government's legislation.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That order of the day No. 2 government business be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Let me say at the outset that the coalition supports these bills—the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012—which were introduced on Thursday, 24 May 2012 by the member for Maribyrnong, the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I will run briefly through the schedules in the first bill, then the single schedule in the second bill and cover a couple of areas of detail that have been raised since the minister introduced this legislation in the last sitting fortnight.
As I said at the outset on behalf of the coalition, we support these bills and the principles that underpin them. With respect to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012, the first schedule of the bill introduces—as the minister outlined in his second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum—a framework to support the implementation of superannuation data and payment regulations and standards that will apply to specified superannuation transactions undertaken by superannuation entities, retirement savings account providers and employers. The second schedule amends the APRA Act, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998—specifically section 50—to enable costs associated with the implementation of the measures to be included in the minister's determination specifying the amount of the levy that is payable to the Commonwealth. The amendments also enable the minister to make a determination that specifies the proportion of levy money paid to APRA that is to be credited to the APRA Special Account. The Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill amends the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998 in a range of material respects to enable the Treasurer to make more than one determination on the imposition of levies for a financial year.
The coalition is supporting this legislation and supports the principle of measures that improve the efficiency, transparency and competitiveness of the administration of the superannuation system by making the system easier to use for employers, ensuring fewer lost accounts, providing a more timely flow of money to super fund members' accounts and delivering savings to employers and fund members. As part of the government's proposal, these bills provide for the implementation of data and payment regulations and standards, as I have outlined, that will allow participants in the super system to communicate by using standardised business terms in a consistent and reliable format. Electronic transmission using agreed transport and security protocols will allow for a more automated and timely processing of transactions with fewer errors. If properly implemented, these changes will deliver significant efficiency savings to the super industry and to employers. Indeed, the savings have been estimated by the Financial Services Council to be quite significant—of the order of $20 billion over 10 years. Much of the detail on these new standards will, of course, be in regulations, which industry participants consider to be appropriate.
Like most pieces of technical legislation, this has been before a parliamentary committee since its introduction on 24 May—that committee being the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I am a member. That committee reported today—around lunchtime, to be accurate—recommending that the legislation be passed but also recommending:
That the ATO be required to provide a regular detailed breakdown of its costs and expenditure of the additional levies to the SuperStream Advisory Council, based on reporting guidelines developed in consultation between the council and the ATO.
That is a firm recommendation of the committee—and by all members on the committee. The cost of implementation, as outlined in the legislation and in the minister's speech, will be $467 million from 2012-13 to 2017-18, including $121 million in 2012-13. So we think that that recommendation in the report tabled earlier today is a relevant one. We on this side of the House note that it is supported by all members on the committee. As I said, we support this legislation and think if properly implemented it will certainly provide benefits and efficiencies right through the system.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012 introduce a framework to support the implementation of superannuation data and payment regulations and standards that will apply to specified superannuation transactions undertaken by superannuation entities, retirement savings account providers and employers. As the previously speaker noted, this is technical legislation, but it is legislation that will make a difference to Australians and their families.
SuperStream costs of $467 million will be collected through the superannuation supervisory levy from 2012-13 to 2017-18. That will enable the government to collect the implementation costs associated with the SuperStream measure. The opposition have acknowledged the efficiencies from the SuperStream proposal and have acknowledged that they have the potential to deliver real savings over time and will benefit superannuants.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia calculates that $1.3 trillion of assets are in superannuation funds. Treasury forecasts estimate that this will grow to between $3 trillion and $5 trillion by 2025. When Bob Hawke took office in 1983, just 40 per cent of the workforce had superannuation cover. Thanks to Labor, that rose from 72 per cent in 1991 to 94 per cent in 2007. Australians have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy in the world.
The Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation today released new research showing broad support for the superannuation system but that, understandably, many people continue to find it a difficult topic to understand. Senator Sherry, who recently stepped down after many years of public service, was one of those in the Labor caucus with a true passion for superannuation—but I cannot promise that the rest of us ever had quite his level of engagement with that topic. But it is important that Australian policy makers recognise the benefits to improving the simplicity and the efficiency of the superannuation system.
There is $20 billion in lost super in Australia, and reuniting Australians with their lost superannuation is absolutely critical. I joined with Chris Bourke MLA, last year in running some mobile offices around the ACT. We found that there were particular postcodes in which there was a very high level of lost superannuation. We worked with a simple mobile office and a laptop computer helping people get back in touch with their lost superannuation accounts using the ATO's SuperSeeker tool. We were pleased on a number of occasions to assist people in finding their unclaimed superannuation.
The research announced today by the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation showed that people's level of interest in their superannuation varied depending on how old they are, how financially literate they are and the amount of superannuation they had saved. It found that across all age groups, the majority of Australians were not confident that they have enough superannuation to retire and live comfortably on and that, overall, employers believe that superannuation is beneficial to their employees and the general population to reduce the reliance on the pension—giving lie to the claim by some of those opposite in the early 1990s that employers would not support universal superannuation.
The superannuation industry is currently dominated by paper based transactions. They are inefficient in both processing costs and the time taken for transactions to occur and superannuation to be deposited in to members' accounts. The superannuation data and payment standards will allow participants in the superannuation system to communicate using standard business terms in a consistent and reliable format. Using electronic transmission, with agreed security protocols, will mean that we will get quicker processing of transactions and fewer errors. Just as e-health is bringing about efficiencies in the healthcare system, so, too, greater efficiency in the superannuation payments system is a benefit to all Australians. It is an easier system for employers to use. There will be fewer lost accounts and Australians will get the money in their accounts more quickly—which, of course, means that they will begin earning returns more quickly.
The superannuation data and payment standards will be mandated for superannuation entities, including approved deposit funds, RSA providers and employers. The regulators—being the commissioner and APRA—will support the rollout of the new data and payment standards through education activities and a new compliance framework. Industry submissions to the super system review estimated that savings of up to a billion dollars per annum are achievable from implementing the SuperStream reforms.
Members will be able to look up and keep track of their superannuation, have low-value inactive accounts consolidated automatically, be able to consolidate larger accounts easily, have their contributions and rollovers processed more quickly and be able to more easily check if their superannuation contributions have been made. Employers will benefit from having standardised, simplified administrative processes when dealing with superannuation funds. Superannuation funds will benefit from standardised and simplified administrative processes when dealing with employers and other funds, and be able to make greater use of tax file numbers to facilitate matching and consolidation of accounts and of electronic validation services from the ATO that will help their administration and help ensure members are properly matched with their superannuation. Efficiencies for superannuation funds mean higher returns for fund members.
When Prime Minister Paul Keating moved to introduce the superannuation guarantee levy, Wilson Tuckey drew on his long history in the racing industry to compare the legislation to the 'worst type of jockey … both stupid and dishonest'. Mr Tuckey continued:
When the poor old employer levy gets to 12 per cent, what will it deliver? Luckily, it might deliver an overseas holiday and a few presents for the kids, but it will not deliver a retirement income at the inflated costs of those days.
As Minister Shorten has demonstrated, a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee will provide to a worker now aged 30 on average full-time wages a real benefit of over $553,000 at age pension age. That should leave a bit of change after an overseas holiday and a few presents for the kids.
The Leader of the Opposition once called Labor's superannuation guarantee a con job. Those opposite have either been uninterested in superannuation or outright critical. When Senator Bishop—as she then was—spoke in the other place on the introduction of universal super on 18 August 1992 she said:
On this side opposition members argued very logically and meaningfully that the imposition of this compulsory superannuation tax is a de facto federal payroll tax.
Yes, they were running their 'great big new tax' argument even against compulsory superannuation. Then Senator Bishop told the Senate about a conversation with a small business person who had said:
But now that this compulsory superannuation payment has gone through, yesterday I had to sack a part time employee and turn a full time employee into a part time employee.
The late Senator Peter Cook, a man for whom I was privileged to work, was moved by that statement to interject that given that the law for universal superannuation had not yet come into effect, it was hard to see how small-business people would be affected by it. You can see shades of that in the scare campaign those opposite are running against the carbon price, which has not yet come into effect. But Senator Bishop—as she was then was—was unmoved and finished up the debate as follows:
I heard Senator McMullan say, ‘The difference between our systems on superannuation is that ours is compulsory and theirs is voluntary’. That is very true. That is an essential difference. Our policy is designed to make it attractive for people to provide for themselves in later life whereas this Government’s is designed to penalise business, to regulate it out of existence.
Of course, if you carry on with that logic then the member for Mackellar should today be saying to this chamber that superannuation is penalising business and ought to be scrapped. But the fact is that no-one is making those arguments. I quoted some of the statements made in the 1990s because they illustrate an important point, not just about superannuation but also about economic history more generally. The economic reforms that have made Australia great, like universal superannuation, were hard fought at the time. Many of them were opposed by those opposite and many of those opposite at the time said they would scrap them if they were to win government. But when they did in fact take the Treasury benches, they did nothing of the kind. Universal superannuation is now part of the Australian social fabric. It was attacked at the time, demonised as being a big new tax and is now recognised as being an important pillar of a dignified retirement in Australia.
Australian workers, 8.4 million of them, will benefit from an increase in the superannuation guarantee rate from nine per cent to 12 per cent. This government is also abolishing the age limit for the superannuation guarantee so, no matter what your age, if you work you will get super. It will provide an extra contribution for the 3.6 million Australians who are earning up to $37,000. That includes plenty of part-time workers as well as low-income earners. It is a recognition of the point made in the Henry tax review that the superannuation concessions were, under the Howard government, significantly more generous for high-income earners than for low-income earners.
We are putting in place simplification reforms, which will allow people to see their superannuation account and will give employees certainty by requiring superannuation information to be on every pay slip so people can check to make sure they have got what they are entitled to. We are also introducing a MySuper product, recognising that most employees will take the default fund and within that fund will take the default investment plan. So it is important that the defaults are good and that defaults get good market returns. We are also putting in place more efficiencies to ensure lower fees for fund members. All of these reforms will ensure Australians get the superannuation they are entitled to and ensure the system is as simple, efficient and equitable as it needs to be.
I commend the bill to the House.
It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Fraser, who gave us a discursive exploration of superannuation policy after briefly deigning to come to the specifics of the bill before us. Naturally, I am going to be more limited and—some might say—small minded by concentrating purely on the provisions that are before the House this afternoon.
What I would like to say is that, in the broad, the coalition is supportive of the legislative direction contained in the legislation the House is considering this afternoon. It is an uncontentious proposition that the superannuation sector is dominated by paper based transactions, and that there are real inefficiencies, real deadweight costs and transactions costs. There is clearly capacity to secure efficiencies through the use of information technology standardised formats for the exchange of data and so on.
Coming, as I do, into this place from a background in the telecommunications sector, I became quite surprised as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on which I served learnt about the challenges currently facing the superannuation sector and the extent to which information is exchanged in paper based form. By contrast, and as one example of the kinds of efficiencies which can be secured on an industry wide basis through the use of information technology, in the telecommunications sector the mobile number portability standard requires that if a customer wishes to port his or her number from one mobile operator to another, it needs to take effect within the course of one day—and often it takes very much less time than that. Therefore I have in my own experience seen the efficiency benefits which can be delivered when standardised information technology systems are used and data transfer standards are applied to a range of participants in an industry.
Let me readily concede that the superannuation sector challenge is an even more daunting one than the one which applies in the telecommunications sector because of the fact that, in addition to all of the superannuation funds—and there are of course hundreds of them—you also have millions of employers, ranging from the very, very large to the many very small businesses. That does present some specific challenges and it also presents some areas of concern with particular aspects of this bill—areas which I am pleased to say were acknowledged by the committee in its unanimous report.
In the brief time I have to speak about this bill today, I want to make essentially three points. Firstly, I want to say that the provisions underpinning greater efficiency in superannuation contained in this bill and the legislative scheme, in the broad, make sense. Secondly, I want to highlight the fact that there are real reasons for doubt and for questioning why the amount of money which has been sought by the Australian Taxation Office to implement this set of information technology changes, and which is funded ultimately by a levy on the industry, is so high. Where is the justification for the costings? Thirdly, I want to question why it is that the legislation takes a particular approach which in particular bristles with penalties and strict liability provisions.
Let me turn firstly to the broad rationale for this bill—a rationale which, as I have indicated, the coalition supports. As the explanatory memorandum states:
The purpose … is to improve the administration and management of super accounts making the processing of everyday transactions easier, cheaper and faster for members and employers.
I think any Australian who has ever sought to transfer a superannuation balance from one fund to another would very much empathise with the proposition that, as it presently operates, the superannuation sector is grossly inefficient. That acts to the detriment of members of superannuation funds and all stakeholders, because the costs of the inefficient processing are borne across the sector when it comes to matters such as error, rework, misdirected or lost transactions—all of these things cause cost, inconvenience and inefficiency.
Accordingly, the coalition strongly supports as a principle measures to improve the efficiency, transparency and competitiveness of the administration of superannuation system. We want to see a superannuation system which is easier to use for employers; which ensures fewer lost accounts; which provides a more timely flow of money to the member accounts of superannuation fund members; and which delivers efficiencies and cost savings to employers, to funds and, ultimately therefore, to members.
The scheme of this legislation is to provide for the implementation of data and payment regulations and standards to allow participants in the superannuation system to communicate by using standardised business turns in a consistent and reliable format. The government estimates that the SuperStream measures will save $1 billion a year in processing costs. The Financial Services Council estimates that the reforms are likely to deliver savings of up to $20 billion in aggregate by 2020 based on the current rate of growth of the asset base in the superannuation system.
Anybody who has had any experience with large information technology systems and businesses involving the processing of hundreds of millions or even more transactions would know that very small cost savings per transaction can readily add up to a very large amount of money saved in aggregate across the system. I think that is what we can expect this set of changes to achieve if the scheme has the desired effect.
Stakeholders in the sector are certainly supportive of the objectives. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia commented that it:
… considers the SuperStream measures to be the key component of the Government’s Stronger Super reforms as they have the greatest potential to improve members’ retirement outcomes through the creation of a more efficient superannuation system.
The Financial Services Council in its submission to the committee noted that there has been for a long time agreement in principle across the industry of the desirability of establishing superannuation data standards; however, it has not proven possible, to date, in a cooperative fashion to establish those standards and have all the stakeholders sign up to them. Accordingly, there is broad acceptance of the need for legislative action.
That brings me to the second point I want to make which is that, although there is broad acceptance of the need for legislative action, there are eyebrows raised across the superannuation sector as to the surprisingly large amount of money which the Australian Taxation Office has identified it needs to implement these new arrangements. Under this bill a levy is to be imposed on the superannuation sector which amounts to $467 million. That is a very large sum of money by any standard yet at the same time the degree of transparency and justification that has been provided for this very large sum is disappointing. It is a notorious truth that information technology systems development can be an extraordinary black hole. It is very tempting for those involved in the process to inflate their costs and identify a whole range of requirements which add to the total cost of the exercise. It is often difficult for those receiving the bill to assess the validity of the amounts that are claimed but, as a very first step, you need to be provided with details, specifics and justifications for the amount of money proposed to be spent on the new information technology system changes. That is a principle which is true in the private sector and it is equally true in this particular context which is essentially a hybrid of private and public sector activity.
It is not surprising that one of the strong themes which emerged from the committee's inquiry into this legislation is that there has been an inadequate level of justification by the Australian Taxation Office and the government for the amount of money stated to be required, which is to be extracted from the industry by means of a levy to fund these changes. That is an observation which has been made by quite a number of stakeholders. Let me quote, for example, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia:
… it remains unclear what the levies will actually pay for … The Explanatory Memorandum only has information on the proposed year by year funding with no further detail on what the money will be actually spent on. Given the substantial amount sought to be recovered ($467 million in total) much greater accountability should be demanded from the Australian Taxation Office.
Submitters also made the point that it would be wholly inappropriate for the Australian Taxation Office to obtain benefits funded from this specific levy on the superannuation sector which extended to its broader operations. I note that the concerns which were expressed by a number of industry stakeholders were acknowledged by the committee in its unanimous report and the committee has recommended that the Australian Taxation Office be required to provide a regular, detailed breakdown to the SuperStream Advisory Council of its costs and the expenditure of the additional levies.
Finally, I want to note that the compliance burden which will fall upon employers as a result of these changes will be a material one and it is therefore concerning that the legislative scheme adopted here is one which bristles with penalties and strict liability provisions. Employers are required to provide very detailed data associated with superannuation payments and failure to provide that data exposes them to penalties. It is not just superannuation funds which are exposed to penalties under this legislation; it is every employer including, of course, small employers. A number of stakeholders who made submissions to the committee pointed out the nature of the challenge that employers including, in particular, small employers will face in complying with this legislation. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry suggested that the government ought to consider including a 'safe harbour' provision in the legislation to allow employers, who with the best will in the world find themselves unable to strictly comply, protection against being hit with arbitrary penalties. The Financial Services Council submitted that the proposed compliance measures are overly severe.
I particularly want to note concerns that the bill is bristling with strict liability provisions. A strict liability provision is one where the mental state of the person who commits an offence is deemed to be irrelevant. Accordingly, even if you set out with the best will in the world and make every reasonable effort to comply but fail to do so, you are exposed to penalties under this legislation. The Australian Taxation Office acknowledged that it would have the legal right under this legislation to impose penalties on a small employer such as a butcher with two or three employees. If that butcher were to pay the amount of superannuation contribution required for each employee when it is required to be paid, but failed to include all of the items of data included under the standard, then that butcher is open to a criminal prosecution and there is no defence open to him or her. That is the reality of what a strict liability provision means.
The committee noted its concerns that the tax office ought to be what you might paraphrase as 'gentle' in the application of these powers. I would argue that trusting the tax office to be gentle is an inherently risky proposition and this is an area of significant concern. The coalition supports these provisions in principle but we have some implementation concerns as I have outlined.
I speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012. With about three million Australians currently over the age of 65 years, and 8.1 million Australians over the age of 65 years by 2050, reform in superannuation is not an optional extra but a necessity and a must. I think this federal Labor government has much to be proud of in its reforms of superannuation.
The super system review chaired by Jeremy Cooper recommended many of the reforms that were undertaken here today. Industry submissions to the review estimated that the industry could save up to $1 billion, achievable through the reforms that we are undertaking. Ernst and Young said similar things in its submission. We have confirmed our commitment in the budget to the SuperStream reforms, which will make a difference, and previous speakers have talked in part about those.
This is a package of reforms to make the superannuation scheme more flexible, more effective, more efficient and easier for members, funds and employers across the country. Currently it is pretty difficult to understand, and a young person who has had three or four different jobs in different locations, vocations or roles might have picked up a bit of superannuation working for one employer after another, sometimes with different funds, and it is easy for their super to be lost. We have an industry worth $1.36 trillion, but according to the Australian Taxation Office we have about $20 billion in lost superannuation. That is money which could be used for the retirement of Australians and to put less reliance on the pension system. So it makes sense to reform the system, to make it more effective and efficient, to reduce reliance on old technology like paperwork and to increase reliance on IT and computerisation.
The reforms will help members keep track of superannuation. An online portal is crucial in that regard so that people can have a look at superannuation, have a look at their accounts and track them, and employers can do the same. It assists people to consolidate those accounts electronically. I do not always agree with the member for Bradfield, but anyone who has ever rolled superannuation from one account to another—I have done this personally and I am sure members of this place and other Australians have also—knows the absolute idiocy of the procedures involved at times. It is extraordinary. I know of a circumstance where one constituent of mine was telling me that he had to arrange for a cheque to be flown to Sydney because they could not change the superannuation from the fund based in Brisbane to the one in Sydney. They had to fly a cheque down to Sydney to deposit it face to face into the fund. This is crazy stuff in the 21st century.
We have a lot of low, inactive accounts, many under $1,000, and these will be automatically consolidated into another of the member's account unless they opt out, saving members' fees and making super easier to control, manage and keep track of. There will be a lot of changes in this process, and I notice the SuperStream Advisory Council has been called for with nominations as well on 4 June 2012.
This government has a proud record, as Labor governments have, of making reform in this country. I am pleased to be advocating locally for the NDIS to come to my electorate, particularly Ipswich. There are great Labor reforms, like the minimum wage, the age pension, Medicare and superannuation. Lest anyone thinks that these came about because those opposite sat over here in government, they should be prepared to have a look, as did the member for Fraser, at speeches made by those opposite on superannuation. They should note the fact that those opposite opposed our reforms to increase the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent as part of what we have said on the minerals resource rent tax. If those opposite had been on this side of the House they would have deprived 43,000 people in my electorate of an increase in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent.
We have made a lot of changes. Specifically, this legislation amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Account Act 1997. We are talking about a framework introduced to ensure the implementation of superannuation data and payment regulations and standards so that there are no inconsistencies and siloed arrangements between the different funds and so that it is standard across the whole industry. This legislation ensures superannuation transactions can be undertaken by various super funds and entities as well as retirement savings account providers, employers and employees, and will give consistency across the whole sector. The legislation also provides for amendments to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998, ensuring that costs associated with the implementation of the SuperStream measures are included in the determination of a levy, which the member for Bradfield accurately mentioned is paid by the sector to the Commonwealth.
The levy itself will be a levy on the industry. It is important that the legislation before the chamber be passed by 1 July this year, giving the industry time to implement the changes and the superannuation supervisory levy to make sure we collect the implementation costs from the SuperStream reforms. The levy will be on the industry in this particular matter, and it is not unusual for that to take place in a sector. As part of our stronger super package we have announced that this is the case. The industry and the stakeholders know it is coming. All the super funds want to make sure that the industry is viable, effective and efficient, and that the government costs associated will be, by virtue of the APRA regulated funds, $467 million from 2012-13 onwards. The minister can make a determination specifying the proportion of the levy money that is to be credited through the APRA special account.
These are important reforms. Members will be able to look up what their superannuation is. I know that during the global financial crisis many constituents in my electorate have talked to me about the fact that their superannuation funds have suffered. I know of a number of people who have put off retirement because of their superannuation being much lower than it once was. They are particularly interested now in keeping track of their super if they are in their late 50s or early 60s. Employers will benefit through simplified standard provisions, and funds will benefit by making sure they are able to have greater use of tax file numbers to facilitate matching consolidation funds, because the Australian Taxation Office administers super funds and has that overall responsibility.
Superannuation is a particularly important reform for my electorate. The bills here, and the part of the package that we are undertaking, are particularly important. I lobbied hard to make sure that we lifted the superannuation guarantee age limit from 70 to 75. We have done that, meaning another 18,000 Australians aged 75 years and over will get the benefit of superannuation if they continue to work. I talked about that issue just last week at the Ipswich Association of Independent Retirees and superannuants. I received a very favourable response about that because, as many of them said to me briefly, they were undertaking or have undertaken a transition in relation to their work-life situation. The days when people always just decided to retire and go from work to retirement are over. Often people transition all the way through. Making sure that they can pick up superannuation in those latter years is an important reform.
That is something that came up recently in relation to superannuation reform for my electorate. I know how important it is. When I talked to those people about the need for young people in our community to get more superannuation, lifting the guarantee from nine to 12 per cent, they supported it, having experienced that in their personal lives. Many of them told me that at times they wished that they had been able to get superannuation much earlier in their working lives, but it took a federal Labor government—the Hawke and Keating government—to actually bring in this great reform.
The second bill that is associated with this legislation is the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012. That will make some amendments providing that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth government has the capacity to make a subsequent determination for any financial year of the restricted and unrestricted levy percentages and the superannuation entity levy base. It gives the Treasurer the capacity and flexibility to make those determinations when he or she is required to do so.
These reforms are important reforms. They should be seen as part of a package that we have undertaken, lifting the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent, making sure that older Australians can still get the superannuation guarantee no matter what age they are, making sure that there are extra superannuation contributions for the 3.6 million Australians who are earning up to $37,000 a year, which includes a lot of part-time workers, cleaners and shop assistants in my electorate. That will benefit about 23,600 electors in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. It will make sure that people can get access and see their superannuation accounts, whether those accounts are active or inactive. It will make sure that we have a simple MySuper product available and it will ensure that there is greater effectiveness and efficiency in the whole sector.
These reforms are major reforms in the sector, long overdue to reduce red tape, long overdue to make sure that the sector works efficiently and effectively for those Australians in the future—not just the three million Australians currently 65 years of age and over, but the 8.1 million Australians who will be around in 2050 when many of us may not be around. Future Australians will benefit from these reforms. When people look back in the future at what this government achieved, I think they will look at superannuation and see it is an area where we made major changes in the Labor tradition of progressive reform to assist working men and women to have dignity and financial security in their retirement. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2012. It is with some considerable pride that I stand to make this speech because the bills continue the great Labor tradition of making sure that superannuation is well managed. We were the ones who put superannuation in place and we are the ones who are continuing to make sure that Australians who are going through the process of collecting superannuation, those who are managing it and ordinary Australians who are standing just to receive the benefits from it are going to get the very best that this system can offer.
I note the comments from the member for Fraser about the significance of superannuation in the history of our financial literacy in this country and how critical it is that Labor got that going and that we are continuing to attend to it. I also note some of the great comments from my colleague, the member for Blair, about some of the practical inefficiencies that are currently a part of the superannuation structures. These were noted in particular in the Cooper review. The real reason for this legislative program that is before the House today is that the current problems with superannuation are that it is obviously too complex, it is unnecessarily expensive and it is very slow. The member for Bradfield made a very sound point in articulating a comparison with mobile telephones and the changes that have happened there in terms of people being able to transport their telephone numbers. We have come to take it for granted that we can all be advantaged by the options that modern technology provides. In terms of the superannuation structures, we have a system that is very clunky, where we have 33 million accounts around the country with only about 11 million workers. There is unnecessary duplication, and some of the points made by my colleagues here this afternoon might explain why people have three accounts and just let them do their own thing rather than go through the processes, that are currently so difficult, to compile those into one.
We know that the legislation that is before the House today will really make superannuation easier, for the funds to administer, for the members and for employers, and we know that there are significant gains—savings of up to $1 billion—that will be achieved through the implementation of these SuperStream reforms. Obviously the industry has been key in the conversation on the way we have planned for this to be implemented, and I am very pleased to say that, in our recent hearing, the Financial Services Council was very clear in welcoming this piece of legislation. They let us know that over the past decade the industry has actually endeavoured to agree on a set of data standards for managing these transactions between entities, but they articulated that they lack the capacity to compel external stakeholders, and sometimes even their own stakeholders, to comply with industry developed standards. They welcomed this legislation because these compulsory standards help standardise the process for employers and funds in dealing with one another. That can only be a good thing for Australians, who sometimes leave their superannuation on a 'set and forget' strategy.
That view, of how important this legislative change is for superannuation and ordinary Australians, was echoed by Mr Murray from Treasury and Mr Olesen from the Australian Taxation Office, who actually articulated exactly the same sort of story—that, for many, many years and for various reasons, the industry had been unable to come to an agreement, and that this failure to agree has led to a number of different processes being established between the funds, which led to a lot of deadweight costs in the industry. Obviously, we need to make sure that we respond to that reality and improve the situation.
I noticed that Mr Fletcher made some comments acknowledging that this is a unanimous report but raising some questions, as the member for Bradfield, about the Australian Taxation Office. I think it is very important that we actually get on the record that there has been a significant number of reviews and reforms to superannuation over the years. If we go back to the period of 2006-07, under a different government with a different leadership, we will see that there was an amount of $445 million—which was revised upwards to $525 million over five years—for a plan to simplify and streamline superannuation at that time. It is all well and good for members of the opposition to raise questions about why the ATO have come up with these numbers, but the reality is: there are comparative figures that indicate that this is a reasonable claim and, further, it is very important that there is consultation, with the industry sector and also the people who are going to be part of the supervisory panel, to ensure that these things are considered and to make sure that we get good value from the dollars as this money is being implemented to bring about change.
Indeed, to make sure that there is fair and open scrutiny, we have made a recommendation that the ATO be required to provide a regular, detailed breakdown of its costs and expenditure on the additional levies to the SuperStream Advisory Council, based on reporting guidelines developed in consultation between the council and the ATO. So I suppose it is like any major project that any person might commence on: you always hope that it might cost less than the numbers indicate. But, in the end, to make change and to undertake reform does cost money, and we do have a very high level of acceptance and, indeed, encouragement from the sector to move to make these changes, to make it so much easier for people who are employers—small, medium and large—to comply.
I want to also put this on the record in response to some of the comments made by the member for Bradfield as to concerns about strict liability regarding the ATO. We had evidence from the Australian Taxation Office on the day to indicate that, while there are strict liability provisions, this is supported by those in the industry, who understand that they need these tools to ensure compliance. But the ATO made a very clear point: they have the capacity, the administrative flexibility, to waive or limit penalties where employers are attempting to comply with data standards but perhaps commit inadvertent technical breaches. Of course we were very pleased to hear that, and we wanted to make sure that the ATO were encouraged to do so. So we have done that in our report, urging the ATO to use its discretion to waive or limit penalties in appropriate circumstances.
But, lest the fear campaign—even with regard to this—get some legs, I want to put on record that it will not be until 2015 that small employers will be required to actually comply with this piece of legislation in total, and that, during that period of time, there will be significant consultation with the providers of software such as MYOB or QuickBooks, which are used by many small businesses, to help the small businesses do all of their transactions regarding superannuation at the same time as they are lining up to make payments to their employees.
We have many employers who might be running a small hairdressing salon or a boutique in a local strip mall, who have a number of employees. Currently they have to fill in different forms for different employees and send any number of cheques off to different agencies—it is extremely inefficient and it is quite a paperchase to try and keep track of that. Large companies that use payroll providers will obviously be working very carefully with them to make sure that that is implemented, and it will be in the first period of time that that will occur. But, by the time this comes down to the local businesses—such as Snips Hairdressers at Copacabana or any of the other great local businesses in my seat of Robertson—the providers of the software will be well and truly across this material and be able to provide employers right across Australia, no matter how small the number of employees they might have, with adequate software to enable them to bring these provisions into their workplace and comply with the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office.
We are committed as a government not only to ensuring the superannuation system is reformed but to making sure that it boosts Australians' retirement savings. We are progressively increasing the super guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, starting from 1 July next year, and we know that that stands to benefit 8.4 million workers. If you are a 30-year-old on earning an average full-time wage right now, the changes that we as a Labor government are proposing will bring an extra $118,000 to you at retirement. We are also introducing from 1 July a much-needed superannuation contribution for 3.6 million Australians who are on very low incomes. This is effectively going to refund $500 of contributions tax into the super accounts of people with incomes of up to $37,000.
As part of a range of responses to the real-life superannuation issues of Australians, we have abolished the maximum age limit on superannuation reforms of the super guarantee from 1 July next year, so that 51,000 hard-working Australians who want to keep working past the age of 70 will now be entitled to what we consider should always be their due—that is, superannuation contributions.
These two bills that are before the House today are, in fact, a natural extension of Labor's concern for doing the best we can for ordinary Australians. We are working with business and with peak bodies to make sure that we provide a degree of reform that is very enabling, that will increase productivity, that will reduce costs and that will improve outcomes for ordinary Australians. I commend the bills to the House and urge their prompt passage.
I would like to thank the member for Robertson for her contribution, and to thank all those who have spoken on this legislation. I rise to sum up this cognate debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012.
Our superannuation industry is one to be proud of, a distinct national advantage and one that is forecast to grow very significantly over the next 20 years. Our superannuation system currently manages $1.4 trillion for Australians. This amount will reach $6 trillion by 2030. Despite this, there are many inefficiencies still to be fixed in our system. There are currently approximately 12 million members with superannuation, yet there are over 31 million accounts, and there are over five million lost member accounts with a total value of over $20 billion—that is, an average of one lost superannuation account for every two working Australians.
The superannuation industry can do better in processing transactions, and there are still too many paper based systems. These inefficiencies lead to higher administration costs. Currently, different superannuation funds require different information from employers. This unnecessarily increases the compliance burden on Australia's employers. Ultimately, these inefficiencies lead to higher administration costs which consequently reduce the retirement incomes of all working Australians. The industry has attempted to develop its own voluntary standards over many years but has been unable, thus far, to achieve consensus. This is why the government has decided to take a leadership role by introducing this legislation, which will improve the efficiency of the superannuation industry under the SuperStream reforms. These reforms flow from the recommendations of the Cooper review inquiry into the superannuation industry.
Schedule 1 of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012 introduces the framework for the development of common standards and processes for superannuation transactions. Supporting regulations and legislative instruments will prescribe the detailed requirements underlying this framework. By setting down standardised rules for how funds transact with each other, and by setting standardised requirements for the information that funds can request from employers, significant efficiencies will result, ultimately lowering administration costs, simplifying processes for employers and for funds, and resulting in a more timely allocation of contributions to member accounts.
The government has adopted a staged approach to implementation to minimise the impact on the superannuation industry and on employers. Rollovers between superannuation funds will be required to comply with the new standards from 1 July 2013. New standards dealing with contributions from employers with more than 20 employees will apply from 1 July 2014. These standards will then apply to smaller employers from 1 July 2015, subject to further consultation on their impact.
Schedule 2 of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Stronger Super) Bill 2012, together with the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 2012, enables costs to government associated with the implementation of the SuperStream measures to be recovered by a levy on APRA regulated funds. The superannuation industry's own estimates show that the SuperStream reforms of this government will deliver savings of up to $1 billion per annum. The benefit of these savings will flow through to members in the form of lower fees and charges. When averaged out across the number of accounts in the superannuation industry, the savings are in the order of $30 per account each and every year which significantly exceeds the transition costs involved in implementing these reforms.
The government will be bringing forward further legislation to complete the package of SuperStream reforms. This will include announced reforms to further benefit members, such as a new facility to enable members to easily look up and keep track of their superannuation. Fund members will also benefit from having low, inactive accounts consolidated automatically.
There are costs associated with implementing all these reforms. The most efficient way to meet these costs is by collecting them directly from the superannuation industry. The levy is a temporary one. It will only collect the costs that the government incurs in supporting the implementation of all these reforms. The costs will be recouped over six years, but must be considered in the context of the annual long-term savings of $1 billion estimated by industry.
These are real, important, significant and wide-ranging reforms. They will be implemented in a staged approach across a number of years. For these reasons, the government is establishing a SuperStream Advisory Council which will have the role of providing advice to government on issues relevant to the successful implementation and maintenance of the reforms.
I must acknowledge that the coalition has also acknowledged that the SuperStream measures have the potential to deliver real savings that will benefit superannuants, and that it supports changes that make the superannuation system more efficient, transparent and competitive. Valid feedback has been raised in relation to the provision of additional ongoing information in relation to SuperStream. While the government has already released some of the information on the breakdown of costs, further information will be released shortly. The government also acknowledges the contribution of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and will consider how best to implement its recommendations about enhanced reporting by the ATO.
Finally, in relation to the matter raised by the member for Bradfield with respect to the strict liability provisions, I can advise the legislation provides a flexible compliance framework so that compliance action can be taken where necessary. However, the Australian Tax Office will take an educative approach in the first instance, as advised at the committee hearings. Secondly, I note numerous strict liability provisions that already exist in superannuation legislation were introduced by the Howard government in 2000. I commend the legislation 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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to lend the coalition's full support for the bill and to let the government know that we will be voting for the bill, as we always vote for good policy. In this case, good policy did not start with the government. The coalition strongly believes in supporting our ADF personnel and their families. Having been a serving member and having served overseas, and my wife having served at home, I understand full well the weight that sits on the shoulders of families—the wives and husbands, children, parents and grandparents, aunties and uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters. These are the enablers of our ADF personnel. They are the ones who in many ways have the biggest influence on our people remaining in the ADF. They are the ones who offer the greatest support to their serving family members. They experience the greatest hardships and endure sacrifices we will never know.
This bill seeks to look at the ADF lateral transfer members, those members who are transferring from other nations' militaries to move to Australia to join our military. They come from a variety of countries including New Zealand, South Africa, the US and are predominantly from the UK. Many lateral transfer members are from the UK Royal Navy, Marines, Army or Air Force. We have a long and proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. We do so in order to fill gaps in our armed forces and in ways that suit the parent countries. For example, the Royal Australian Navy right now is taking advantage of the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review which, amongst other things, is reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services, a reduction which, may I say, is unfortunate. However, what is unfortunate for Britain is fortunate for Australia, for in this context the Royal Australian Navy is looking to increase its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill capability gaps within critical skills areas.
ADF lateral recruits also bring a range of skills and experiences not only in foreign militaries but also in working with our allies and partners. They save the ADF an enormous amount of money and, more importantly, an enormous amount of time in training our own personnel. For example, if you consider the Royal Australian Air Force taking a Typhoon pilot who has been flying for upwards of 10 years and has absorbed millions and millions of pounds in flight training costs, the advantage to Australia from such an experienced pilot joining our Air Force is immeasurable.
It should be noted that the commensurate benefits that Australia gains from recruiting lateral recruits far exceeds, by an inordinate magnitude, any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the spouse or dependants. The ADF is looking to recruit 300 or more lateral transfer personnel each year in the coming years. It should be noted that about 90 per cent of lateral transfer members have families that they may wish to bring with them to Australia. I suggest most will. Noting the current recruitment environment in Australia and in places like the UK, it is timely to ensure those family members of lateral transfer members who are willing to serve in Australia and the ADF are afforded the same citizenship status as serving members. All lateral transfer members are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before the member can take up a position within the Australian Defence Force and subsequently move to Australia. This is necessary as all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens, and permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship. It is also important to note that spouses, partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members at the time of moving to Australia are afforded permanent residency but not citizenship.
Under the current Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that this bill seeks to amend, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days in the Reserves. These sections are regularly used in support of lateral transfer members into the ADF. But this provision of early citizenship does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member, hence this bill making changes.
This can and does lead to a range of discords within families of ADF lateral transferees. For example, Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on operations. In MTF 3 in Afghanistan there were at least seven lateral transferees—citizens of Australia, wearing the Australian flag on their shoulders in combat operations—whose spouses or partners and children, at home, were not afforded the same citizenship as their husbands, in this case, who were fighting for Australia overseas. It is timely that such a situation be amended and the spouses or partners and dependants, of ADF lateral transferees who become citizens 90 days after joining the ADF, are afforded the same right.
In this case, the government enjoys the full support of the opposition. However, what the government is doing is particularly vexing and demeans it. The coalition put in a private member's bill on 21 May 2012 after extensive consultation with the sector—that is, with defence personnel, defence families and defence community organisations—to amend what it saw as an inadequacy in the act. The government at the time saw fit to oppose the private member's bill and the next day, on 22 May, introduced its own bill into the parliament. The Hon. Chris Bowen, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, wrote to Minister Snowdon, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, on 4 February 2011—15 months ago—to say to the minister, who was querying the capacity to make these legislative changes, that he would not do it.
I will read two pages of the letter. He went through a whole range of reasons for it not being important or appropriate for the government to do it. He said:
Taking all these factors into account, I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. I would, however, encourage our two departments to continue to liaise with one another on this issue.
So for 15 months it has not been necessary for the government to move on what are reasonably critical amendments, hence the coalition moved a private member's bill in this place. For 15 months it has not been necessary—the minister's own words were, 'I do not consider it necessary'. But the coalition put up a private member's bill to enact sensible legislation and suddenly, the next day, the government considered it necessary to put up almost a carbon copy of the coalition's private member's bill and widened it in some areas to look the same.
Forgive me for being deeply cynical about the motives of this government. If the motives were to repair, fix, close and address inadequacy, surely the government could have agreed with the coalition's private member's motion. If the government honestly thought there were areas that needed to be widened, I told them we would accept any of their amendments in good faith because we believe this is good policy. But no, the government spoke against and indicated they would vote against the private member's motion and then ensured that they put their bill rapidly up the list of the bills to be debated so that it would be debated and voted on prior to the opposition's private member's motion that would be voted on, possibly, this Thursday.
To say that this is disingenuous, to say that this is Labor spin at its most heinous and most base level, is to say the truth on this matter. It is good policy, do not get me wrong. The coalition will vote for it. But the idea that the government could not possibly support a coalition private member's bill and have to rush their own in the next day, with a widening of areas so it looks demonstrably different, is disappointing. It says something to those lateral transfer members currently serving and to their families. I know the minister wrote 15 months ago and said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the legislation,' but, goodness, the coalition is now putting a private member's bill because of rank political purpose and opportunism and saying, 'We now consider it necessary.' Let me say to the government, that is disingenuous. It is disrespectful to those who wear our uniform.
I note that Labor extends the provisions in its bill beyond spouses and dependent children to any dependant—for example, elderly parents or disabled dependants not considered children. The coalition accepts that. It reduces the relevant defence service criteria for reserve service from 180 days to 90 days. We accept that. We do not know how many times that may be used but we accept it. And in the event the member dies before attaining citizenship, their spouse and dependants remain eligible for fast-track citizenship and we accept that as well.
We support the changes above. We would have wished that the government had simply amended the opposition's private member's bill. Either way, good policy is good policy and it should stand on its own two feet. Right now, there are ADF lateral members who are citizens in combat operations in Afghanistan. If there are seven in MTF 3 I gather there are some there now whose spouses and children at home are not enjoying the fruits of citizenship. It is important that they are recognised and receive the assistance that changes in this bill will provide.
It is clear that the rushed introduction of this bill is in response to the coalition introducing its bill. However, the peace of mind of families of those currently serving and looking to serve in the ADF is more important than base political argument. It is more important than spill and it is more important than Labor's disingenuous attempt here to be seen as the one doing the legislative changes. Importantly, the policy is wholly welcomed and supported by Defence Families of Australia. Defence Families of Australia have been a wonderful advocate for defence families and across a wide range of issues, from defence housing and spousal support to the need to fix inequities in the families of ADF lateral transfer members. I thank Defence Families of Australia for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of ADF personnel right around the country. I am pleased that today and tonight we will debate and vote on the bill, and I am pleased that it will go to the Senate, where it can be assured a speedy vote from the coalition. I am pleased with the outcome. I am appalled at Labor's process.
It is always a pleasure to speak on important bills that seek to improve the lives of our Australian Defence Force members. I say this particularly as the member for Canberra. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 is important because, when it comes to recruitment from overseas, the ADF gets recruits that are technical specialists and have, as the member for Fadden has pointed out, previous experience in other defence forces, so their presence in our Defence Force greatly assists Australia to maintain its operational status and to train other ADF personnel. This bill may only impact on a small number of ADF members, but it is nonetheless an important amendment that will make life here in Australia much easier for current and future overseas lateral recruits.
When I think about the importance of this bill, I think about the time I spent in Afghanistan early last year with the member for Fadden. I have mentioned this story before when speaking on this issue. When we were flying between Kabul and Tarin Kowt, I met someone who had been with the German defence force and had since joined the ADF. We had a really long chat, and he said to me that in Germany, unfortunately, the defence forces were not well respected. He was a very proud member of the defence force and a very proud soldier, and the disrespect that he experienced in Germany put him off his countrymen and his country. So he is now a proud member of the ADF. He said that he had experienced quite significant discrimination in Germany as a result of his membership of the defence force there. It was really interesting to hear about his experiences in Germany and the fact that he had joined the Australian Defence Force. He is a great asset. In speaking on this bill, I think about what it will mean to him, to his family and to other ADF families.
I came to Canberra at the tender age of 18 to study at the ANU. I lived at Burgmann College, where a lot of ADF cadets who were studying at ADFA also stayed. We used to call them 'cordies' for some reason. I have no idea where that term originated, but I understand it was because they used to wear corduroy pants. Many of my girlfriends in their early 20s fell in love with cordies, married at that young age and headed off on grand adventures throughout Australia and the world supporting their husbands.
I know the trials and tribulations that my girlfriends and their friends have been through, particularly when their husbands have been deployed on operations overseas. One girlfriend, whose husband did quite a bit of work with the MFO, was based in Damascus. These are dangerous missions, during which these women are at home on their own for between three and six months, depending on the service that their husband is in. During this time they manage their day-to-day lives, look after the kids—quite often, at the moment particularly among my girlfriends, adolescent kids—and meet the challenges that that entails. These are extraordinary women. I take my hat off to the Navy, Army and Air Force wives, as I call them, who do extraordinary work in keeping their households together, supporting their children and, through that, supporting their husbands in their lives and career decisions. I take my hat off to ADF families and think that any support that we can provide to make their lives as easy as possible and to bring them together as much as possible is to be commended.
This bill seeks to enable the family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to satisfy the residence requirements of Australian citizenship at the same time as their ADF enlisted family member. It is basically about ensuring all family members are treated equally. Currently the legislation states that an ADF member and any of their children who are under 16 are able to apply for Australian citizenship after they have completed 90 days of service in the permanent services or six months of service in the reserves. Meanwhile, spouses and other family members, such as children over 16 and elderly parents, do not receive the same concession. They must wait for at least four years to be eligible for citizenship. This means that, currently, members of the same family are treated differently from each other. For example, a serviceman father and his 14-year-old child could become citizens while the mother and their 17-year-old child had to wait up to four years. It is only fair that the government extends the same residence requirements to the spouses and family members of ADF personnel. It is fair and it is the right thing to do, because, when a family group migrate to Australia, they are all making a continuing commitment and contribution to Australia and they are all facing similar settlement challenges.
This bill will fast-track Australian citizenship for the family members of ADF personnel. As I have said before, it will allow all family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to the ADF to satisfy the residence requirements for Australian citizenship at the same time—and this is really important—as the enlisted ADF member. Not only will this acknowledge the commitment they are making by migrating to Australia together as a group; it will also assist the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities and education assistance to help them build a closer, continuing relationship with Australia. It will help them establish closer ties with their local community and make them feel as if Australia is their home.
As the member for Canberra, as I have mentioned before, I have many Defence Force families living in my electorate. These families face unique challenges, particularly when their husband or partner is deployed. It is important that we provide them with as much support and stability as possible so that they can get some sort of continuity and calm in what can be a very disrupted life. It is really important that we try and make that a little bit easier. Issues for Defence Force families stretch from a lack of local services to mental health issues and from education to housing. We as a government should commit ourselves to do whatever we can to improve the health and wellbeing of our Defence Force members and their families. That is why I am so proud to support this bill tonight. The member for Fadden obviously believes in the policy; it is the process he has got concerns with. He talked about the private member's bill that he introduced in May. Our bill will go even further than that and make more substantial amendments to the legislation.
The member for Fadden's bill had some faults in some areas. It only sought to cover children between the age of 18 and 25 if they were students, which did not take into account the fact that there may be disabled children in the family. It did not cover a dependent parent, even though the parent may have migrated with the family. It did not clarify whether the family members needed to permanently migrate with the ADF member and did not allow for the family members to remain eligible for citizenship in the event that the ADF member dies before they become eligible for that citizenship.
Our amendments will provide more equitable treatment and greater certainty for ADF lateral recruits and their families. Of course, the concessional residence requirements we are debating do not preclude those people from meeting the other requirements for Australian citizenship, which relate to identity and character; an understanding of the nature of their application and the responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship; sitting and passing the test; and, finally, making the very important pledge of commitment.
The bill includes two previously proposed technical amendments to more clearly specify the periods of relevant defence service and the ADF members who are eligible to apply for this residence requirement. It is proposed to amend the act to specify that relevant defence service includes required attendance of at least 90 paid service days in the Navy, Army or Air Force reserves instead of the current six-month service requirement. The proposed amendment will also clarify that defence service refers only to appointed and enlisted personnel in the ADF.
This bill is important because it will provide more equitable treatment and greater certainty to ADF overseas lateral recruits and their families, such as that German soldier I mentioned earlier. Our amendments will also assist Australia to attract personnel to highly specialised roles within the ADF. We need to think about how best to attract specialist defence personnel to our forces. I know that there are many, many wonderfully specialised experts in the ADF but, as with everything, there are skills shortages and skills gaps. I believe this bill will help to fill some of those gaps and keep families together.
Family is incredibly important. I have been to Afghanistan and I have many girlfriends whose husbands are in the ADF, so I know it is very important that we provide them with as much help as possible, particularly when their partners are posted overseas. Knowing that their loved ones are part of a community that cares and supports them would be of great comfort to our recruits.
I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. This is a worthy bill that deserves support. It is a shame, however, how this bill came to be before the House this evening. In his inaugural address the great President Ronald Reagan said, 'There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit'. The government's introduction of this bill fails this test. Bipartisanship should never come at the price of bad policy. But where there is good policy on the table, brought with decent and honourable intentions, as was the case with my friend and colleague the member for Fadden's Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012 I think the Australian people have a right to expect that their representatives would work together in good faith on these matters. Instead this government opposed the bill brought forward by the member for Fadden and lodged a carbon copy bill of its own which we are looking at in this place this evening. Frankly, I think they refused to support the original out of spite—and then they tried to claim credit for a policy they had refused to embrace only last year. We will not be so small as to oppose this bill—as the government did with ours—as it is good policy. We will take President Reagan's advice and support this bill.
While it is true that imitation is often the highest form of flattery it is a shame that, in this instance, the government have allowed petty politics to be more important than supporting defence families. In recent weeks Labor have illustrated they are not walking the walk when it comes to understanding the simple needs of our service personnel and the pressures they and their families face. Recently Labor ended recreational leave for single members over 21, affecting 22,000 service men and women. Previously, Navy personnel could take two flights home a year if they were posted to another state, and Army and RAAF troops could take one flight per year to see their families. But now the government have gone back on their word and pulled service conditions that were promised at enlistment.
Our troops and families deserve better. My friend and colleague the member for Fadden put forward his bill to address an inequality, a discrepancy, that existed between the treatment of lateral transfer recruits and their families when it came to citizenship. The chief government whip noted last sitting week that the government's main reason for opposing the member for Fadden's bill is that its definition of 'family unit' is much more narrow in scope than the definition in the government's bill. If the government wished to improve the member for Fadden's legislation, they should have had the decency to come to the member for Fadden with suggested amendments in the spirit of goodwill.
The bill does extend the provisions of the coalition's bill beyond spouses and dependent children to any dependant—for example, elderly dependent parents. It also drops the fast-track citizenship criterion of relevant defence experience for reserve service from six months to 90 days. The coalition will not stand in the way of the government's bill because we have the best interests of service men and women at heart. We support good policy even if it is the result of a petty act of a reactionary government motivated by political self-interest.
Last year when this issue was broached by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel the Minister for Immigration flatly ruled it out. He said he did not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that the member for Fadden brought in a bill to achieve the purposes that are by and large set out in this bill. This is another example of flip-flop policy from a government at war with itself. Whatever deceitful games it may seek to play, it cannot distract from the fact that this is a worthy initiative.
Australia is an immigrant nation and migrants have made an important contribution to our defence forces. Historian Charles Bean said:
ANZAC stood, and still stands, for reckless valour in a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat.
That spirit and those values are not determined by one's birthplace; they are values that bind us together as Australians; they are values that we share and have sought to entrench and uphold in our society. Migrants have stood with us, shoulder to shoulder, under our flag, as Australians and fought for our nation and its values in theatres across the world. They have given their lives in battle and purchased our freedom.
The first Australian soldier to receive the Victoria Cross was a doctor, Captain Neville Reginald Howse, who hailed originally from England. He is still the only member of the Australian forces medical corps to have been awarded that honour. In 1900, during the Boer War, he galloped out under heavy fire to rescue a wounded trumpeter on the front line. His horse was shot dead, but Captain Howse risked his own life and carried on by foot to rescue his mate.
Sergeant Samuel George Pearse was born in Wales and came to Victoria as a child. He won his VC in Russia in 1919 for his bravery, where he cleared a path for his troops through barbed wire under heavy fire and charged single-handedly at the nest of enemy gunmen, taking out the post with bombs. He was killed just minutes later.
Of the 64 Victoria Cross medals awarded in World War I, at least 13 recipients were born overseas. They came as migrants to the Lucky Country from England, Ireland, Wales, Denmark and New Zealand to seek a better life and were prepared to stake their lives for their new nation. There were men like Private Robert Matthew Beatham, who left England bound for Australia as a teenager. He was awarded the VC posthumously for most conspicuous bravery and self-sacrifice at Rosieres, France in 1918. He disabled four machine-gun crews, killed 10 enemy soldiers and captured 10 others, saving the lives of countless Australian troops. He died two days later as he rushed another machine gun and was wounded. Welsh born Second Lieutenant Frederick Birks was awarded the VC posthumously for his gallant actions in Belgium in 1917. As a stretcher bearer, he had borne wounded men from the ragged cliffs at Gallipoli, and at the First Battle of the Somme he was killed by a shell while defending his men.
There are similar stories of courage and sacrifice from World War II, including the tale of Richard Kelliher, who was born in Ballybeggan, County Kerry, Ireland and emigrated to Brisbane in 1929 with his sister. When war came, Richard enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in 1941. He was assigned to the 2nd/25th Battalion and served in the Middle East before he was redeployed to Papua in 1942. He fought at Buna-Gona in New Guinea and in 1943, as the Allies pushed back along Black Cat Trail, Richard was with the 2nd/25th as they advanced towards Lae. In the Markham Valley, in the midst of dense jungle, Richard's platoon was halted by heavy fire from a concealed Japanese machine-gun post. Five of his colleagues were killed and three were wounded, including the section leader, Corporal Billy Richards. It soon became apparent that they could not advance without further losses. On his own initiative, Richard seized two grenades and a Bren gun, dashed out to within 30 metres of the post and took out the position, before then crawling under a hail of bullets to rescue his commanding officer. For his heroism, Richard was awarded the Victoria Cross and was presented the medal by King George VI himself.
They are but a small handful of examples that demonstrate the stellar service and sacrifice borne by Australians who have come to our shores and honoured us through their contribution to our defence forces. We are pleased to support this tradition as it continues today.
Each year, hundreds of people choose to migrate to Australia and take up positions in our defence forces. The bill before the House relates specifically to lateral transfer recruits. Where gaps open up within our own ranks, the Australian Defence Force often looks to fill the positions as quickly as possible with personnel recruited from overseas militaries. These positions often need to be filled swiftly. Having the ability to parachute in personnel who already have the necessary skills and knowledge saves the Commonwealth time and money. Lateral transfers are highly qualified and bring with them a level of skill that would take up to a decade for the ADF to match by recruiting, training or upskilling personnel. These recruits are typically from the United Kingdom but also come from South Africa, New Zealand and, more recently, the United States. Research by Defence Families of Australia suggests that overwhelmingly—in 90 per cent of cases—lateral transfers choose to resettle their families and dependants out here with them. The ADF is seeking to bring 300 lateral transfer members to Australia per year. While the Australian Citizenship Act contains some provision to accelerate citizenship for those transferees, parallel arrangements currently do not exist for their spouses or dependants.
Following widespread industry consultation in an effort to rectify this inequality, the coalition introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill to create consistency. Under this bill, spouses and dependants of lateral transfer members will become eligible for citizenship at the same time as the ADF member—as proposed by the member for Fadden's bill and opposed by the government. This legislation provides a safety net by ensuring that the families and children of these troops will not suffer unduly in the terrible event that a transferee is killed, whether in combat, in training or on leave, or a family breaks down through divorce. It is a consolation, but we should do all we can to ensure that these moments of tragedy are not compounded by added and unnecessary angst such as financial worry or the fear of having to pack up and leave the family's new home in Australia.
Transfer members are willing to give up their lives in service to this nation and their families are willing to honour and support their loved one in that extraordinary commitment. The coalition believes it is only right that those families be afforded the same citizenship status as their serving member. These families make an important and selfless contribution in their own way. Their unique sacrifice should never be undervalued.
Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or six months service in the reserves. These accelerated provisions do not apply to a person's spouse or dependant under 18, who currently must meet the residency requirement on their own to become eligible. This should not be the case. This legislative inconsistency is problematic. On a day-to-day basis it can restrict a spouse's ability to access welfare support. As a permanent residents, a member's spouse and dependants under 18 are required to reside in Australia for two years before they are entitled to the majority of social security payments. This includes things like unemployment assistance, sickness allowance, student assistance through Austudy or youth allowance as well as other benefits like a healthcare card.
In the bigger picture, it also adds another level of uncertainty. Lateral transfer members are deployed serving in theatres and operations around the world, and, if the unthinkable happens and a member dies, under current law there is no guarantee that their spouse and children are able to stay in Australia or to access the support that would normally be extended to the family of ADF personnel.
There has been unanimous support from stakeholders with whom the coalition spoke for the bill that we presented in this House through the member for Fadden, and I assume that this support extends equally to the bill we have before us tonight. Within my own electorate, the concerns of constituents have been communicated to me directly. One of my constituents is a lateral transfer member who came from the UK and settled with his family in the shire. I met with his wife recently, and she told me that she will not qualify for citizenship until January next year even though her husband and four children have already been granted citizenship under the accelerated provisions. This bill would make a significant difference to families such as hers, which make tremendous sacrifices and bear an enormous burden in enduring great separation. But they do this willingly to support their loved ones in their important work which they believe in, whether it be in our army, in our navy or in our air force.
A famous and incredibly moving letter was written in the throes of the American Civil War by a soldier named Sullivan Ballou to his wife Sarah. In it he acknowledges the difficulties his family endure in his absence and the sacrifices they make to enable him to fight for what he believes in. Sullivan writes to Sarah:
If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I am … perfectly willing … to lay down all my joys in this life … But, my dear wife … I know that with my … joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them … with cares and sorrows …
The driving purpose behind the member for Fadden's bill was to better support, through citizenship measures, the families of lateral transfer recruits who serve in our defence force. The same purpose is served by this bill. It is fitting that we recognise in this place the contribution of these people and allow Australia to embrace the families of those who have demonstrated their love for their adopted country so dearly.
I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. It deals with a particular group in the Australian military who are known as lateral recruits. They are people who invariably have incredibly high skills in an area of the military where we are short and where training, because of the length of time it takes, cannot be undertaken to fill a vacancy. They are incredibly valuable members of our military. We recruit them from overseas, and they become very much a part of our military.
We have recognised, since we first started recruiting into the military people who we used to call 'aliens' back in 1952, that we should make extraordinary and specific arrangements to acknowledge the service of these people in our military by making specific arrangements for Australian citizenship. Whereas ordinary citizens, people who come to Australia under skilled migration, family reunion or the many other form of immigration and who wish to apply for Australian citizenship must satisfy a requirement of four years lawful stay, with the last 12 months as a permanent resident, immediately before they apply, we make special arrangements for lateral recruits. They can apply for citizenship after 90 days' service in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth; or at least six months' service in the Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve; or where they were discharged from that service as medically unfit for that service and became thus unfit because of that service. So we have made very special arrangements for these members of our military since 1952.
Currently, the person who joins our military and any children they have under the age of 16 are eligible to enjoy these special arrangements; however, other members of the person's family—their husband or wife, a 17-year-old child or maybe an older child who is dependent—are not entitled to enjoy the same special arrangements, and they have to meet the usual requirement of having been resident in Australia for four years' lawful stay. This bill extends the special conditions to the other members of the defence member's family, and that is a good thing. We all know that when a person commits to serve in the military of our country, whether they are an Australian by birth or an Australian by citizenship or a lateral recruit, they make an extraordinary contribution to our way of life. They contribute to our safety, and they put their very lives at risk. Their families also make extraordinary contributions. I worry about my partner when he rides his motorbike, so I cannot even begin to imagine what the families of defence force members go through when their loved ones are serving elsewhere.
This bill, which allows the families of people who serve us as lateral recruits to share in the citizenship of this nation, is part of the contribution we make to people who serve us in this way. The bill also provides assistance in finding work and education, so it also assists the family to settle in this country. It is an extremely important that, if we ask a person to serve in our military and risk their life, we also give them the security of knowing that their family here in this country share in their citizenship. You can imagine the circumstance if one of our lateral recruits was killed in action and their family were still not citizens. It would of course be an appalling circumstance for all. It would also be a dreadful circumstance for a person who was serving in the military in that way to worry that their family might find itself in such a circumstance. So, as said, I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill. It is surprising in many ways that it has taken this long, but it is quite a nice bill. The new discretion will cover people listed as family members on the recruit's permanent visa application. That will include their spouse; dependent children, regardless of age—as I said, currently it only applies to children under the age of 16; dependent children of dependent children; and relatives of the recruit who do not have spouses or partners, who are usually resident and dependent on the recruit. That might, for example, mean a dependent parent. So it recognises that when a person joins the Australian military their entire family effectively comes with them. This will cover current serving and future lateral recruits and non-historical cohorts. So it also applies to those who are currently serving.
The bill defines ADF personnel and family members consistently with the Migration Act, as current and future lateral recruits are sourced from overseas. Understandably, everyone covered by this will still have to meet the other requirements of Australian citizenship: identity; character; understanding the nature of the application; responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship; sitting and passing the citizenship test; and making the pledge. But it makes it possible for family members of lateral recruits to make that decision at the same time as the recruit does.
With the agreement of the Department of Defence, it is also proposed to amend the act to specify that relevant defence service includes required attendance of at least 90 paid service days in the Navy, Army or Air Force reserves. Currently the requirement is six months service, but this recognises that reserves may not work a lot of days. In the six-month period the reduction from 130 days under policy to the proposed 90 days recognises that priority is given to members of the permanent forces over members of the Defence Reserves in relation to training, meaning that sometimes members of the Defence Reserves in practice may only spend a small number of days each month actually performing paid service. Again, this is a proposal. There still has to be agreement and discussion with the Department of Defence. The proposed amendment also clarifies that 'defence service' refers only to appointed and enlisted personnel in the Australian Defence Force.
There is currently an urgent need to attract personnel to specialist roles in the military as lateral transfers from overseas. The kinds of roles that you might see there are at the pointy end of technical expertise. There are positions on some of our ships, for example, where if we do not have a person to fill that role the ship cannot sail. And just as there are demands for skilled workers through areas like mining, there are also sometimes demands to take skilled workers from our military services into those areas as well. In fact, I welcomed the HMAS Parramatta back to the docks one time when they came back from the Gulf and there were recruiters standing at the front gate waiting for them to leave the ship. Our military are also in very high demand and we find ourselves sometimes with an unexpected shortage of those highly skilled roles that took years of training. It is important that we recognise the need to attract specialists from time to time from overseas.
The numbers that we are talking about are not great. Since 1 July 2007, citizenship has been granted to 536 applications in this lateral recruits group. That is—what?—107 a year since 1 July 2007: a significant number and an important number but not a large number. But I am sure that all those will be greatly relieved that their families will be entitled to the same citizenship rights that they are. Again, a nice bill.
Military service is dangerous and the families of military personnel bear a share of this danger. It is worthwhile us all remembering that, while we quite rightly honour the people who give their lives for our country, sometimes the cost is paid in a life lived. It is paid in a life lived with the memories of things you should not have to remember. It is life lived with wounds that you should not have had to bear. It can be a life lived without a loved one in your life or dealing day-to-day with what your partner carries following their years of service. So it is incredibly appropriate that we in this place recognise the contributions that families make and welcome them to our country in the same way that we welcome their partners when they choose to serve in our military. There are more ways to demonstrate your commitment to a country than the years that you spend in it, and there can be no greater demonstration of a commitment to a country than to agreeing to serve in its armed forces and moving your family here to fulfil that role.
I am very pleased to speak on this important bill. In many ways it is a small bill—it is a bill that corrects an inequity, if you like, for families of a certain group in our defence forces. I am pleased to speak on it. I commend it to the House. It is a great bill.
I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. I believe very strongly in supporting members of the Australian Defence Force. It is one of the fundamental roles of the Australian government to recognise and support the commitment that thousands of our service men and women making each year in the defence of liberty of our nations and its citizens.
For more than 100 years, beginning with Australia's involvement in the Boer War in South Africa under the auspices of the United Kingdom, tens of thousands of Australians have died to defend freedom in the world. Not only should their memory and honour be commemorated; we must continue to support in whatever way possible their ultimate contribution.
Today's bill supports those families of current and future service men and women who are lateral ADF transfer members—that is, members of a foreign defence force who undertake to serve with the Australian military and serve with the Australian flag on their shoulder. We must recognise their contribution, as it is often the families of Defence Force members—parents, partners and children—who serve as the internal support network for a soldier. They also experience the hardships and irregularities associated with living with a member of the ADF, such as the constant rotations and deployments. This bill will support them by amending their citizenship and permanent resident eligibility requirements. Under normal circumstances the residence requirement dictates an applicant for citizenship must have been a resident for a minimum period of four years. In the case where someone completes a minimum amount of time of service in the defence forces or reserves, a shorter period of time is required. That service currently stands at service of 90 days in the Army, Navy or Air Force which may be non-continuous, service of 180 days in the reserves which may also be non-continuous or if they were discharged as medically unfit while in the service of Australia. Today's amendments will extend those same residence requirements to the families of ADF lateral recruits. As the explanatory memorandum notes, this is being done to acknowledge that defence service can be dangerous and the families of ADF lateral recruits bear a share of this danger.
This bill also redresses a situation where the settlement circumstances considered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship are different for lateral recruits and their families. For example, the current situation does not allow children or dependants over the age of 16 to be included on an ADF member's citizenship application. For a spouse and dependants of an ADF lateral transfer member the current situation can result in significant hardship. For example, while family members are granted only permanent residence they are not eligible to receive Centrelink benefits or university HELP based placement, which can put a significant financial strain on families should they choose to study and plan for their future life in Australia. In the event that the ADF member dies during operations where a lateral member was granted citizenship but their family was not, there is no guarantee that they would even be allowed to stay in Australia, much less access the same benefits and resources available to a spouse of a normal ADF member.
Australians are compassionate and would not like to see any of these situations occur. While the government has given an assurance that families of deceased lateral transfer members would be taken care of, today's bill provides a legislative basis for their care and support. Similarly, if the couple were to divorce prior to the spouse and any dependants becoming citizens, certainly many issues would arise as a result.
As the member for Fadden has previously informed the House, the ADF is presently looking to recruit as many as 300 lateral transfer personnel each year, 90 per cent of whom would have families also wanting to come to Australia. Ultimately, today's amendments will act as an incentive for foreign soldiers to apply to become lateral members and, as such, will assist Australia in attracting highly specialised personnel to all areas of the ADF. This will help Australia save an enormous amount of both time and money building our own defence capability gaps. These people have already been recruited, trained and skilled to very exceptional levels in other countries. It should be noted that the commensurate net benefit that Australia gains from recruiting a lateral transfer member far exceeds any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the spouse and dependants of a lateral transfer member. To provide one example: if Australia recruited a fully trained pilot, who cost approximately $1.5 million to $2 million to train in their country of origin, their recruitment would offset the entire worst-case cost for the proposed changes of either the coalition's or Labor's bills.
Our Defence Force, of course, during this process ensures that a transfer is also suitable for the country from which a new member originates. The Cameron government in the United Kingdom is undertaking a strategic defence and security review which resolves to cut personnel across all of the UK's four defence services. As a result, the Royal Australian Navy has increased its recruitment practices for members of the British navy. In the future I expect that the other two branches of our Defence Force may do the same.
The bill of the member for Fadden and this duplicate government bill, whichever is passed, will go a long way to making Australia a more attractive option for a lateral transfer. With only 300 personnel and their family members, we are not necessarily talking about a lot of people coming to Australia each year, but they do bring important benefits not just to the ADF but also to our economy and society. Defence Families of Australia has reported that the vast majority of personnel come from the United Kingdom but also from New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. While we currently have many lateral transfer members serving in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, their spouses and children are often posted in Darwin, Brisbane and other places along the eastern seaboard. These family members often live in a Defence Housing Authority property; possibly some live at the Gallipoli Barracks in the electorate of Ryan. They shop locally and send their children to community child care and schooling. While less than 50 per cent of families had visited Australia prior to a successful transfer application, they can become part of the local community very quickly.
There were two very important developments in the introduction and passage of this bill today which again highlight the cynical politics and spin of this government. Unfortunately, the specific bills we see before us today are not the result of genuine concern but of the government's attempt to play a game of one-upmanship. Firstly, Defence has been undertaking a lot of good work in the area of lateral transfers and their family members, and I would like to express my gratitude to the organisation and membership of Defence Families of Australia, an independent advocacy group formed by the Department of Defence. This group not only consults and liaises with the Department of Defence but also provides information and guidance to families of Defence Force personnel. In 2009 the Defence Families of Australia conference gave in-principle support to approaching Defence and the government to seek an amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow partners and older children to gain citizenship at the same time as the member.
The member for Fadden in his capacity as shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel has worked closely with the defence community and was finally after a long time given the opportunity to introduce his private member's bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012, into the House on Monday, 21 May. The Labor government claim that there were broader considerations which needed to be included in the package, yet they decided not to follow Westminster tradition and introduce amendments to that effect. The coalition made it very clear throughout that process that we were more than willing to work with them if they had any concerns about the design of the bill or if there were any specific amendments they wished to offer. Instead they decided that the coalition's proposal was such a good idea that they would, effectively, copy the text of the bill of the member for Fadden, change a word here or there and try to pretend that it was the government's initiative. In fact, not only have they stolen the coalition's proposal and passed it off as their own; we had evidence of the real attitude of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to the bill when the idea was first proposed to him in a letter from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel of 16 November 2010. The minister for immigration decided this issue was so important that he finally responded—87 days later—when he said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation'.
Although it originally took the minister 87 days to respond to his own colleague, I am very appreciative that it only took the government three days—that is right: three days—to introduce today's bill into parliament following the member for Fadden's private member's bill. This is yet more evidence that this government are more than happy to publicly pretend that they care about our armed forces, but behind closed doors they are really abandoning moral and financial support. The budget announced by the Treasurer included $5.5 billion of cuts to the defence portfolio, bringing defence funding to its lowest level since 1938 as a share of GDP.
More details have emerged this week that recreational leave travel will cease for single members over the age of 21. Members of the Army and the Air Force were able to take one flight home per year, paid for by the government, and members of the Navy two flights. This will affect 22,000 people in the Defence Force, a significant number—and we are talking about individuals who just want to go home to see their family during Christmas or other significant times. These people were told when they signed up that if they were interstate and away from their families the government would support them. This is yet another deceit from the government, all for a measure that would cost the government only $15 million per year. Somehow, out of an annual defence budget of $24 billion, the government cannot find enough empathy in its ranks to say to defence personnel, 'You're supporting this country so we will support you'.
To conclude, the coalition's private member's bill was an opportunity to give families of lateral transfer members peace of mind. It was designed to send the message that we strongly support members of our Defence Force and that we also support their families. Consequently, these bills will act as an incentive to recruit the world's best-trained military personnel to come to this country and to serve under the Australian flag. While this Labor government has used this legislation as a cynical political manoeuvre, I welcome today's changes and I commend the bill to the House.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Ryan's wise remarks about this matter, and I join her in supporting this bill, because the coalition is a group of parties committed to the personnel and families of our defence forces. That is why the member for Fadden introduced his private member's bill in the first place. As a person from a service personnel background, who has a long history of interest and involvement in policy making for defence, he saw the gap that had been created in legislation in Australia in relation to lateral transfers.
Defence in the future will require, when you look at the current white paper, a remarkable increase in the number of highly skilled and trained personnel that we will need to operate the equipment provided for in the white paper. For example, there will be 12 submarines at a cost of $37 billion. More importantly, we have to have available trained submariners to be able to man those pieces of equipment that we decide to go with. In the timeframes that we have been given, it is widely conceivable that we will use even more lateral transfers, to take advantage of the expertise of countries that we have interoperability with, such as the United States and other countries, depending on the systems that we eventually choose.
Given that, there was a big impetus for this legislation. The member for Fadden and the coalition understood that this was not a matter that could wait—that those service families who come here on lateral transfers could, of course, be adversely affected in a very substantial and quite serious way—and that a guarantee that the government would somehow simply take care of it, without the adequate legislation, was of course insufficient. We know, as the member for Ryan wisely pointed out, that the government's view was different prior to the introduction of the member for Fadden's private member's bill. That was, of course, that letter that she referred to from Chris Bowen to the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel indicating that the government's view was that there was no need to amend the Citizenship Act in this regard.
In the view of the minister, his department and his officials, he had for some time considered this matter in detail. He had been written to by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. He had had the time to thoroughly examine the issues of lateral transfers, leading to his decision about the adequacy of the citizenship legislation and that, in Minister Bowen's view, there was no need to do anything about it. That was the view of this government. We know that in this government they do not have an instinct for defence forces—for our service personnel. Their instinct is not there. I think that is evidenced by the minister's letter. They are taking into account all of the factors, he wrote in his letter. He said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. However, I would encourage our two departments to continue to liaise with one another on this issue.'
I do not think it is odd that we are now in the situation today where, three days after we the coalition have introduced a bill on behalf of lateral transfers and service personnel and their families obtaining citizenship, the government duplicates the bill almost entirely except for a couple of amendments in relation to reserve service and a few other matters.
I just happen to have a copy of the changes here in front of me. I do not say that they are necessarily bad changes, but the only differences between the bill of the member for Fadden and the government's bill are, in essence, the reduction in the relevant defence criteria for service from 180 to 90 days. As a former reservist myself, I actually support this in ethos, and I support that reduction. In the event that the member dies before obtaining citizenship, their spouse and independents remain eligible for fast-tracked citizenship. Of course, that is an amendment this entire House would support.
Finally, the extension of the provisions beyond spouses and independent children to any dependent—for example, elderly dependent parents or disabled dependents not considered children—is, of course, another worthy amendment. But it begs the question: where was the government for the last four years in relation to this matter? This is the government. This is the government of Australia. It is its job to produce legislation of this nature in response to the worthy representations of so many groups including defence families of Australia.
Once again in our country it is left to the opposition—the so-called 'negative opposition', according to the government—to come forward with the actual legislative answer, which we have put together and put in a private member's bill in this chamber. The government might on this occasion want to thank the opposition for providing it with the legislative answer to this problem, for coming forward with a positive agenda on behalf of our Defence Force personnel and their families and for being very constructive in opposition in seeing the real needs of serving families and doing something about it. Of course, we will not hear anything from those opposite about the constructive approach taken by the member for Fadden in the opposition. It is really fleecing defence families and serving personnel in saying that it is doing this, but it is really the opposition's bill replicated by the government. It is important to expose that in this debate because we should always expose what governments of any calibre are doing and highlight to people what is really going on. It has been driven to do this out of desperation and embarrassment at the opposition bringing this forward to the parliament. I think that is a very important point for all service personnel and their families to understand, given the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's earlier rejection of it as not necessary according to his own considered view.
This is a worthy piece of legislation, which is why we brought it forward. We all understand how serious service life is and how much of a sacrifice families make on our behalf for their service personnel, who are often deployed on the numerous operations we have around the world. Australia is probably directly involved in more overseas operations than at any other time in its history. That is set to continue given the changing nature of our region and the changing nature of our world.
As I have outlined, I do think lateral transfers will be a more heavily used mechanism by governments of all persuasions to meet the increasing capability that our Defence Force will have in the renewal outlined in the white paper. The majority of lateral transfers come in from the United Kingdom, the original source of the Australian colony, and today that remains the same. It is important to note that at the moment we are taking advantage of the RAN, the Royal Australian Navy, which is cutting back numbers due to cuts, and using those personnel to fill our capability gaps. I can also talk from experience, having visited RAAF Williamtown and having a senior Air Force officer attempt to explain the complexity of training pilots. I can tell you that any member of this House who pretends to understand the mathematical complexity involved in training fighter pilots would be fudging it. It is a very complex process; it is a very detailed process and it is a very mathematically heavy process. The cost of doing that can be prohibitive and sometimes we do not have the right systems in place to attain the goal that we are looking for. To gain a well-trained fighter pilot from overseas is sometimes the right way to go. It is, of course, of great value to our country to receive people of this calibre—highly-trained, professional people who can operate this equipment without having to incur the costs of training. Certainly, that was my experience at RAAF Williamtown. Given our experience coming up with Super Hornets and the Joint Strike Fighter, there may well be excuses and opportunities for us to use the lateral transfers in relation to pilots more often.
It is important to note that about 90 per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families that they bring with them to Australia. That is the importance of this bill: 90 per cent of people do have family members that they bring. Given the dangerous environment that they are in, and the things that may or may not occur within 90 or 180 days, the provisions of the Citizenship Act are important here because if we do not change this legislation, then it is easy to foresee a time now and into the future when this may have an unusually punitive effect on these families and their dependents.
At the moment, the provision of early citizenship under the act does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member, nor does it include dependants aged 16 or over—that is, those who cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application. This situation can and does upset the families of lateral transfers and create unnecessary tension, which is something we do not want to bring on people we have asked to come here and serve in our armed forces. Most seriously, we are also dealing with a potential situation of extreme injury or death resulting from this service to the ADF. We must take every measure possible in this chamber to ensure that families are looked after in these circumstances. That is why I am very comfortable in supporting this legislation. I am glad that the coalition developed legislation along these lines and put it forward to the House so that the government could replicate it and bring it in to the parliament.
I commend the shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel, Stuart Robert, and his shadow parliamentary secretaries for designing this legislation, for understanding the need to amend the Citizenship Act and for understanding the needs of our service personnel and their families. They are worthy people to be ministers in a government that understands defence, that believes in the service ethos and that understands the families of those people and what they go through. I commend our shadow spokespeople for coming up with this quality set of proposals. Whichever bill ends up being voted on, which will be a decision of the government, we will be supporting it in recognition of how important this issue is. But I would go back and say to the government and to the party of government, the Labor Party in coalition with the Greens, that this constant assault on defence must simply stop—$5 billion of cuts.
In relation to this legislation, we heard from Minister Bowen that nothing needs to be done for these families for four years. We really need to do better than that for our service personnel and their families. That does not mean just getting up in this chamber and doing it, it means coming forward with the proposals and the legislation. That is why I am happy to support a bill that is a copy of the coalition's bill in all respects, except for some minor amendments. I am happy to support worthy proposals, even if we have to drive them from opposition. But just think what we could do if we were in government. We could certainly drive these proposals a lot faster and make things a lot better for our service personnel.
At the outset, like the member for Mitchell, I indicate my support for the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012—and it is, as the member for Mitchell said, about time. I believe that we need to do whatever we can to support our defence personnel, the men and women who come from overseas and those who are from Australia who put their safety on the line to defend the interests of all Australians at home and abroad. As we have heard, the original bill was put together by the member for Fadden, the shadow minister, Stuart Robert, and I commend him for his efforts. He is unrelenting in his representation in this regard, and I echo his concerns about the $5 billion worth of cuts to defence in the current budget.
This is a very important issue. It is very important that faster access to Australian citizenship be extended to the families of those personnel who have completed the relevant defence service. The personnel involved have access but their families do not. This bill seeks to change that. As we have heard, 90 per cent of those who come here in that form do bring their families. So the merit of extending this privilege to foreign nationals who are willing to serve directly in our armed services should really be obvious to us all and should not have taken so long. That is why the coalition, through the member for Fadden, previously introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill back in May of this year.
I would like to see the men and women who are responsible for our defence having a stronger bond to the country they are defending, and I think this is an important way that we can recognise the contribution they make to this nation. It is entirely appropriate that those who serve should be fast-tracked into Australian citizenship and so should their families, so that a new bond of national pride and appreciation cements the relationship that these people and these personnel have with the communities that ultimately they protect. That is what they are doing—they are protecting our communities.
It is not a great step forward to acknowledge that when such personnel align their loyalties to our nation through citizenship it is actually contradictory to deny their immediate family that same honour, opportunity and privilege, as we see it. This simple step, as previously proposed by the coalition, was delayed by Labor just to save political face—though I am not sure why. The legislation put forward previously by the member for Fadden was a very worthy piece of legislation, and I do not understand why the government did not support it, particularly given that the piece of legislation we see before us now is very similar to that. Unfortunately, it represents one more example of the political meanness of this government. I do not appreciate that approach to the members of our military.
Labor came into power promising a three per cent real increase in the defence budget and a white paper that was supposed to structure the force for the next 20 years. This is where we see this ongoing attack on defence—another promise from the Gillard government that, in defence terms, could be described as firing blanks. The government's promised three per cent real growth was actually only 1.3 per cent as at the end of last year—which represents the smallest increase in defence funding since 1938. The government appears to be ignoring the fact that our forces are actively engaged around the world. We are engaged in conflicts and in peacekeeping roles, and ongoing funding of defence is critical. It is obviously a surprise to the government to know that in practical terms these cuts mean additional demands and pressure on defence, not less.
The defence budget under Labor has now dropped to 1.6 per cent of GDP, just above the 1.55 per cent it was in the year before World War II—a period in which the world largely knew it was inevitably headed to the battlefield. Members would be shocked to hear that the defence budget has been slashed by around $18 billion over the last four years, and I have real concerns about this. This includes $5.5 billion worth of cuts under the most recent budget—with $960 million coming from next financial year alone. That lack of support for defence really does concern me. It has meant that significant defence projects have had to be pushed to the out years—and some beyond the out years—and probably will not ever be committed to under this government.
Order! I have given the member for Forrest considerable latitude, but I would ask that she return to the subject of the bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking up for the families and the members of the defence forces in all its forms, and I see this as part and parcel of that. As I said when I first started my speech, I certainly do support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill. It will be obvious to observers that the military security of the world has not altered. That is why we certainly need the types of people who are coming here to serve in our defence forces and why we need to support their families in the same way and offer them the same opportunity. We also need to acknowledge that global financial uncertainty does not decrease global defence demands; it actually increases the need.
This debate is very important. The bill before the House seeks to support the families of those foreign nationals who seek to serve Australia in our armed forces, and I commend them for wanting to be part of this nation and its defence capacity. It is important that, as a parliament, we seek to support all those 50,000 men and women who serve, including the new recruits.
As we know, decisions in defence taken today do take a long time to actually result in actions, and the results of decisions can take years to become obvious. One of the things that has concerned me—and I will touch on this—is the decision to remove the recreation leave travel for single members. This has caused major concern in my electorate and certainly for defence force personnel and their families. I want to mention here tonight a gentleman by the name of Dave, who indicated that he is a returned veteran on a TPI and service pension whose eldest son is now a member of the regular Army. The Defence cutbacks are going to take away the free return travel to next of kin or home address once a year. This gentleman who has served and whose son is serving finds this, in his own words, 'abhorrent'. He said he believes it is a recognition of service given to the country that they do get a free trip home each year. He said, 'I believe this is one area that should remain clear of any budget cutbacks. My son will be posted to Darwin and the only safe way and quickest way is to fly to that destination.' He said this will take away his free flight as a condition of living in a remote location. He will have no alternative but to drive home, which will take three to four days. This will lead to a fatigue management issue, which will then become a duty of care and safety issue. He said young people giving their service to the country need this valued condition to be able to maintain links to their home. I think this is really important.
The gentleman went on to say Defence has had to make some decisions on cutbacks due to the government demands that they return to surplus. He expressed genuine concerns about the safety of his son. The member for Fadden identified in this House a range of Defence programs that have been deferred or cut completely. We have heard frequently about those from the member for Fadden.
In concluding, I do support the government in its efforts in this bill. I recognise and strongly support the efforts by the member for Fadden, who originally brought this to the parliament and, but for a few minor amendments, we see that effort reflected in this bill here tonight.
I rise today to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, which will fast track Australian citizenship for family members of Australian Defence Force personnel who have transferred from the military of another country. I do this because, like the coalition, I believe strongly in supporting our ADF personnel, their families, spouses and dependents. This bill will ensure that partners and dependents of Australian Defence Force transfer members will be eligible for Australian citizenship at the same time as the serving member.
An ADF lateral transfer member is a member of the Defence Force who has served on another nation's military and has subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Defence Force. They come from different countries around the world including New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the US. The ADF has a proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. These members help to fill critical gaps in our Defence workforce and bring skills and experience to help improve the ADF's understanding of critical issues. I am sure most would agree that if the skills of these transfer members add to the capability of our Defence Force then we should do everything we can to support these serving members and their families.
As a child of an Australian soldier, I understand the importance of this bill for our Defence Force personnel and their families. My mum worried enough about my dad when he was serving overseas; I cannot imagine how distressing it would have been for our family if Dad was considered an Australian citizen and we were not. What would happen to my mum and her children if Dad was killed overseas in the line of duty? I would hate to think of the emotional and financial hardships that would follow. We all know that the spouses of ADF members and their dependents give so much to our nation. Without the full support of their families, many of our frontline soldiers would not continue to serve in the ADF. Not only do the families of our soldiers offer a great amount of support to the serving family member but they are the ones that experience all the hardships associated with being a Defence family.
I know all too well about the regular rotation of the deployments, which are just one of the many stresses placed on ADF families. During my childhood, my dad was stationed at North Head, Sydney; Wacol in Queensland; Malaya and Holsworthy. I was three years old when we moved to Malaya after dad was deployed there in 1961. He served at Terendak Camp Malacca from 1961 to 1963. My younger sister Kerry was born in Kuala Lumpur. Things could not have been easy for my mum bringing up two small children in a foreign country without the support of her family and friends. In 1963, dad was transferred to Holsworthy army barracks where we stayed until the end of his career. With each move we had to start over and build a new life. But I consider us to be the lucky ones. Some members of the Defence Force move around on a regular basis, and this can be a great strain on their families.
I have also experienced the hardship that families go through when a serving member returns from war with post-traumatic stress syndrome. I was a young child when my dad returned from Vietnam. He fought in the Battle of Long Tan. I remember going into his bedroom to wake him up one morning and he jumped up and nearly strangled me. He was still in battle mode in the war zone. He slept with his eyes open and relived the horrors of Vietnam in his sleep. To this day, my dad still relives those terrible memories in his dreams. I know all too well that it is not easy to be a family member of ADF personnel. But it is the love and support of these family members that help our soldiers through the tough times. I love my dad and I would support him through anything. I know that without the love and support he received from my mum and his children he could not have served his country so courageously for all those years. This is why if we want to keep these soldiers in our Defence Force we must look after their families too. I am sure this bill will be a great comfort to many families of those serving our country or currently living in Australia.
So many families would benefit from these changes. The research carried out by the Defence Families of Australia showed that 90 per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families they bring with them to live in our country. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we support these families and give them the same citizenship status as serving members. As it stands now, all lateral transfer members are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before they can take up a position with the ADF and move to Australia. This is necessary because all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens and permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship. Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days service in the reserves. The provision of early citizenship under the act does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member and it does not include their children aged 16 or over, because they cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application. While the partners and dependents of these ADF members are given permanent residency, when they move to Australia they are not offered citizenship.
This situation is simply not fair on these families, especially not in a country which values the family unit so much and understands its importance. Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on operations. If one of these members is killed, there is no legislation or guarantee that would allow their families to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally received by the spouse and dependants of an ADF member.
I think we need to ask this one simple question: why should these brave men and women join the Australian Defence Force and support our troops serving overseas if their families are not going to be looked after in the case of a tragedy? Yes, in the past the government has made assurances that support would be provided for these families, but there is no reason why these assurances cannot be turned into legislation.
The children of these soldiers also deserve government support for things like their education. Under the current system these young people are not eligible for university HELP based placement, which puts significant financial strain on families. I believe that if a family moves to Australia so one of its members can serve in our Defence Force then that family should be looked after and treated like any other family of an Australian soldier. It is also important to note that the net benefit that Australia gains from recruiting a lateral transfer member exceeds any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the member's family.
The ADF is looking to recruit up to approximately 300 lateral transfer personnel each year, but I can tell you now: this will not be an easy thing to do if we are not offering a fair citizenship process to the families of these personnel. This legislation will provide families of our Defence Force members with peace of mind. It is a policy that is supported by Defence Families of Australia who have been fantastic advocates of our serving men and women.
It is a shame that party politics must be brought into such an important issue, but I question the motives of the government to rush the bill before parliament, especially when it is so similar to the coalition's bill that we introduced on May 21. I would hate to think that our Defence Force personnel are being used by this government to play political games. The Labor government has done nothing in the past four years with regard to this issue; in fact, their own minister for immigration is on the record saying that he did not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation for family members of our lateral transfer personnel. Yet, one day after the coalition introduces its bill, the government introduces a bill that is almost a carbon copy with some additional changes
These changes extend the legislation to include family members beyond partners and dependent children to any dependant, including elderly parents or disabled dependants who are not considered children. It also reduces the relevant defence service criteria for reserve service from 180 days to 90 days and, in the event the member dies before attaining citizenship, their spouse and dependants remain eligible for fast-tracked citizenship.
While the coalition supports these changes in addition to its own bill, the government could have easily introduced them as amendments to the coalition's bill, rather than playing political games and introducing its own bill. But, while I question the motives of the government, this will not stop me from supporting such an important bill for our transfer defence personnel and their families. I believe that anyone who is prepared to sacrifice their life for this country is worth all the support we can give them, as are their families, without whom the courageous men and women in our armed forces would not be able to do the fantastic job they do for this country. It is for this reason that I commend this bill to the House, and I commend the member for Fadden for initiating and bringing this legislation before the parliament today.
I rise to speak to Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, a bill which seeks to recognise the partners and dependants of those members of our Australian Defence Force—or the ADF, as we know it—enlisted through lateral transfer measures in terms of their eligibility for Australian citizenship.
Lateral transfer members help to fill critical gaps within the ADF workforce. They bring skills and experience, enabling them to hit the ground running and thus afford the ADF an opportunity to utilise these skills and experience without the cost and delay of training an individual from scratch.
Lateral transfers and the practice of recruiting experience is not a new phenomenon: in this day and age it is just one avenue or tool to which any employer organisation may access when looking to recruit new staff. In the case of our ADF, they seek to recruit up to 300 lateral transfer personnel each year. This number is entirely the prerogative of the ADF but, importantly, it must be noted that 90 per cent of the ADF lateral transfer members have families who also move to Australia.
The Australian Citizenship Act requires that all lateral transfer members must qualify for permanent residency visas before they can take up a position with the ADF and therefore move to Australia. Simply, this ensures permanent residency is in place, a prerequisite to citizenship and compliance with section 21(2)(c) and section 23 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, where a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days service in the reserves. Sadly, at present, the provisions for early citizenship as outlined in the act do not include the spouse or partner of an ADF member.
Amendments to this act, designed to bring reassurance to those who may be a spouse or partner in terms of citizenship, are welcomed and supported. Let me quantify the importance of these amendments. I referred to our Australian Defence Force in my opening comments—Australian defence personnel: personnel who, as military representatives of this country are at times deployed offshore in response to the needs of Australia and broader global military representation. We expect that those people serving within the ranks of the ADF, and who undertake the rigours and dangers associated with that calling are Australian by law; yet, in the same breath, we have been unwilling to afford that same level of acceptance and compliance to citizenship responsibilities for partners, spouses and immediate families of these members.
Darwin is home to an extensive number of ADF personnel, including their partners, spouses and families. It is my experience that those partners, spouses and families underpin and provide a solid foundation—a foundation which supports and enables the very efforts we as Australians expect from those within our ADF ranks. In many respects, those who partner and are family to serving ADF members are not acknowledged when we talk of the ADF. We forget the significant impost on them. We forget the emptiness they feel.
We do not see the loneliness they endure, nor do we see the significant impact on families of all that is required of those who fill our ADF's ranks. We do not see the pain when ADF members are injured or killed in the line of duty. Yes, we see the media reports; yes, we see the pain for a fleeting moment as we watch television coverage of a grieving family, but we do not see the depth or extent of that pain. We do not see what happens to the family—to the spouse or dependant—beyond what is evident in that fleeting TV coverage of loss.
There are ADF lateral transfer members on deployment. Sadly, under the Australian Citizenship Act as it stands, if one such member should be killed there is no guarantee that their spouses or dependants would be able to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally payable to the spouse and dependants of an ADF member. That, of course, is the worst case. I acknowledge the government has made assurances to provide support in such circumstances; however, this is of little comfort to families without the surety of legislative compliance.
Beyond the worst case, we fail to acknowledge the importance of the support provided to a member of the ADF by their spouse and dependants. We do not take for granted the importance that our own families have for us against the backdrop of a life in politics. We in this place are subject to the rigours of parliamentary obligations, be they sitting days, committee obligations or travel within our own electorates. Our own dependants are left to deal with many of the day-to-day obstacles of life without immediate access to us. We identify and acknowledge the additional pressures on our loved ones as a result of the roads we travel—yet the lives of the dependants of many ADF personnel are far more complicated and impacted and there is often little support for access to family and friends. Long periods of deployment, regular moves and transfers around the country, and irregularity in schooling and access to government services and entitlements are just some of the difficulties they face. More fundamentally, the ability for a spouse or dependent to share those important and life-giving moments—the development of a relationship or a family or the capacity to provide some balance and normality to a child's life—is compromised. To quantify further, the spouse and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members have the additional disadvantage of being away from the country that was once their home and where they had familiarity, stability and networks of friends, family and services to tap into.
I witness these issues on a daily basis. I feel for those partners and dependants left behind and I see the impacts. Currently, as permanent residents, dependants of ADF lateral transfer members are not eligible for university FEE-HELP placement—an additional financial impost. Divorce rates and family breakdowns within the ADF are above the national average, which is not surprising given the realities of life as an ADF spouse, partner or dependant. The current act provides no security of citizenship or access to government support to the spouse of an ADF lateral transfer member in the event of divorce. I highlight the value of the amendments in this bill and support the amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act. Ensuring that partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members are eligible for Australian citizenship at the same time as the serving member is, in my mind, clear recognition at last of the true value that should have been afforded to these people when the act was originally progressed. Yet, despite the support I verbalise, I am unable now to simply fold my speech up and sit down without addressing a couple of issues which remain outstanding in my mind.
I remain a little perplexed that, on 21 May this year, the coalition introduced a nearly identical bill. This Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill, aside from a few minor changes, remains essentially the same. I am unclear why the coalition bill could not simply have been agreed to in a bipartisan manner with the inclusion of the amendments contained in this bill, unless it was political point scoring by the government. Additionally, the introduction of this bill on 22 May comes some 12 months after the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, wrote to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, on 4 February 2011, stating in the second-last paragraph of his letter:
I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.
The introduction of the bill on 22 May comes one day after the coalition bill was introduced.
It is clear that the spirit underlying these amendments demonstrate that both sides of this House recognise the legislation's current limitations and have sought, in an almost identical manner, to address them. It is a pity a more direct and cohesive parliamentary process could not have been achieved, and that is very disappointing. I commend the bill to the House. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the member for Fadden in bringing his bill to this House.
I start with the finishing point of the member for Solomon. I have been a little disappointed throughout this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 that we have not celebrated that the two major sides of this chamber have come to similar conclusions. We should celebrate that because it indicates the importance of the amendments that are included in this legislation.
I first became aware of this two years ago when the wife of a lateral transfer British serviceman came to me. When she mentioned 'lateral transfer' I thought: 'What is it? Is it some sort of condition?' I had to start from the basics. Defence personnel matters are not matters that I get many questions on in the electorate of Scullin. I do not have any defence housing, and I am wedged between Maygar Barracks at Broadmeadows, which now has other uses, and Watsonia Barracks in the electorate of Jagajaga, which is a very important defence installation.
It seemed to me that there was a degree of absolute inconsistency that defied explanation. I am not going to go into this because I do not want to deflect into the partisan debate, but I assume that it had been a problem for quite some time, and the fact that during this period of the Labor government it has been highlighted to a conclusion is something that, as I have said from the outset, I am pleased about. The fact that a year ago in discussions between ministers it did not appear that we were going to get the progress of this amending legislation again gives us all strength as members of parliament that, by due consideration, by advocacy from members of parliament on behalf of those who come to people with a problem, and by the lobbying of interested outside groups government and oppositions in formulating policy can come to conclusions that find solutions.
Eerily, the example that was used by the minister in his second reading speech covers the family constellation of the lady who came to see me, because it absolutely highlighted our inconsistent approach to the defence family unit. Here, we brought to Australia a person who had skills that were required by our defence forces, and because of that employment there was a system that allowed a fast-tracking of that person's Australian citizenship. In the case of the spouse, however, it is business as usual with no fast-tracking. Without going into full details, the unfortunate thing for Australia was that this woman that approached me certainly had, in her employment in Great Britain, skills that could have been used by Australia as a nation, but they were skills in an area which requires the people employed in that sector to be Australian citizens. Not only was there the frustration of not being able, as the spouse of a person who was in the Australian Defence Force and who had become an Australian citizen, to also become an Australian citizen but also this limited this woman's employment opportunities.
Then we had the two children. I recollect that they were two boys: one 14 and one 19 or 20. The 14-year-old was covered; dad became an Australian citizen and the 14-year-old became an Australian citizen. The older lad was approaching the end of schooling and was from a family that had a tradition in the military with, as I recollect, a grandfather who was a serviceman in the British defence forces, and a father who had made a lateral transfer from the British forces to the Australian forces based on skills required by the Australian Defence Force. This young fellow wanted to join the defence forces, but he was not an Australian citizen. He had to wait around, do his time and become an Australian citizen, because he was not covered by the fast track. Again, I note that the minister in his second reading speech makes note of an example very similar to this case that was brought to me.
I pay great tribute to those organisations that represent defence personnel and to the individuals involved. This particular family was transferred from Melbourne to New South Wales, so I lost continuous contact, but this lady, upon first knowledge of the member for Fadden's approach and proposed legislation, sent me an email asking me to support the legislation that the member for Fadden was proposing. I hope she will excuse that I have chosen to give my full support to the government's initiative. At the end of the day there are a couple of differences—and I admit that they might be minor—between the two pieces of legislation, but the people who would find themselves in the circumstances outlined in the minister's second reading speech would not think that they were minor. I think that these differences make things more equitable.
If, for instance, we are talking not only about generations going downwards but about generations above—if grandparents are involved—these are improvements. I have to admit that if we have two similar pieces of legislation—and this is in no way a comment on the ability of the drafters that put together private members' bills, and is no criticism of them—this is something that, once the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was convinced in liaison with the cases that had been brought to the defence ministers, the whole resources of government could be put behind in a piece of legislation. I think it is really a good thing for it to come before this House so that we remedy something that was obviously unintended. I think that everybody would agree and understand the reason for the fast-tracking of the lateral transferee but, on simple and first blush investigation of the circumstances of family members, it did not seem to be logical. These are special cases and, as other members in this debate have indicated, we should be placing on record our acknowledgement of the support that men and women in the Australian Defence Force get from their families. To think that families do not have to confront hardship when the men and women of the Australian defence forces, for instance, are on deployment overseas would be to not understand human nature and the way that things are in reality.
This is not only the case when family members are deployed overseas. The Australian Defence Force is characterised by a very skilled workforce and those skills are not gathered by people just working nine to five in an office somewhere. They often involve exercises and time away for training. So we should not just think that families have to put up with the loss of the contribution that can be made by the Defence Force family member being around all the time. The fact that this piece of legislation in an indirect way gives recognition to all family members of Defence Force personnel is also important because, in coming to a whole-of-government conclusion, it is really those notions of looking after Defence Force families that have won through. We are left with an inconsistency in citizenship legislation but this has been seen as such a special case that it is worthy of having the amendments.
As I said in response to the conclusion of the member for Solomon and to some of the comments that have been made to deflect and defend against those who have decided to make partisan comments, I think that the House should celebrate this point that we are in. To the degree that the member for Fadden and the people that he worked with deserve credit, let us share the credit around. When you get to the stage where ministers are having exchange of letters and they are in disagreement—and those exchanges of letters are public because they are things that we are using to try to explain the position to our constituents—it is very important to have got to the stage where there is a whole-of-government position. It is a little unfortunate to use debates like this to talk about our partisan views about the funding of defence, post the last debate.
I would welcome us having that full debate because I welcome leaders of political parties on both sides—those that have the interests of the economic management on behalf of those forces—entering the debate. Some well-meaning people on the other side of the chamber have said about the reductions, 'This is another one of those things. It is the end of the world; the sky will fall in.' I would be interested to witness the debate with their economic management shadow ministers to see where things are really going. These are the types of debates that we really should have in totality and try to step back from the politics of the day. Let us really be fair dinkum with each other. For those who see the importance of maintenance of the resourcing of defence forces, especially in a troubled world, let us have the discussion with those that want to return budgets to surplus by three years ago if they could do it retrospectively. These are the debates that we do not have enough of here. We have the absolute use of a piece of really good legislation that we all should be celebrating because it is something that we actually agree on. The differences are at the margins. We have one proposition that we are discussing tonight that has a couple of things that just push it further over the line. Let us celebrate that we have got to this point. Let us say to those that lobbied us, 'This is an example of the way to go about your work, to stick in there even when it seems that nothing is going to change.'
I hate to tell the people from the opposite side of the chamber that have been worried and concerned and wrung their hands in this debate that I have a feeling that, if the coalition had been in power, we would have had the immigration minister saying one thing and a defence personnel minister saying another thing. Hopefully we would have got around, down the track, to everybody agreeing. Let us not hear that this has taken four years. The thing is that it has been done. It is a very good piece of policy that has been achieved as a result of the democratic processes of a nation that is well defended by its defence forces. I celebrate that. I fully support the legislation before the House tonight.
I rise to speak on and support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. I thank the member for Scullin for his contribution and the fact that he wishes to celebrate this issue. It is a pity that, with his celebration—his passionate and genuine contribution—there are not more government members joining with him to speak on this bill and join in celebrating with the member for Scullin.
Australia has a proud military history. Values of mateship, sacrifice and courage underscore that history and are a deep source of pride for many Australians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country where stability is the norm and where citizens have the freedom to pursue their aspirations in a peaceful and secure environment. There are many places across the globe which are less fortunate, where security is not the norm and where lawlessness leads to poverty and widespread devastation of communities. I often mention this to immigrants at citizenship ceremonies I attend, when comparing where immigrants may have come from to their new country, Australia. We should never take for granted the benefits we receive from the heroic efforts of the many men and women who serve and have served our great nation with courage and honour.
There are numerous elements that contribute to a successful nation. One that is undeniable is a strong and stable defence force. You cannot build a prosperous economy, you cannot continue to innovate and grow and you cannot develop a strong and confident country without security. I share in the disappointment of many Australians —and, I am sure, of the member for Scullin—at the Labor government's recent cuts to defence announced in this year's budget. The devaluation of our defence priorities by the government shows a Treasurer and a Prime Minister obsessed with political survival even at the expense of national security. This is a trend I am sure a coalition government would reverse. I attended a number of Anzac Day services in my electorate this year, as I do each year, and each year I am reminded of the huge sacrifices made by our Defence Force members and their families. Where we can, the government and coalition should support these families. They demonstrate great commitment to Australia, and their service provides immense benefits to the millions of Australians who inhabit this country.
As previous coalition speakers have outlined, the bill currently before the House is very similar to the private member's bill introduced by the member for Fadden on 21 May, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012. We heard the member for Fadden speak at length tonight about the insincerity of the minister and about the process of this bill reaching the House, but I will speak on that issue further on in my speech. Also, the phrase 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' comes to mind. But the fact is that the coalition strongly believes in supporting not only our ADF personnel but also their families. It is important that we support the personnel's spouses and also their dependants.
In all walks of life, spouses or partners play a very important role. The spouses and partners of ADF members and their dependants have to give so much more, just because of the very nature of the work that the ADF member does. Without the support of their spouses or partners, many ADF members would not stay in the role or even initially be drawn to the role of being an ADF member. The commitment and sacrifices made by families of ADF members are ones we will never know, unless we have had the fortunate experience of serving our country. As the member for Fadden said when he tabled his bill:
They are the ones who so often experience the greater hardships, greater stresses, constant rotations, in many cases constant deployments and certainly constant training schedules. They are the ones who know so many sacrifices that so few of us ever will.
As has been mentioned by previous speakers, this bill is designed to assist lateral transfer members who are members of the ADF and have gained entry based on prior experience in foreign defence forces. The various countries from which lateral transfer members arrive are South Africa, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom. The majority of lateral transfer members have come from the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, Royal Marines, army or Air Force, and we welcome those transferees to our ADF. They save our country many, many dollars by bring their particular skills learned in different countries. Also the ADF has a need to fill capability gaps in our armed forces and, therefore, those lateral transferees bringing the necessary skills and experience from their overseas forces help improve our ADF's capability while also improving the understanding of critical issues around the globe. The ADF has a long and proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries.
The purpose of this bill is to enable the spouses and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members—those serving members from other countries' militaries who seek to come and serve under our country's flag—to gain Australian citizenship at the same time as their serving ADF member. For a lateral transfer member to take up a position with the ADF and move to Australia, they are legally required to qualify for permanent residency visas, and this is necessary because all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens. Ninety per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families that they bring to Australia with them, and this bill is about affording them not just permanent residency but also citizenship, which will confer on them the same status as their serving ADF partner or spouse who has come to Australia as a lateral transfer member. Again, I quote the member for Fadden's speech on his private member's bill:
It is the right and fair thing to do. It is just. It honours those who honour us. ADF lateral transfers are members who have served in another nation's military and have subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Australian Defence Force.
When a soldier moves to Australia to serve in the ADF, they and their families are making an ongoing commitment to Australia. They are making a commitment to what this country stands for. Assisting them to additionally become citizens is also the beginning of a formal membership of the Australian community for these servicemen and their families. That is a step that will enable them to not just support our Defence Force personnel but to say, 'I am Australian.' Australia's culture and our laws have been shaped by our history. By enabling them to become citizens we are allowing these servicemen and their families to inherit this history and to be in a position to be a part of it. We are allowing them not just to enjoy the benefits of our free and democratic country but to further contribute to it.
There are many benefits of citizenship. Once citizens, these servicemen and their families gain the right to vote in federal and state or territory elections and in a referendum once of legal age. They will gain the benefit of being able to apply for work in the Australian Public Service, to apply for an Australian passport and re-enter Australia freely, to receive help from Australian officials while overseas and even to seek election to parliament. Becoming an Australian citizen is a great privilege and one that, as this bill promotes, should be extended to the spouses and families of those servicemen.
If we look at 21(2)(c) and section 23 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the early citizenship provisions do not include the spouse or partner of an ADF member, nor do they include dependants aged 16 years or over. An ADF lateral transfer member or a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF, or 180 days in the reserve, and it is these provisions that this bill seeks to pass on to the spouses, partners and dependents of the transferees.
We do it only where it suits the parent country. For example, the Royal Australian Navy is presently taking advantage of the United Kingdom's strategic defence and security review which is, amongst other things, reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services. It is in the context of this move by the Cameron government that the Royal Australian Navy is increasing its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill the capability gaps within our own ranks. It could take over a decade to recruit, train and skill engineers, pilots or other personnel with exceptionally high levels of skill. Having these personnel with these skills transfer from other militaries into ours saves the Commonwealth enormous time and enormous money. The ADF is presently looking to recruit, on their own numbers, approximately 300 lateral transfer personnel each year.
As I have said, under the Australian Citizenship Act a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing the 90 days service. The legislation in its current form can and does cause discord within lateral transfer members' families. Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on combat operations. One of the issues that can arise is that if a member is killed in training or in operations, there is no legislative basis or guarantee that their spouse or dependants will be able to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally payable to the spouse and dependants of an ADF member. I note the government has made assurances that support should be provided; however, this is little comfort to the families and dependants. There is no reason why such assurances should not be put in legislation. The bill will provide certainty to those families considering a lateral transfer to the ADF and it will aid the ADF in its recruitment efforts. It will give peace of mind to the 300 lateral recruits and their families who will be anticipating the transfer to Australia in the next 12 months.
There are also issues for dependants. Whilst currently they gain permanent residency, without citizenship they miss out on important benefits, such as university HELP based placements. This can lead to financial strain on families and makes the transfer to the ADF less attractive for those important recruits.
The bill removes provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that result in citizenship being granted to ADF members years in advance of their partner and dependants over certain ages. Behind every serving member is a support network. If we want these individuals to join the ADF we need to support these networks, whether they are a family, a spouse or a dependant. Family members of ADF personnel are the ones who, ultimately, offer the greatest support to those serving ADF personnel. Family members also experience the stresses and hardships associated with the role. This bill seeks to achieve that support, by removing discrimination and treating family members equally.
As I noted earlier today, the coalition introduced its bill on 21 May 2012. Labor introduced its near identical bill on 22 May 2012, despite saying in 2011 that it did not support the fast-tracking of citizenship for defence families. Labor made the decision to avoid a vote on the coalition bill by introducing a near carbon copy of the coalition's bill. Previous speakers have also pointed to the fact that the bill currently before the House is an almost exact copy of the coalition's bill introduced on 21 May. I will be supporting the bill, and I note the bill does propose some good changes, but those changes could easily have been introduced as amendments to the coalition's bill, rather than the government playing political games and introducing its own bill—when the government rejected these changes only last year.
The reality is, Labor has done nothing over the past four years and now, suddenly,when the coalition puts up the bill, Labor decides within 24 hours it is time to act. It appears to be a case of more spin from a government motivated purely by political survival rather than by a concern for the welfare of these families. The minister should apologise to the affected families for ignoring the need to act and then, instead of supporting the coalition's bill, resorting to political games. Given the actions of the minister and the government, you cannot help but question the motives of the government. But, as the member for Scullin said, we should now move on from there and celebrate the fact that this has bipartisan support.
This legislation will provide families with peace of mind. It is a policy wholly welcomed by Defence Families of Australia, which has been lobbying the government on this issue since 2010. DFA should be congratulated on its wonderful advocacy on behalf of these families on a wide range of issues ranging from defence housing to spousal support. It has been strong advocates for fixing the inequality for families of ADF lateral transfer members. I thank Defence Families of Australia for its ongoing advocacy and support of the ADF personnel. It does great work. Along with the coalition, I support this bill.
Again we find ourselves in this position. The coalition, with the limited resources we have in opposition, identify a policy gap that the government refuses to address. We develop a bill and present it to parliament. The government reject the bill purely because they did not think of it themselves and because they could not possibly support something that comes from the coalition. Then the government introduces an imitation bill because it actually was a good idea in the first place.
We saw this earlier in the year with the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, which was not worthy of government support. It was retitled to the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill and, suddenly, it was a government-led initiative. Too many times to count, in this parliament the coalition have suggested variations to government bills through the proper process—we write an amendment and submit it during the second reading. Mostly these amendments are rejected by the government, but most observers would surely think that all legislators have since learned that the most suitable way to progress is to make an amendment to a bill, not to rewrite it from scratch.
The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill, introduced by my colleague the member for Fadden, is a good bill supporting good policy. Yet the government have stated they cannot support it, instead choosing to introduce this, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, because of a key difference: a definition. I quote the second reading speech of the government's first speaker on the original bill, the member for Chifley:
The government's main reason for opposing this bill is that the bill's definition of a 'family unit' is much more narrow in scope than that in the government's bill.
And yet, for the sake of a definition, we need a new bill. A cynic might think the government is actually playing politics with this issue; somebody who is not a cynic might think the same. The coalition will support this government bill because it is good policy. We support all good policy. As a matter of fact, last year the coalition supported 87 per cent of the legislation submitted to the House by the government. As opposition it is our job to identify bad policy and to oppose it, as we did for the other 13 per cent of the time. On the other side of the scale, when the government have agreed with a coalition initiative so expressly they want to attach their own name to the policy, they have still voted against the coalition policy every single time. The reason I am harping on this issue is that these figures, and the reality of actions in this parliament, show that it is the government which always say no. They often accuse us of relentless negativity. They use this term incessantly, obviously thinking that if they say it often enough people will start believing it. Yet, whilst they are spending all their time attacking us, we are identifying policy gaps and writing new pieces of legislation.
The great irony of this bill is that not only did the government do nothing on this issue for four years but, when the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship suggesting this exact change in November 2010, Minister Bowen wrote back on 11 February 2011: 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.' It seems it was only when the coalition's shadow minister for defence science and personnel wrote his private member's bill that Minister Bowen suddenly realised that if the coalition is suggesting it then it must be a good idea—and here we are back again.
This bill highlights the coalition's strong support not only for our ADF personnel but also for their families. Spouses and dependants of ADF members make just as many sacrifices for our nation as the members themselves. They experience the hardships, the constant rotations and deployments and the stresses placed on ADF families. This bill supports the families of lateral transfer members who have chosen to help defend our nation, bringing unique skills and experience.
The ADF has a long and strong record of recruiting lateral transfer members, as is currently happening in response to the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is reducing the number of personnel, providing the Royal Australian Navy with a great opportunity to fill capability gaps within its own ranks. The net benefit that Australia gains from lateral transfer recruitment and the associated savings in training costs far exceed the short-term costs of fast-tracking the citizenship status of the spouse and dependants. Ninety per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families who they bring with them to Australia, and it is timely to ensure that the families of those willing to serve Australia in the ADF are provided the same citizenship status as the serving member.
I note that both the coalition's and the government's bills include the support of Defence Families Australia. A new development by Defence Housing Australia in the suburb of Ermington, in my electorate of Bennelong, will provide a lot of housing for defence families, and our local community warmly looks forward to their arrival. We look forward to the families in this new community that have joined our nation through the lateral transfers scheme being provided with fast-tracked access to citizenship and all the rights and protections shared by other family members of ADF personnel as their loved ones serve overseas in the defence of our nation.
I applaud the government for this bill. The process to get here may have been purely political, but the end result is a good policy written by the coalition to which the government are affixing their label. There is an old saying that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. This bill, just like the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill I mentioned earlier, must make the coalition blush. We often get attacked by the government with the claim that we are not announcing all our policies. This bill highlights the real reason why—the government are so busy attacking us that they are stumped for ideas and they want to steal more from the coalition.
Many commentators have referred to the very effective tactics of the member for Griffith in the lead-up to the 2007 election in copying Prime Minister Howard's policies. Some even referred to him as 'Howard Lite', but felt this tactic was somewhat justified due to the minimal resources afforded to opposition members in comparison to the huge government bureaucracies. Now it seems they are back to the same old tricks, but this time from government they are copying the coalition in opposition. I thought I had seen it all. I commend the coalition's policies and this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 and in doing so support many of my colleagues in this House, including the last speaker, the member for Bennelong. This bill will amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to fast-track citizenship for family members of defence personnel who are lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force.
As the law currently stands, a member of the Australian Defence Force and their children under the age of 16 years can apply for citizenship after that member has completed 90 days of service in the permanent forces or six months in the reserves. Family members who do not fall within this category, including children who are over the age of 16 years, have to wait for at least four years before applying for citizenship. They can get permanent residency but not citizenship. However, under the changes being proposed in this legislation, spouses and dependants will be deemed eligible to apply for citizenship after 90 days of the ADF member's service, which could be the equivalent of 90 days of paid service in the reserves, not the 180-day requirement as currently stands.
There is a strong rationale for this bill. The Australian Defence Force already recruits up to about 300 defence personnel from abroad coming from a range of countries that includes New Zealand, the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States. Often these recruits come to Australia with the support of their original country. Importantly, 90 per cent of these lateral recruits have families and bring them with them. These lateral recruits fill important capability gaps in our service. We are providing them with a job in our first-class Australian Defence Force, and in return Australia gets a skilled and highly trained military person who adds to our country's defence force's professionalism and skill set. It is in reality a win-win for both sides.
This legislative change before the House tonight enhances the Australian Defence Force's ability to recruit the best on offer. It also recognises that we support not just the ADF personnel themselves but their families as well—the ones who provide the support, who live with the hardships while the Defence Force members are away and whose sacrifice is not necessarily with their own lives but often with their livelihoods, which are interrupted significantly by long periods away for ADF personnel.
Be under no illusions; we need these lateral recruits. If one goes to the Army's online recruitment centre, as I did prior to coming into this House, there is a section for overseas applicants where it lists the positions for which the Australian Defence Force is looking for officers and soldiers. Applications, ironically, closed on 15 June this year, which has just gone, but there is a long list of positions for which the Australian Defence Force is seeking commissioned officers. It includes, in aviation, rotary wing pilots; in artillery, officers with surveillance and target acquisition and offensive support specialisation; in dental, specialised officers who are qualified dentists; in the nursing corps, qualified nurses; in engineering, aeronautical, electrical and mechanical engineers; in the intelligence corps, qualified intelligence corps officers; in transport, officers with amphibious experience in particular; in ordnance, logistics officers; in military police, qualified military police officers; in signals, officers with electronic warfare or cyberwarfare experience; and the list goes on. This shows the capability gaps which we need filled.
This legislation cannot wait, as the opportunities to recruit these laterals and take advantage of, for example, what is happening in the United Kingdom with their significant reduction in military personnel numbers, is right now. In fact, if we act now and lift the incentives for the best and the brightest from overseas to come to our defence forces, we stand best positioned to meet some of these strategic challenges ahead. I remember my trip to Afghanistan last year to meet with some of the more than 1,500 men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are serving our country so bravely in that difficult warzone. I heard from both Australian soldiers and some British troops about the significant changes taking place in the UK military scene, where tough economic conditions had led to a reassessment of priorities by government there and a number of senior military personnel were going to be without jobs.
It is also important to note that, for every one of these lateral recruits that Australia does attract, we do save some of the financial expense that otherwise would have been incurred in training that person up. For example, a fully trained pilot will cost the taxpayer between $1½ million and $2 million. Should you be able to recruit somebody with that skill set, you are saving the taxpayer an equivalent amount.
One of the other important flow-on effects from this legislation is that it helps mitigate the likelihood of, in the terrible event that an ADF member is killed, the dependants being unable to stay in Australia or access benefits because they are not citizens—benefits that may otherwise be payable to an Australian spouse. Now we have lateral recruits who are serving in ADF combat operations in Afghanistan. It is personnel like these whose spouses and family members will get real benefit from this legislation, because fast-tracking citizenship for them could mean that they are also going to be able to access benefits which otherwise might not be available.
I want to say that this legislation introduced by the government is virtually identical to that which was introduced by my friend and colleague the coalition shadow minister, the member for Fadden. He took the initiative when the government did not. He got the support of Defence Families of Australia. He advocated for change because he was in touch with the needs of Australian defence personnel and their families. His bill was introduced first and the government shamelessly followed. I do welcome the government's bill before the House tonight, but I acknowledge that it took them a long time to change heart. In fact, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, in a letter dated 4 February 2011, specifically rebuffed the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, on this point when he said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.'
Now we have the government backflipping yet again—and don't we get used to it. However, this time, fortunately, it is in pursuit of a good cause, and I support the bill before the House. But I acknowledge that it was the member for Fadden and our shadow minister in this portfolio who took the initiative, who led the charge and who shone a light on this government's deficiencies. It is because of his effort that the government has followed with its own bill, and it is because of his effort that we are now seeing a change for the better for the Defence Families of Australia, who deserve our support.
The world is unstable. We are seeing the economic crisis in Europe. We are seeing the United States in an election year galvanised by $14 trillion of debt. We are seeing a rising China, a rising India, and we are seeing tensions in our own region in the South China Sea which is leading to some countries—Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore and others—balancing against what they see as an increased power play by China. In fact, we in Australia have seen that the US Marines are going to rotate through Darwin and perhaps elsewhere. They are all significant changes that reflect the sense of instability in our region.
During this period of instability there is no more important Australian institution than our Defence Force. The men and women of our Australian Defence Force are our last line of defence. They uphold our values and help ensure that the world and our region is a better place. That has been the role played for more than a century by our Australian Defence Force. That is why it is unconscionable that so much of the defence budget has been ripped out by this government. According to ASPI, it has been more than $20 billion in the last few years alone.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
It is not a laughing matter.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Yes.
The member for Riverina, the member for Kooyong has the call.
It is not a laughing matter, as Sid Sidebottom is having—
The member for Kooyong will refer to members by their title or their electorate.
The member for Braddon, may I say, from Tasmania. Can I say that he should not be laughing at what is a very serious point, which is actually this government's undermining of defence.
I want to finish here, because we are talking about a bill which will enhance Australia's strategic depth and ensure that we can continue to attract the best and brightest from overseas. That is what this bill is about. I commend this bill, but I acknowledge that it is in the context of following the initiative of the member for Fadden and it is in the context of this government ripping billions of dollars out of a crucial defence budget at a time when our region is unstable and when we are seeing heightened tensions. I do support this bill. I think that giving lateral recruits fast access to citizenship for their families, for their spouses, for their dependents and for their children over the age of 16 is a very positive initiative.
With 300-plus lateral recruits coming to this country every year, absolutely critical positions, as I outlined, in aviation, in the nursing corps, in engineers, in the intelligence corps, in ordnance, in military police, in signals, in artillery and in a lot more of these critical areas, enhancing these lateral recruits' and their families' ability to access citizenship is a positive development. But I say to this government, 'Don't play the politics of defence', because in this climate our Australian Defence Force deserve all the moral and financial support that this parliament can muster. I pay tribute to the legacy of the Howard government in defence and to the efforts of my colleague the member for Fadden in taking the initiative on this bill.
Australian Defence Force personnel play an important role, whether they are contributing to the rebuilding of Iraq, partaking in various United Nations peacekeeping operations or involved in multinational exercises within Australia or overseas. However, it is not just our military men and women who are serving our nation. So too are the spouses and partners of Australian Defence Force personnel and their dependants. The families of military personnel are their great enablers, their devoted supporters and play the largest role in influencing whether someone remains a member of the Defence Force. The families are also the ones who experience the reality of living with a member of the Defence Force. As their partner is moved around the country and the world to different rotations and deployment, they too get moved around and shuffled about. Many a Defence Force family has superb skills at packing and starting life again in a new town.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member for Riverina will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) the band of the Royal New South Wales Lancers, based in Parramatta, makes a significant contribution to the local community;
(b) similar Army Reserve Bands across Australia make significant contributions to their local communities;
(c) these bands provide a key link between communities and the Australian Defence Force in this time of high operational tempo;
(d) the recent Government decision, as part of the Strategic Reform Program, to remove financial support for these bands places the onus for support on regimental associations; and
(e) such associations consist largely of retired veterans without the financial resources to provide such support; and
(2) calls upon the Government to continue support for Army Reserve Bands, thus ensuring these key links with the local community are not lost.
I would like to take a moment or two to say something of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers. It is the oldest cavalry regiment in Australia. It was established on 3 January 1885. It is a regiment that has had troops deployed in South Africa at Federation. It took its name in 1956 when the 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers and the 15th Northern Rivers Lancers amalgamated. It carries battle honours of a number of former regiments, to a total of 31, from the Boer War, the First World War and the Second World War. Highlights include Gaza-Beersheba, the defence of ANZAC, Jordan, New Guinea, Wareo-Lakona, Gusika, Borneo, Balikpapan, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Egypt, Damascus, Stockton Bight and the Solomon Islands again. It is a regiment that has contributed troops as groups and individuals to many contemporary operations undertaken by the Australian Defence Force. It has very distinguished leadership and I acknowledge particularly its most recent honorary colonel, Lieutenant Colonel Warren Glenny, who was the General of the Army Reserve for Australia.
The band of this particular regiment has been part of the Lancers almost from the beginning and was established in 1888. From its earliest days it struggled with financial survival, being forced from 1891 to undertake fundraising to purchase instruments due to the inadequate support from the General Officer Commanding, New South Wales. In 1897, the band was transferred to Parramatta and was located in the historic Lancer Barracks, which were built in 1819 under the instructions of the then Governor Lachlan Macquarie. They remain there today as the longest continually occupied military post in Australia.
The band has been involved in the Commonwealth of Australia inauguration ceremonies in 1901, leading a section of the parade through Sydney. The following day, with 21 other bands, it participated in the Commonwealth Inauguration Tattoo. This event, with an attendance of over 30,000 people, was the largest attendance at any gathering in Australia to that point in time. On 12 March 1913 it played at the Canberra foundation ceremony. In 1921 it commenced the annual participation in the Anzac Day march through Sydney, and this year on Anzac Day I remember the band of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales lancers playing and leading a significant part of that ceremonial parade. It played at the formal opening of the parliament following the accession of King George VI in 1922. On 18 October 1959 it led the regiment to receive the freedom of entry to the City of Parramatta. During the centenary of the regiment in 1985 it led the regiment to receive the freedom of entry to the City of Sydney.
This band has been extraordinary. It has provided support to events across the local community, such as the Westmead Children's Hospital Bandaged Bear Ball, Floriade in Canberra, the Australia Day citizenship ceremonies at Parramatta, regimental dinners—I note the member for Parramatta is here; she and I attended the most recent regimental dinner, where again the band was playing. It has provided buglers for the local RSL Anzac Day services, the Anzac Day march in Sydney, the Reserve Forces Day 2011, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia Vietnam Veterans' Day 2011, the Battle of Crete service at the Sydney Cenotaph, the Manly Jazz Festival, and buglers for funerals of veterans. It is a vital link between the community and the military, and so at this important time of ongoing operations, when one is seeking to get people to support the military, when one is seeking to recruit people for the reserves, this is the visible face that people see and can relate to. To constrain it is, in my view, quite inappropriate at this time. The band is a reminder of the proud and longstanding military history and record of service of a very fine regiment.
So I want to speak about the funding cancellation. A minute on 24 August last year directed that ongoing support for bands in respect of replacement and repair of instruments and ceremonial uniforms would be withdrawn from most regimental bands. When I think of the size of the defence budget—and I know that there is a need for savings—I find it extraordinary that the savings are being made in relation to the replacement of instruments and ceremonial uniforms. I find that absolutely extraordinary.
This band has enormous local support. I have no doubt that the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers Association will provide support for their band, but it needs to be recognised that that will come from the pockets of retirees, many of whom are superannuants and whose savings are dwindling. Such spending also reduces the support the association can give to their other activities—in the case of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, the fundraising for their museum and community activities in which they are engaged.
Regimental bands support communities and they bind communities to the military. It is very important when troops are serving overseas—in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that that support is forthcoming. Given that there are very few military units now based in Sydney—and there are not many Army Reserve units—bands are even more important than ever in bringing the community and the ADF closer together. The lancers recently deployed a squadron minus to the Solomon Islands, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to service.
The cancellation of support for the Army Reserve bands comes with a budget that has cut defence spending dramatically, as I have mentioned. Ongoing efforts by Labor have seen, I think, unfortunately, a steady withdrawal of support for the Army reserves. It has been cloaked as a strategic reform program, but it aims to pick off what I would call low-hanging fruit to make quick savings—low-hanging fruit like stopping reservists being paid for attending Anzac Day ceremonies in 2010; low-hanging fruit like reservist funding, such that the Army Reserve can no longer meet their full training and development needs for anything other than high-priority tasks; and low-hanging fruit like support for Army Reserve bands, like that of the lancers.
As you would know, there is no higher priority that the coalition has than the defence and security of Australia and its people. But targeting organisations like Army Reserve bands is, in my view, a very seriously misguided saving. It is a saving that will separate the community from the military. It is a saving that puts the onus for support on a bunch of superannuated veterans and ex-servicemen. It is a saving that hits communities as much as it hits the motivated reservists who form part of the bands. Specific funding allocated to ADF reservists is now insufficient to meet their training and development needs for anything other than high-priority tasks.
This motion deserves to be passed vigorously, and I hope the military brass are hearing what I hope will be support from both sides of the House. (Time expired)
Order! Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak, to allow the member for Canberra to speak and provide some appalling response from the government.
The member for Fadden will resume his seat. I, as the occupier of this chair, will decide who is the next speaker, not the member for Fadden. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I now call the member for Canberra.
I applaud the member for Berowra for his commitment to the musical life of the military, but I rise to speak against this motion tonight because it is unnecessary and it is somewhat confused. I attend many, many defence events in the course of my job as the member for Canberra. At all of those events there is always a very strong musical presence. One of the highlights of my time in Canberra was going to Beating the Retreat at Duntroon—on a freezing cold night, from memory. It was an absolute highlight. There is a very strong musical tradition in the military, and I applaud the member for Berowra for raising our awareness on that, but I do rise to speak against this motion tonight.
I am not supporting this motion for the following reasons. The current draft of the private member's bill refers incorrectly to regimental bands as reserve bands. It refers specifically to the Royal New South Wales Lancers Band and similar bands. Such bands are in fact regimental bands, yet this motion calls on the government to continue to support Army Reserve bands. The government actually already supports reserve bands and will continue to do so. At present, the government supports six regional reserve bands and more than 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps. The matter of support raised in this motion by the member for Berowra is actually an administrative matter. What is more concerning is that this motion proposes to interfere with and reverse a decision taken by the Chief of Army.
I will go into more detail about these issues shortly but, before I do so, I would just like to talk a bit more about the current band structure in the Australian Army. As the member for Canberra, I am very appreciative of the role our Army bands play in our national discourse. The band of the Military College, Duntroon—often referred to as the RMC band or the Duntroon band—is based here in Canberra. The band is a respected and important part of Canberra's cultural life and is often called on to play at important events and ceremonies. So for me this is a pertinent issue.
There are two broad categories or divisions of bands in the Australian Army. The first category is the Australian Army Band Corps, which is composed of musically trained reserve and permanent personnel and was established to provide a musical service to the Army and the broader community. Our Australian Army Band Corps plays an important role. It provides music for ceremonial and training activities conducted by the Army and other services of the ADF. It provides music for ceremonial activities, including for royal and vice-regal events and federal, state and territory and local government agencies. It enhances morale and esprit de corps through entertainment for Army personnel in barracks and those deployed on operations or exercises and supporting civil affairs and psychological operations. It contributes to the attraction of quality recruits to the Army and—this is really important—it promotes the public image of the Army through musical performance.
The Australian Army Band Corps is organised as follows: it has one Army band of 43 Australian Regular Army musicians; four Army support bands of 22 Australian Regular Army musicians and 21 Army Reserve musicians; six regional Army Reserve bands of 40 Army Reserve musicians and three Australian Regular Army staff; a Defence Force School of Music—I have been to that school and met many of the players there—with 11 regular Australian Army staff; and a Director of Music Army with six staff. This structure is based on a 43-piece Australian Regular Army band in Canberra, the Royal Military College Band, and Army support bands each consisting of 22 Australian Regular Army personnel located proximate to formations in Townsville, in Brisbane, in Sydney and in Wagga Wagga. Each Army support band will hold an Army Reserve establishment of 21 in addition to the Australian Regular Army element. Regional Army Reserve bands consisting of 40 Army Reserve and three Australian Regular Army staff will be located in Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Newcastle, Perth and Darwin. Perth and Newcastle will contain an Army Reserve pipes and drums component.
The second category refers to the regimental bands, which are composed of volunteers and are established to provide musical services primarily for a specific unit or regiment. As I mentioned before, the Royal New South Wales Lancers, referred to by the member for Berowra, is an established regimental band. Regimental bands are staffed by volunteers from both permanent and part-time Army personnel from the parent regiment. The members of these bands are already employed by the Army in other roles. For example, if they are employed by the army as a cook, they may volunteer to play in the regimental band. The motion we are debating here claims that associations like the Royal New South Wales Lancers are a reservist band. They are in fact a regimental band. The member also suggested that they consist largely of retired veterans without the financial resources to provide support. This is also incorrect. The Gillard government already supports Reserve bands and will continue to do so. As I said before, the Gillard government supports six regional Reserve bands and over 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps.
As I also mentioned earlier, following a review into Army bands in May 2011, a decision was made by the Chief of Army to transfer the resourcing of regimental bands from the Commonwealth to the associated regimental associations. This decision by the Chief of Army is an administrative matter that is delegated to the Chief of Army pursuant to the Defence Act 1903. Therefore, the member's motion proposes to interfere with a decision by the Chief of Army.
As I understand it, these resourcing changes were necessary to ensure Army's dedicated musical capability could be sustained in the long term. To ensure that resources were focused on Army's dedicated musical capability, voluntary bands such as the regimental bands were given the responsibility to repair or replace musical instruments, uniforms and other equipment. The Chief of Army made a decision to no longer replace the musical instruments, uniforms and other equipment held by the voluntary regimental bands in order to prioritise financial support to the dedicated members and bands of the Australian Army Band Corps. This decision was made to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Australian Army Band Corps. This decision was made with fiscal responsibility in mind as well as a determination to see the history and culture of our Australian Army bands continue.
Members of the Royal New South Wales Lancers in Parramatta who are listed in the private member's motion, will be offered part-time positions with the Australian Army Band Sydney, which is an Australian Army Band Corps band funded by Army. The Australian Army does not plan to disestablish regimental bands. Regimental bands will retain their current musical instruments and uniforms. All Army Reserve members who are currently volunteering in regimental bands such as the Royal New South Wales Lancers and who are qualified as Army musicians will be given the option of transferring to an Australian Army Band Corps band. It is important to note that the regimental bands reflect the heritage of various units and corps and perform duties primarily for their own regiment, which is why the responsibility should lie with the unit.
Ultimately this is an administrative matter which is delegated to the Chief of Army. I can appreciate the importance of our Army bands and I agree with the member for Berowra that they are incredibly important to the life of the military, to the culture of the military and also to the culture of communities such as Canberra. They are steeped in history and they are important to our national character, but this motion is simply unwarranted and unnecessary.
I rise to support my colleague the honourable member for Berowra's motion and am happy to speak in support of it. The member for Berowra has given a very good account of the problems facing regimental bands—in this case the Royal New South Wales Lancers based in Parramatta. Whilst the member for Canberra has so eloquently gone through the issues of the Australian Army Band Corps and its history, she had the effrontery—the blatant audacity—to say that this $2 million saving was about fiscal responsibility. She said fiscal responsibility, after this government has just gutted the Defence Force to the tune of $5½ billion. Since 2008, the cuts, deferments and imposition on absorbed costs have resulted in over $20 billion being ripped out of Defence to hollow it out. You come in here, Member for Canberra, and talk about fiscal responsibility for $2 million from 14 regimental bands and you expect me to take you seriously. Well, ma'am, with the good grace that I have and as good a member of parliament that you may well be, I find that comment outrageous in the extreme.
On 24 August last year the Army, in response to the government's dubious strategic reform program, issued a directive to withdraw support from 14 regimental bands. It was an arbitrary decision—another example where the government failed to consult with the senior staff of the military. The policy has resulted in the Army withdrawing all instruments from these regimental bands, in effect passing the cost of instruments, uniforms and the like onto regimental associations. Why? For that fiscal responsibility, Member for Canberra: to save $2 million while your party and government gutted $20 billion. Let's put that in context: $2 million versus your $20 billion gutting. And you speak of fiscal responsibility—a drop in the ocean that is nothing short of outrageous, especially when you spend $30 million advertising your carbon tax and you cannot even say the term 'carbon tax.'
Member for Fadden, I am reluctant to interrupt in the given time, but you are referring to 'you', being the occupier of this chair. I would ask—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for my youthful exuberance and the word 'you'—but there is a public outrage at the cuts that our Defence Force is going through. The member for Canberra tells me that this wasn't the government's decision; this was General Morrison. General Morrison issued this decision, yet after the public outrage this punitive policy was fiddled, it was changed. The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 October 2001 said that the 14 regimental bands will be allowed to keep their existing instruments but will not be provided any support to maintain those instruments or to purchase new instruments. So, Member for Canberra, what you are saying is that the Chief of Army made this decision and then, after this great public outcry, General Morrison—a man I know well and a man not prone to changing his mind easily, may I say—suddenly changed his mind without any instruction from the minister and without any political engagement or fiddling at all. May I suggest this is what happened, Member for Canberra: that the government, under its strategic reform program, has forced the Army into a range of dreadful cuts, as it is doing right now. After the great outrage, could the minister have said: 'Oh, Chief, this is not going well; could we make a little bit of a change here'? Do you think that could have happened, Member for Canberra, or do you think the Chief of Army simply changed his mind because this was an administrative decision of the Army and nothing to do with the government of the day? If you are suggesting that, I find that hardly credible and I struggle to believe it.
The member for Berowra has quite rightly noted that Labor's mean-spirited policy will put significant financial strain on Army reservists and their regimental associations connected with them. These associations so often made up of ex-regimental members—and I can attest to that from personal experience—are 100 per cent committed to their units—100 per cent committed to their communities and the units they serve with.
The motion simply asked for a little bit of goodwill. For all the fiscal responsibilities you talk about, how about community responsibility? How about responsibility for the unique nature of military service? But, then again, you will not index DFRDB pensions, so you are saying what your view of the unique nature of military service is. How about a bit of goodwill to assist 14 regimental bands, their associations and the communities that serve our nation? That would not go astray.
With some regret, I have to say that I also cannot support this motion, because it is not really the parliament's role to look at the expenditure decisions of the Chief of Army and pick and choose which ones we as a parliament would have changed. It is just not our role to do that. This is a decision that the Chief of Army has made.
The reason why I say it is with some regret is that I know the Army Band Corps very well. My father was in the 1st Military District Band for 20 years and won an Order of Australia for his services to the military as a musician in the army bands. It is a sound I know well. I was raised with it. I spent a lot of time in Enoggera. I spent a lot of time watching parades and listening to my father. I understand the extraordinary contribution that the army bands have made not just to the community but to the broader community by the provision of those full-time positions throughout our community and the support that those positions give to teaching, to part-time musicians that work in clubs in various bands. The effect of those full-time positions and the quality of that work feeds out to the music industry generally, so it has a double purpose.
I am delighted to see in the decision that the Army made an absolute strong commitment to the maintenance of that professional band corps through the Army band in Canberra, the four army support bands, the six regional Army Reserve bands and also the Defence Force School of Music. There is in its decision an extraordinary commitment to maintaining those professional bands both full-time Army and Reserve bands.
I would say this as an observer to both the Army and the regiment: bands like the lancers are very much a part of our community. It is the oldest surviving regimental band in Australia. It was formed in 1888. It is one of three bands in Parramatta that are over 100 years old. We also have the Parramatta City Brass band, which celebrated its 100th last year, and the Parramatta Citadel Band from the Salvation Army, which is also over 100 years old. We have three in Parramatta, but the lancers is associated with the oldest functioning barracks and the most decorated regiment, which was formed for the Boer War. It has this history which we in Parramatta take on as very much a part of our own—an extraordinary barracks because of the nature of its buildings and the nature of its history. It is where our men and women enlisted for the first and second world wars. It is an extraordinary place.
The member for Berowra is incorrect in referring to them as superannuates and retirees. They are actually not; they are reservists and soldiers who have other jobs in the Army and do this on a part-time basis in their spare time. It would be reasonable, I would think, for a clarinettist always to provide their own clarinet and a trumpet player to provide their own trumpet—as they do in every band, by the way. The drums and the instruments, on the other hand, are a slightly different matter and are really quite expensive. So this will provide a difficulty for bands like the lancers and it would be quite tragic if in the course of time we saw these bands, particularly a band like this one with its extraordinary history, substantially weakened or disappearing. I would hope that in the transition period we are quite sensitive to the needs of these bands. Mind you, I am talking for the one I know; I am sure there will be other communities around Australia that will talk for their regimental bands as well in exactly the same terms as I do. Once again, I do not criticise the Army for the decision it has had to make because I do not know of the other decisions it has had to make. This is one of a suite of decisions—you cannot look at one alone. But I would say again that bands like the Lancers, in the role they have had, carry an extraordinary part of our military history and the loss of even one of these bands would be a tragedy. It is going to be quite an interesting transition. I will be working with the band through that as best I can, but I have to support the Chief of Army in the suite of decisions he has had to make.
I rise to speak on this important motion from the member for Berowra regarding the Royal New South Wales Lancers from Parramatta. This motion notes that many Defence Force bands similar to the Lancers make a significant contribution to the local community, but their very existence is presently under threat due to the decision by this Labor government to cut funding. The Reserves are an integral component of Australia's Defence Force. Along with my coalition colleagues, including the member for Brisbane, I have long supported the unique skills that reservists bring to defence and I have always supported the important work they carry out in achieving the ADF's objectives both at home and abroad.
Unfortunately, as a result of Labor's poor and reckless financial management of the country's budget, the government has decided to cut funding to the Department of Defence and, as the member for Berowra said, to the so-called low-hanging fruit of that department. An important consequence for the community of Labor's Strategic Reform Program, which is supposed to save $20 billion over 10 years, is that such low-hanging fruit consists of things like paying for training and development needs of sectors of the Defence Force which are not considered high priority. At the very time that Australia has a significant number of troops overseas—clearly our highest priority—it does not make sense to be cutting funding in this way. A lot of sensible and positive programs that are not related to direct combat will be cut but the coalition does not believe that their funding should be cut—not in the current context and not ever. Yet this Labor government has decided that the defence department does not matter to the extent that their budget, as a percentage of GDP, is less than 1.5 per cent—the lowest it has been since 1938.
The May budget saw $5.5 billion of cuts to the Defence portfolio. I ask the question: was there a specific strategic justification for these cuts? The answer is simple: of course not. Has the world become safer or changed so much in the last couple of years that a capable Defence Force is deemed completely unnecessary? Of course not. At the same time, have conditions changed to the extent that the service of reservists in Army bands is no longer required? Of course not. The Labor government has abandoned its commitment to the reserves to the extent that specific funding allocated to Australian Defence Force reservists is so insufficient that some reserve units are down to as low as 20 days training per annum. This is despite numerous parliamentary studies of the Reserves agreeing that for an effective reserve service there must be a minimum of approximately 30 training days per year.
There are two main streams of Defence Force bands in the Brisbane area with which reservists assist. They are the regular Australian Army Band Brisbane and the Band of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment which formed 58 years ago. The band of the RAR recently performed at the Ashgrove dawn service on Anzac Day this year for the 42nd year in a row. Unfortunately it may be the case that they will not be able to perform for the 43rd year in a row. It might the case that, as the member for Berowra highlighted, there will be no buglers available to provide their services for the funeral of a veteran. At passing-out parades for diggers who have been deployed overseas to risk their lives for this country there will not be a band to welcome them home or to see them off.
A worrying development occurred on 24 August 2011 when it was announced that, for those in regimental bands, ongoing support for replacement and repair of instruments and financial support for things like ceremonial uniforms will be withdrawn. This is a threat to the Defence Force and the community. It is not trivial that these bands serve as an entertainment outlet for serving Australians both here and on overseas deployment; that they perform at Defence and government occasions; that they support the Defence Force's public and community relations events; or that they contribute to educational programs at schools and other charity organisations. I assure the Australian people that a re-elected coalition government will urgently seek to address the Gillard government's failure to properly support the ADF Reserves. I call on all members to support this motion.
It is a great pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, to be addressing the parliament while you are in the chair. I begin my contribution by acknowledging what I am sure is a very genuine motion from the member for Berowra. I understand that he, like all of us in this place, appreciates the enormous contribution these people make through their participation in Defence bands and like organisations. They are invaluable to local communities; there is no doubt about that.
I am a late entrant to this debate because I realised about an hour ago that I might have caused this debate. It was me who, as then Minister for Defence, put in place the Strategic Reform Program and I suspect there may be, as other speakers have indicated, some link between the Strategic Reform Program and the Chief of Army's decision to curtail some of these activities. At the end of the day it is pretty simple: when I became defence minister we began, as we had committed to, the process of developing another Defence white paper. As we all know in this place, we live in an uncertain world in a region which is going through dynamic change, and no-one would contest the fact that, over time, as we continue to grow economically along with our near and not-so-near neighbours we will need to continue to develop Australia's defences in a way which allows us to continue our ability to defend ourselves independently of any other nation state.
Any look at our strategic outlook indicates that, over time, we will need to continue to spend more money on high-end capability, whether it be on air warfare destroyers, fast jets or other capabilities. There is only so much money a country can contribute to defence as a percentage of its GDP and, on average, we are up there with many comparable countries. It became clear to me as defence minister that, given our strategic outlook, we would not be able to find off the budget the sort of money we would need to be investing over the course of the next decade or more, so I came to the conclusion that the only way we could enhance the money coming from the centre of government was to find savings within defence.
I remember vividly suggesting to the Chief of the Defence Force and the secretary of the department at the time that, having had a thorough look at the organisation, we should be able to find $10 billion internally—not $10 billion to give back to the centre but $10 billion to redirect into high-end capability within defence. Some people criticised me for that assessment, but having asked an independent private sector organisation to come in and study defence I was informed: 'You were wrong, Minister. You probably got it wrong when you suggested that $10 billion could be found. We think $20 billion could be found.' That was the recommendation from the independent consultant. So we put in place a strategic reform program not to take money out of defence but to make savings internally so that they could be redirected back into defence. That is what the strategic reform program is all about.
Having done that, we need to rely upon the service chiefs to make the decisions. If they want high-end capability and an efficient defence force they need to make some tough decisions about some of the legacy issues and how they might deal with them. It seems apparent to me—not that I look at these things all that closely these days—that the Chief of Army has decided that there needs to be some rationalisation with respect to Army bands. I think it would be a very dangerous thing for this place, this parliament, this House of Representatives to look to intervene every time a service chief took a decision about how they might rationalise the spending within their own defence organisation.
Again, I accept the genuineness in the approach of the member for Berowra and of those who have supported him, but if we are going to have a strong defence force in the future we must have an ongoing reform program, we must rationalise, we must make savings and we must redirect those savings to the high-end capability in the force we need to protect our nation state. While not questioning anyone's genuineness, I think the parliament should stay out of these decisions. This is a relatively low-level decision for the Chief of Army and we should support him in his decision.
Quite frankly, I am shocked. I rise to speak in support of my friend and colleague the member for Berowra and his motion that the band of the Royal New South Wales Lancers, based in Parramatta, makes a significant contribution to the local community and that Army bands across Australia make significant contributions to their local communities. I commend my friend for moving that this House recognise military bands.
I represent the seat of Herbert and the garrison city of Townsville. We are home to Australia's largest Army base—the 3rd Brigade at Lavarack Barracks. Not only do we house Australia's best troops and ready deployed forces but we are also home to the world famous 1RAR band. I must first commend the commander of 3rd Brigade, Brigadier Shane Caughey, for his commitment to ensuring that the Army maintains a strong community presence. His commitment to our community and to the greater North Queensland community must have played some part in his very much deserved Queen's Birthday honour.
The commander of 1RAR is Lieutenant Colonel Eamon Lenaghan. 1RAR is a battle-ready regiment. It maintains a high level of training for its primary role, which is to keep Australia safe. It continues a strong tradition of commitment to a number of community causes, but it is the 1RAR band which forms the social bond between all things military and civilian in my city. I note that the Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley, was a former commander of 1RAR.
Under the Leadership of Major Lindsay Mee the 1RAR band plays a constant stream of community events. They play with joy and happiness. They play brilliantly. They have played the formal military role and they have also provided first-class musical accompaniment to a vast number of charitable and community events. Everything from the senior citizens to the Ronald McDonald House ball will see the band providing dinner music, big band music, as well as jazz, blues, and rock and roll for every audience.
The band also provides musicians for the local music scene. I was lucky enough to be present for the 3RAR welcome parade to see the 1RAR band team with the Barrier Reef Symphony Orchestra and the 4th field regiment's artillery to present an open air rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. That, my friends, was a truly memorable evening. It is the willingness of the band to represent the entire community which I love the most. On Anzac Day the brass section can be seen at every dawn service, including Magnetic Island. They will then join together for the march along the Strand and will end up playing somewhere that evening.
I have a personal fondness for Grant Thomas. He plays the six-string bass in the main band and plays bass and lead in the rock band. He also plays trombone for the marching band—although the other band members tell me that he cannot play at all but they need the numbers so they give him a dummy trombone and let him pretend. His taste in music is wide and varied and he is just so happy to be there, playing music, but he is above all else a professional soldier. When the rock and roll band starts up Angie Currington moves from the back and brings a big and sassy jazz/blues voice to the front of house and really gets the party started.
The thing I like most about the bands we have in the military of Australia is that they do not have to do the public shows. They can quite legitimately concentrate on their role as a military band and as soldiers. That they see the greater good in the role they play in extending the hand of friendship from the ADF to the community speaks volumes of the individuals in the band and the leadership role they play. It is this pastoral and parish care of their staff which leads the way in setting the example and opening doors the right way.
There are many things in Townsville which need action. We have many problems and many things which require fixing. But we are an aspirational people. We care about our community. We care about the relationship between the ADF and our city and region. When everything is tough, and you turn up to a function and see the boys and girls of the 1RAR band setting up and laughing about the night ahead, you cannot help but feel good. This motion, from the father of the House, is a wonderful opportunity to thank the members of Australia's military bands for all the unpaid work they do for all our communities. I am glad we have them here and may they continue forever because, if they do stop, a part of history will be gone and it will be gone forever. These guys are soldiers first, but they are professional musicians second. I talked to Brigadier Shayne Caughey about the 1RAR band. I asked him, 'What you are here for?' and he said, 'I am with the band. That is all I am; I am with the band.' It is about being special and it is about being proper and great for Townsville. Long may they live.
First I would like to acknowledge the sentiments that have been expressed by my colleagues about the service members who perform in bands, regimental or reserve, and the service that they render to our nation as soldiers as well. I understand the sentiment that the member for Berowra is exhibiting on this issue. I commend his concern for the traditions of the Army. I certainly understand that. I understand very much the sentimentality that attaches to this but also the essence of the traditions and why those traditions are there and what constitutes the esprit de corps that makes the Australian Army what it is and the tradition that it has.
Of course, many things have happened over the years that I would not like to see disappear from the Australian Army. I was very sad to see that we did not have batmen any more when I joined up, and I missed my morning cups of tea and clean shoes, but they disappeared with the traditions of a bygone age. Certainly chiefs of army over the years have made all sorts of decisions about the conditions of service and the traditions that we have served under. Some of those have included the previous chiefs of army and the land commanders deciding that members would no longer wear berets in many circumstances. There was a great deal of emotional response to that issue as well.
But, at the end of the day, these are all decisions that the Chief of Army makes in relation to the authority that is delegated to him under the Defence Act. When we start trying to interfere with those decisions of the Chief of Army, where do we draw the line? This particular decision was not made as a result of any pressure put on the Chief of Army through the recent budget cuts because I remember these issues were being discussed with the Chief of Army prior to the last election. These were all part of his concept of rebalancing the Army. It really did not even relate to the strategic reform program as such. The issue that was being discussed then by the Chief of Army was his concern about reprioritising the efforts and maintaining his ability to sustain the actual band capability within the Army itself. I think the mistake that the member for Berowra makes in the motion is to conflate the regimental bands with the reserve bands, because they are different things. The regimental bands are made up of voluntary participants, permanent and reserve, who are not part of the band corps itself. There are certain formal band corps structures that are maintained within the Australian Army band corps itself. They are, in effect, professional musicians.
The Army supports reserve bands and also permanent band capability within that construct. So there are six regional reserve bands and there are over 20 Army reserve personnel who are working for Army support bands as well. They are part of that band corps structure. The Chief of Army has not decided that he intends to do away with the regimental bands. They may, in fact, continue. Hopefully they will continue. The only decision that the Chief of Army has made in this respect is that he will no longer replace the musical instruments, uniforms and other equipment held by the voluntary regimental bands so that he can prioritise his support to the actual Army band corps personnel.
Those regimental bands will hopefully be well supported by philanthropic groups and by those who raise funds through the normal regimental trust fund processes to make sure that those bands can sustain their instruments and their uniforms and the traditions associated with their regiments. Those who are involved with those regimental bands who wish to transfer to the reserve band structure or the band corps can do so and that will be facilitated. That structure consists presently of a 43-piece Australian regular Army band based in Canberra. Army support bands with 22 personnel each are located in various regions such as Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney and Wagga Wagga. The Army reserve bands of 40 Army reserve personnel and three regular personnel are located in Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Newcastle, Perth and Darwin. Perth and Newcastle also contain an Army reserve pipes and drum component.
So the fine traditions of the Australian Army in relation to the band tradition will be maintained, supported and funded by the Chief of Army. I expect that the regimental bands will continue to draw support to sustain their traditions and their musical capability into the future. I certainly look forward to watching them in action at ceremonies around Australia.
It is a pleasure to rise to support the member for Berowra's fine motion on Army reserve bands tonight. It is interesting to follow the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to start by saying I was a member of the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers and, for the Parliamentary Secretary, to suggest there is any difference between regular service and reserve service is a falsehood. It is in fact a hallmark of a free society to have the citizen soldier at its disposal. The 21 battle honours of the 1st/15th, the most decorated regiment of the Australian Army, are a fine testament to that regiment and all of its serving men and women over the years.
This particular motion relates to the bands, and the band form part of the rich Australian cultural heritage that has developed through the Australian military. This band formed in 1891, and even in 1891, before Federation, £250 was received from the New South Wales government and, after Federation, £150 from the Commonwealth government. If it was good enough in 1891 to fund this band, what is wrong with funding it today?
The service of the band has been recorded in the regimental history over more than 100 years. This is a regiment that has lasted the test of time. It has seen service in 21 different conflicts in defence of this nation. The rich tapestry that has been formed by the band goes to show the strength of our local community in Parramatta, and it was extraordinary to see the member for Parramatta come into this place and speak against the local Parramatta regiment, the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, based at their historic headquarters at Parramatta. It was extraordinary for the member for Parramatta to come in here and say, 'That is an Army decision.' This is a direct decision of government that this motion relates to tonight—to fund the Australian Army and its reserve forces to be able to conduct its duties in Australia today—and it is the responsibility of this parliament to call to attention those deficiencies that come about when funding is not available for the reserve forces. We could fund it in 1891 with pounds from the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments, but we cannot afford to fund it today when we have $10 billion for a Clean Energy Finance Corporation? We cannot find instruments for people to play in their regimental bands on our Anzac Days and at our memorial services in our communities, to help recruit young men and women to these reserve regiments to serve as citizen soldiers, to follow in that fine tradition of the Roman citizen soldier Cincinnatus—'I am not a soldier; I am a farmer'—and of the minutemen, and of privateers in Elizabethan England? Free societies have been dominated by citizen soldiers, and the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers is a fine example of a citizen soldier regiment, giving us great service.
These people in the band do not do this for the money; I want to make that clear. They are not in this for the money. They do more service and voluntary activity than the government can ever possibly fund. We have heard from the member for Herbert about the dedication and the voluntary and selfless service that these young men and women provide. Yet this government says that there is no funding available for these great reserve regiments and for their bands. And that affects many bands. I have the minute here from Australian Army headquarters. These are the regiments affected: in 1st Brigade, 5RAR and 7RAR; in 7th Brigade, 2nd/14th LHR; and in 2nd Division, 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, the 4th/19th, the 23rd Field Regiment, the 2nd/10th Field Regiment, 8/7 RVR, 5/6 RVR, 9 RQR, 10/27 RSAR, 2/17 RNSWR, 25/49 RQR, the Queensland University Regiment, the Sydney University Regiment, the University of New South Wales Regiment and the Western Australian University Regiment—all of those reserve regimental bands. For the parliamentary secretary to stand here today in this place and say, 'Somehow they will find the funding,' and that they should be a charity case is really demonstrating a lack of understanding of the importance of these reserve regimental bands and how they operate.
These people are already volunteering a lot of their time and a lot of their effort, putting their hearts and souls into these units that provide the social fabric at the heart of so many local communities around Australia. That is what a reserve regiment does. That is what a citizen soldier regiment does: it provides the corps at the heart of those communities—another social setup that provides unity and cohesion in society without the need for government to be involved.
If it was good enough to fund the RNSWR Lancers in 1891 with £250 from the state government and £150 from the Commonwealth government, it is good enough for us today to continue that fine tradition of 110 years of dedicated and selfless service that this regimental band and all of these regimental bands that I have mentioned, in all their societies all around Australia, provide, serving our nation, doing us proud and providing invaluable service to our communities. And it is a great motion before this House today to support them in what they do.
I note the contribution of the member for Mitchell; it was very passionate. In that spirit, in terms of declaring any particular interest, before I move to the motion raised by the member for Berowra, I will declare my particular interest, as a flight lieutenant in the RAAF Reserve, No. 23 (City of Brisbane) Squadron. Just before you get interested, I will just declare that I do not receive any money or any remuneration—no profit under the Crown. I do my work as a volunteer and do not get remunerated. I am not in a band. I have been in a band, but that did not receive any federal support. In fact, some could argue that it received almost no support at all! But that is another story for another day—on the curse of YouTube.
I turn to the more serious matter of the motion raised by the member for Berowra, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, who I always listen to and have a lot of respect for. I am on committees with him. However, I do think that this motion is a little unnecessary and a little bit misguided and, I would suggest, even perhaps an interference with the Chief of Army's duties to administer the Army in an efficient and effective manner.
I am from Brisbane, not from Sydney; I know that the member for Mitchell and the member for Berowra would have a better understanding of some of the decisions of the Chief of Army in terms of how they apply. Under the Howard government, in those times, the changing of the guard and the band accompanying it at the Sydney barracks was a decision that was made for lots of reasons; it is not for me to inquire into. It was a decision made by the Chief of Army and I support that decision.
As I said in my declaration of interest, it is as a legal officer in the RAAF Reserve, not the Army or the Navy. But my understanding is that this motion does incorrectly refer to regimental bands as 'reserve bands'. I am sorry I did not hear the earlier conversations or whether that was corrected; I was otherwise engaged. But this motion refers specifically to the New South Wales Lancers' band and similar bands. My understanding is that such bands are in fact regimental bands. Yet the motion calls on the government to continue to support the Army Reserve bands, and my understanding is that this is factually incorrect.
Obviously, the Gillard Labor government already supports reserve bands and will continue to do so. I am advised that we support six regional reserve bands and over 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps, or the AABC. The government supports six regional reserve bands, and over 20 Army Reserve personnel who work in four Army support bands. These personnel and bands are part of the Australian Army Band Corps. Following a review into Army bands in May 2011, a decision was made by the Chief of Army to transfer the resourcing of regimental bands from the Commonwealth to the associated regimental associations. Regimental bands are staffed by volunteers from both permanent and part-time Army personnel from the parent regiment. The members of these bands are already employed by the Army in other roles. For example, they may be employed by the Army as a cook, but volunteer to play in the regimental band in their spare time, and perhaps even for no remuneration. Regimental bands are established to provide musical services primarily for a specific unit or regiment.
The decision is an administrative matter which is delegated to the Chief of Army and, as I am sure those opposite would know, respecting that chain of command is pursuant to the Commonwealth Defence Act 1903. This motion, as I read it, proposes to interfere with the decision of the Chief of Army. The Chief of Army made a decision to no longer replace the musical instruments, uniforms and other equipment held by the voluntary regimental bands—
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the introduction of the Australian Standard for Olive and Olive Pomace Oils in 2011 which clearly defines the grade, content and quality of olive oil products and establishes labelling and packaging requirements;
(2) notes the findings of an analysis conducted recently by the Australian Olive Association which revealed that a significant number of imported olive oils in particular, still fail to comply with this national standard;
(3) recognises that misleading labelling practices present considerable challenges for the commercial viability of our domestic olive oil industry, lead to low levels of consumer confidence in olive oil products and prevent consumers from making informed choices about the products they consume, and which may have adverse consequences, including on their health;
(4) welcomes the news that some retailers intend to phase in the voluntary national standard in light of the recent findings, and calls on these retailers to do so in a timely and rigorous manner; and
(5) urges all retailers in Australia to adopt and enforce the Australian Standard for Olive and Olive Pomace Oils so that consumers can make informed purchasing choices, and so that producers of accurately labelled olive oils benefit from a level playing field.
I am very pleased to move this motion to highlight some of the ongoing challenges faced by our domestic olive oil industry and some challenges faced by the Australian consumers of olive oil products.
I have previously spoken in the House about some of these challenges facing our olive oil industry and, in particular, facing the olive growers and olive oil producers that make a wonderful product on the Fleurieu Peninsula, which includes a portion of my own electorate. In 2009 I raised the concerning lack of transparency in the labelling of olive oil products and the consequences for industry competition and consumer protection. I have advocated for the development of clear guidelines to differentiate between various qualities of olive oil and to ensure accuracy and clarity in the labelling of olive oil products.
Since that time, I am very pleased that Standards Australia has introduced an Australian standard for olive and olive-pomace oils which clearly defines the grade, content and quality of olive oil products and establishes labelling and packaging requirements. I understand that Standards Australia received almost 800 submissions throughout the drafting of the standard and that there was strong support from both consumers and stakeholders such as olive oil producers to introduce a standard to effectively address the issues facing the industry.
I welcome the standard, which was introduced in 2011 and defines a number of important areas: (1) clearly outlining different grades of olive oil, whether fresh or refined; (2) unambiguously defining what constitutes extra virgin olive oil, including the most current and effective testing methods for quality and authenticity; (3) providing a technical basis for the 'best before' claims; (4) providing labelling requirements to minimise consumer confusion; (5) cracking down on the misuse of words such as premium, super, pure, light/lite; (6) requiring substantiation of words describing country/region of origin; (7) requiring substantiation of processing methods such as cold pressed and first extraction; and (8) accommodating the natural variations that occur in different countries, olive varieties and regions, without compromising the ability to test and verify quality.
This motion notes the findings of an analysis conducted recently by the Australian Olive Association which revealed that a significant number of imported olive oils in particular still fail to comply with this national standard. Unfortunately, a number of studies have shown that olive oil products on the shelves of our supermarkets have been, and continue to be, deceiving consumers. A recently completed survey of Australian supermarket oils from 2008 to 2011, conducted by the Australian Olive Association as part of a research project funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, revealed that over 52 per cent of oil labelled as extra virgin was found to be of a lower grade than extra virgin, as a consequence of either adulteration with refined oils, poor quality of the initial product and/or being too old or poorly stored. As a part of the survey, the Australian Olive Association analysed 30 olive oils against the new standard and revealed that, of the 22 purportedly 'extra virgin' olive oils, seven out of seven imported varieties failed to comply with the standard due to factors such as rancidity, mildew and incorrect labelling. These findings are particularly concerning.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, as well as the consumer group CHOICE, having also investigated different brands of olive oils, have found that many do not live up to what they purport to be. This motion recognises that misleading labelling practices present considerable challenges for the commercial viability of our domestic olive oil industry, given that those Australian growers and producers who are doing the right thing, who are meeting the standard and who are labelling correctly have to unfairly compete with those olive oils that are not complying with the standard.
The motion before us also recognises that misleading practices lead to a lower level of consumer confidence in olive oil products and prevent consumers from making informed choices about the products they consume, which can have adverse consequences for consumers, including for their health. The Australian Olive Association has noted that practices such as cutting higher quality oils such as extra virgin olive oil with lower quality and less expensive oils such as sunflower and canola oil are rife, particularly in imported products, and that this puts significant pressure on those Australian growers and producers who are doing the right thing but are having to compete on the supermarket shelves against imported products which are not complying.
Indeed, domestic olive growers and olive oil producers are forced to struggle in an environment where the retail price of olive oils has been slashed which is, in part, attributable to the importation of some products which are significantly cheaper because they do not contain the right standard of oil, but rather contain other oils such as cooking oils. Indeed, in one instance—and I think this is very concerning—it was exposed that one of these products contained refined lamp oil. For consumers it is particularly concerning that, when they are buying a product that seems cheap and is labelled extra virgin olive oil or a specific olive oil, it is shown to have been mixed with lamp oil.
In addition, the Australian Olive Association has raised concerns about the continuing use of deceptive terms, such as 'light', which have connotations of being healthier when in reality they are actually only light on beneficial things like antioxidants and can contain trans fatty acids that are not present in natural extra virgin olive oils. There has been significant evidence to attest to the fact that natural extra virgin olive oils do have health benefits, such as in relation to heart health, that are not present in refined olive oils. Indeed, the Australian Olive Association has said that almost all natural antioxidants and vitamins are lost during the refining process to create lower grade olive oils commonly labelled as 'light' or 'pure'. I would say that this is something the average consumer is not aware of. Most of us see terms like 'light' on an olive oil product in the supermarket and think we are making a positive choice for our health, but we have now heard this is not necessarily the case. I have spoken in this chamber many, many times about the importance of correct and accurate labelling so that consumers can make the choice. It would seem from the findings of surveys such as the one recently conducted by the Australian Olive Association that it continues to be extremely difficult for many Australian consumers to make informed choices about the products they purchase.
This motion welcomes the news that some retailers intend to phase in the voluntary national standard in light of the recent findings and calls on these retailers to do so in a timely and rigorous manner. I must commend these retailers. It is really important that retailers have this standard for olive oil, but only some retailers are doing so. I take this opportunity to urge all retailers in Australia to adopt and enforce the Australian Standard for Olive and Olive-Pomace Oils so that consumers, no matter which retailer they walk into, know there is an olive oil standard and can make informed purchasing choices in the knowledge that what they pick up meets that standard.
We should note that olive oil is becoming increasingly popular. Australian consumption of olive oil has risen from about 30,000 tonnes to more than 40,000 tonnes in the past decade, and Australian growers supply about a quarter of that. Olive oil is a commonly used product by Australian consumers and it also constitutes an important part of primary production in our country. It is not good enough that we continue to have a situation whereby dishonest or improper labelling of olive oil products is occurring on our supermarket shelves. As I said, I encourage all retailers to adopt this standard. It is important that this standard be enforced, and that is where we must turn our attention. Once retailers have seen the importance of adopting this—and I am sure they will, as a number have already done so—we must enforce this standard effectively so that olive oil producers can have a level playing field for selling their products and Australian consumers are protected from confusing labelling practices and from misleading information, and honest growers and producers are not disadvantaged. I commend this motion to the House.
I too rise to speak on the motion introduced by the member for Kingston. I commend her on her valiant effort in failing health as she battled through her speech, perhaps in need of a little olive oil herself. While I completely agree with the sentiment of the motion and the comments the member made, I think we need to go further with this. We need some regulation with some real bite because, while it is nice to have aspirational motions, we have a role to put in place legislation that will benefit not only the industry but also consumers.
This issue is basically divided into two halves: one as it affects the olive oil producers and the other as it affects the consumers. The olive oil industry is quite large in my electorate of Parkes, where, I believe, in all the river valleys across this third of New South Wales there are olive groves. It is an emerging industry that over the last 25 or 30 years has gone from a standing start to being quite significant. There has been a lot of concern about this issue. During Senate estimates my colleagues Senators Williams and Boswell tried to drill down into information from Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the ACCC to find out what control and regulation government has over the industry. We have been pursuing this on behalf of the industry for some time.
Olive oil is blended, mixed and refined. It is labelled in many different ways, but only extra virgin olive oil has not been physically or chemically changed. Countries like Germany, Italy, Canada and South Africa are all looking into this issue, but in theory olive oil products are being marketed as comparable to high-quality extra virgin olive oil. The voluntary standards are based on industry best practice.
As I said, there are famers in my electorate who have put a lot of finance and effort into developing this industry. I was speaking to some of the farmers in the Gwydir Valley last week. They have considerable holdings of land under olives. We have an industry in my electorate that goes from farmers with thousand-acre groves down to smaller producers that might have five or 10 acres. At the moment, they are really struggling with the prices they are receiving.
Over the last couple of decades we have seen more than $1 billion invested in Australia in groves and milling plants. Australians consume some 45 million litres of olive oil a year, and this is increasing. I understand that Australia is the second highest per capita consumer of olive oil and olive oil products after countries around the Mediterranean. And it should be recognised that the best olive oil products are based on high-quality produce. Unfortunately, cheap, inferior imports have undermined the price of high-quality olive oil. Farm-gate prices have been slashed by 50 per cent over the last four years despite substantial growth in the industry over the last 10 years. Australian growers have captured about 30 per cent of the market with a high-quality product competing unfairly in the same space with inferior, imported olive oils.
There has been no compulsion for olive oil to be identified appropriately. Olive oil is often labelled 'light', 'extra light' and 'pure' in an attempt to market an inferior product as comparable with extra virgin olive oil. What is necessary are certain guidelines that are easy to follow and easily identified by the public and the consumers. If these guidelines were regulated then it would be possible for inferior products to be pursued by the ACCC for misrepresentation. We do not need to have protection. I am not talking about trade barriers here. I am just talking about setting up regulations so that the Australian industry can compete on a level playing field with the competitors from overseas. This would also show inferior imports for exactly what they are.
There are also health benefits to the Australian public having these standards in a more definite way. As it is now, consumers may purchase oils that might be refined and then labelled 'light', which can be mistaken as low fat. Clear labelling would enable consumers to understand exactly what they were buying. I also believe it is very difficult because, if a product has a percentage of extra virgin olive oil added back into it, it is marketed as extra virgin. In fact, extra virgin olive oil is olive juice. It is just squeezed juice from the olive with no other refining taking place, but all sorts of blending goes on with a small percentage of extra virgin added to a refined product and then labelled as something else. A study in 2008 showed that 84 per cent of imported extra virgin olive oil was not actually extra virgin. Eighteen per cent of all olive oil imported was shown to actually be lamp oil, and this is not considered fit for human consumption.
The industry has been working steadily to create voluntary standards, which is good. However, while ever these standards are voluntary, we will still have inferior products and incorrect labelling without any consideration for the ramifications of misleading consumers. One of the things I would like to see is defined labels that are enforceable so that, if something is misrepresented under that particular label and brand, it can be pursued by the ACCC for misrepresenting a product. Unfortunately, a lot of consumers are not educated or aware of the complexity of the blends that they might be seeing in the supermarket. I believe that now is the time and place to have a clear labelling regime that identifies what product is what so that, if people choose to pay less for an inferior product, they know that they are buying something that is of lesser nutritional value, is a blend or is a poorer-quality substitute for a higher-quality product. At the moment, it is very difficult for consumers to make that decision. Regulations are necessary to ensure an appropriate standard of olive oil labelling. This will benefit consumers, who will be able to purchase a high-quality product, and producers, who will be assisted because inferior imported products will not be in direct comparison with higher-quality Australian oil.
While this motion certainly is correct in its sentiment—I agree with it completely—I think the time has passed for feel-good motions in this place. The time has come that we stick up for the olive oil producers and this parliament looks after the interests of consumers and puts in some regulations that are enforceable and that will see a clear definition of product so that the industry and consumers can get onto an equitable playing field. (Time expired)
Does the member for Parkes second the motion of the member for Kingston?
I do.
As someone who loves to cook and who was brought up by a mother who constantly told us that olive oil and garlic were the keys to good health, good skin, sparkly eyes and shiny hair, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion tonight. I have even missed out finding out who the finalist on The Voice is to speak on this motion tonight, so that shows my commitment to standards of olive oil!
This motion raises the importance of supporting our Australian industries, because when it comes to olive oil, there have been some disturbing reports that suggest that 'oils ain't oils' and that some imported olive oils that are marketed as 'light' or 'extra virgin' are not those at all. In the case of olive oil, some of the cheap foreign imports that you will find on your supermarket shelves not only are of inferior quality but have been found to be wrongly labelled. Many foreign olive oils marketed as Spanish or Italian are actually from places such as Morocco, so that is why I commend the member for Kingston for raising this important motion tonight.
It is an issue that was raised by my sister late last year. She is a master of wine and a winemaker, and she is very good friends with Stefano de Pieri, who owns that fabulous restaurant in Mildura. I know that it has been an issue of concern for him for many years and it has been an issue of concern for my sister in recent years, so it is a real pleasure to be able to speak on it tonight, and I again commend the member for Kingston for raising it.
Australians are big consumers of olive oil, but too often what we think we are buying is not what we are actually getting. According to the CEO of Standards Australia, consumers are often misled into believing they are buying healthy products such as extra virgin olive oil, which is natural, fresh and unrefined, when they are not. In fact, a recent Australian Olive Association analysis found seven out of seven imported varieties failed to comply with extra virgin olive oil standards due to rancidity, mildew or incorrect labelling. By comparison, 75 per cent of Australian-made oils complied with the standard.
It is unfortunate that Australia's quality olive oil products have had to compete with inferior overseas imports that simply are not labelled properly or are made up of other oils entirely, such as canola oil. We must do all we can to assist the commercial viability of our domestic olive oil industry, as this motion suggests. Misleading labelling poses significant challenges for our domestic producers as well as consumers. It prevents us from making informed choices about the products we consume. For something many of us use so frequently, that we trust as a healthy product, this is simply not good enough.
That is why, like the member for Kingston, I welcome the introduction of the Australian Standard for Olive Oils and Olive-Pomace Oils in 2011, which clearly defines the grade, content and quality of olive oil products and establishes labelling and packaging requirements. This new standard is helping to ensure customers can be confident that when they buy top-quality olive oil, that is what they will get. It will allow consumers to shop with confidence and know that, when they buy olive oil according to Australian standards, they are getting a top-quality product.
The standard, introduced last year, applies to all olive and olive-pomace oils that are traded in Australia. It defines grades of olive oils, specifies chemical composition and quality parameters for these grades, establishes requirements for labelling and packing and lists acceptable methods of analysis. The purpose of the standard is to provide all those involved in the olive oil and olive-pomace oil trade, from producers to consumers, with a modern reference document that establishes an objective basis for the trade of these products. But the standard cannot work properly unless retailers get on board too. That is why it is welcome news that some retailers intend to phase in the voluntary national standard for olive oil.
I call on those retailers to do so in a timely and rigorous manner. I also urge all retailers to adopt and enforce the standard so that consumers can make informed purchasing choices. This will also ensure our producers of accurately-labelled olive oils, who are doing the right thing, benefit from a level playing field. Buying Australian-produced olive oil is not only delicious, but it is good news for our local producers, it uses less packaging and it helps to reduce our carbon footprint as well. Buying local is much better for our environment and ensures you will get a product that is fresh, Australian made and of proven high quality—and you cannot argue with that.
I rise this evening to support the motion on the Australian Standard for Olive and Olive-Pomace Oils in 2011. Extra virgin olive oil is the only mainstream edible oil which has not been chemically or physically refined and changed; it is just the natural juice of the olive. Due to the natural process and great taste and health benefits it offers, extra virgin olive oil is highly sought by consumers. The Australian olive oil industry has grown substantially over the past decade, with more than $1 billion invested in regional Australia in groves and milling plants which have created thousands of jobs. Certainly olive groves and their produce are generating income for the Riverina.
Australians consume 45 million litres of olive oil a year, with consumption rising rapidly over the past 20 years to make Australia the highest consumers per capita outside the Mediterranean area. Australian growers have captured about 30 per cent of this market due to the outstanding quality of their extra virgin olive oil. However, most Australian olive growers are struggling to survive, despite producing world-class extra virgin olive oil, because they have watched the farm gate price more than halve over the past four years.
The Australian Olive Association's Paul Miller says producers cannot compete with cheap imports and are being forced to sell below the cost of production. Furthermore, these cheap imports are masquerading as the real thing and consumers are none the wiser. This is because imported oils have misleading labels which read 'pure', 'light' or 'extra light', although these names are illegal in most producing countries, including those in Europe. These deceptively-labelled products make up 45 per cent of the Australian retail market and sell for a similar price to extra virgin, in turn fooling Australian consumers, who believe they are purchasing extra virgin olive oil when the reality is that they are purchasing second-rate refined oil.
The reasons behind the widespread practice of misleading labelling of olive oils is twofold. Firstly, it is for financial gain. It can be very profitable to purchase only lower grade cheaper products, such as refined olive oil, and sell them as something else, in this case extra virgin olive oil. Secondly, there is an abundance of low-grade refined olive oil and a shortage of extra virgin. Europe produces 80 per cent of the world's olive oil but half of that production is not for human consumption and must be refined. It is then transported to countries such as Australia and labelled as 'extra light' or 'pure', or is even in some cases called 'extra virgin'.
In 2005 the Australian Olive Association published its own code of practice, which aims to guarantee the authenticity and quality of certified products and distinguish them from imported products. To be certified by the Australian Olive Association, products must be Australian and have undergone organoleptic testing for taste and for chemicals. Only after passing these tests can an Australian extra virgin olive oil become certified by the Australian Olive Association. Brands that are certified all carry a sticker, which helps make it easier for consumers to know they are purchasing authentic Australian extra virgin olive oil. In addition to ensuring the quality and authenticity of Australian extra virgin olive the code of practice—
Debate interrupted.
A crucially needed piece of infrastructure in my electorate is the link between the F3 and M2. This is needed for a range of reasons: to reduce the appalling congestion on Pennant Hills Road, to reduce traffic on the Pacific Highway, and to establish the missing link between these two vital pieces of transport infrastructure, including for long-distance trucks travelling between Brisbane and Melbourne or otherwise taking long-distance journeys that do not necessarily originate or terminate in the Sydney metropolitan area.
Two exhaustive studies have recommended that the appropriate solution for the Pennant Hills Road congestion and the appropriate solution to establish a link between the F3 and the M2 is to build a tunnel under Pennant Hills Road. What then have we seen from the federal Labor government towards the achievement of this important objective? In last year's budget announcement, buried deep in the budget papers for 2011, there was a withdrawal of $150 million, which had previously been set aside in the forward estimates for planning work on the F3-M2 link. This year in the May 2012 budget, the position is at best extremely opaque. In an opinion piece during the week of the budget the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport had this to say:
In Tuesday's budget the Treasurer announced increased funding for infrastructure and measures to encourage private sector financing of Sydney's Moorebank Intermodal, the F3 to M2 link, and the M5 East.
This is a magnificently Delphic statement and it is extremely unclear what the minister actually meant by that. On my examination of the budget papers—and I readily concede I have only been here a relatively short time—no mention of the F3 to M2 link can be found. We made inquiries of the minister's office and asked for clarification. The minister's office pointed to a glossy booklet entitled Sydney Transport Infrastructure: Project Highlights. That glossy booklet contains the following statement:
Given the significant capital cost of both projects, the Australian Government tasked Infrastructure Australia to work with the NSW Government to explore private financing options for expansion of the M5 East and the F3 to M2.
Again, this is a magnificently Delphic statement. It is very hard to understand what it actually means and what level of finance has been allocated to the task. The picture gets even more murky when you look at the transcript of what the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport had to say in a recent interview with Adam Spencer on ABC Radio, where he made a vague claim that $150 million was still available for the F3 to M2 link. That claim was repeated in the recent consideration in detail in the Federation Chamber of the infrastructure and transport portfolio where the minister had this to say:
In addition to that, $150 million that we have committed is available also to assist in terms of being allocated in the budget for the F3 to M2.
It is difficult to understand what the position is. It is clear from last year's budget that $150 million, which had previously been contained in the forward estimates for feasibility work on the F3 to M2 link, was removed. On an examination of this year's budget it is difficult to find any specific statement that refers to the F3 to M2 link and any specific statement that the $150 million has been reinstated. Yet we have statements made by the minister, both in an interview with Adam Spencer on ABC Radio and in the consideration in detail in the Federation Chamber, that the $150 million is still available. This is a matter of great importance to my constituents in the Bradfield electorate and everybody who would like to see a better connection between the F3 and the M2. I call upon the minister to clarify this position and indicate what federal funding is available for the F3 to M2 link.
For many years, Coles and Woolworths have dominated Australia's retail grocery sales with estimates placing their combined grocery market share at over 70 per cent. To date, most of the criticism, and indeed concern, about the duopoly has been the squeeze they have been able to apply to local food producers and the very low prices Coles and Woolworths pay for their produce. An additional concern has been the ability of the two retailers to completely exclude a product from their shelves or poorly display a product and effectively force a food producer out of the market. I accept, however, that there is some fierce competition between the two retailers and that the competition has kept retail grocery prices down. The drastic fall in milk prices is an example of that, and today a litre of unbranded milk costs about half of what branded milk sold for a year or so ago.
However, there is another growing concern emerging about the duopoly. Sales of Coles' and Woolworths' own brand products are steadily increasing. These are unbranded grocery products, with vague information about their origin, being sold at prices 20 to 30 per cent lower than the known brands. According to a report on 28 May 2012 by Melissa Fyfe and Royce Millar in the Age:
In 2007, home brands made up 14% of grocery items sold in Australia, now they are 25%. Home brands make up 50% of UK groceries, 35% of US groceries. Nielsen predicts home brands will jump to 40 per cent of Australian grocery items within five years.
With more and more of these products produced offshore in lower cost countries, food producers in Australia, both growers and manufacturers, are being squeezed out of the market. That of course means job losses, but there are other consequences. Foods produced overseas is in many cases produced using chemicals that have either been banned in Australia or under conditions where safe levels of those chemicals have been exceeded. Even where bans do apply, monitoring and enforcement of the bans is less likely to occur in developing countries.
The consequence of more home-brand products being sold by Coles and Woolworths is that Australians will consume more foods produced offshore and, in turn, will very likely be exposed to more food-related health risks than presently is the case. Even with Australia's very robust biosecurity screening, the reality is that relatively few imported goods are tested. Furthermore, chemical levels only become an issue if the levels exceed a set threshold. Thresholds are at best guidelines and can never provide absolute certainty. The health effects of high levels of chemicals, even within prescribed safe levels, may not become apparent until years later. A subsequent report in the Age stated:
An analysis by The Age of ''failed food'' results since 2010 shows 1050 imported foods, or an average of one consignment a day, have not met Australian standards. Almost 400 foods were stopped at entry because of micro-organisms such as E. coli, 246 failed because they contained banned additives or substances, 228 contained contaminants and 138 failed chemical analysis.
Let me make it absolutely clear that not all Australian produced foods always comply with local health standards. However, by international standards, Australia has a relatively good food compliance regime.
There is of course an additional concern about all of this. The offshore countries where the food is produced are very likely to be developing countries with cheap labour and less regulation. That is why they can produce cheaper food. Workers in developing countries are also less likely to be aware of the chemical risks they are exposed to in producing those foods. Food production and processing provide job opportunities and economic growth. Supporting local industry opportunities in developing countries is one of the best forms of assistance that we can provide to them. However, Australia should not be a party to exploiting or profiting from placing at risk people in other countries.
For a combination of reasons, offshore food production is of interest to many consumers, and they want to be able to make an informed choice about the food they purchase—a choice about what food they consume, how it is grown, where it is grown and how it is processed. They can only do that if a clear, unambiguous food labelling system is in place and if they have confidence in our biosecurity checks. As food imports grow, so too will public interest in this issue. I know that this is a much more complicated issue than many people believe it to be, but I also know that we can do much better to inform Australian consumers about the food that they consume. It is in the health interests of the nation for us to do so.
The Forde community have been very busy over the past couple of months, doing what they can to help support each other, and it is with great pride that I have the opportunity to share some of those local stories from my electorate with my parliamentary colleagues tonight.
In the past eight years, Lighthouse Calvary Care has grown from one small store in Eagleby to three stores and a warehouse in Loganholme. As well as helping struggling families with $20 food trolleys, the Logan-based charity now has a shopfront selling low-cost groceries to help families make ends meet. Last week I had the opportunity to attend and sponsor a fundraiser held by the Bendigo Bank's Logan Community Bank to help raise funds for Lighthouse Calvary Care. It is great to live in a community that looks out for one another, with these wonderful organisations. My thanks also go to the many local businesses that constantly these community organisations.
Beenleigh Cane Festival was held again this year. The 49th festival was another wonderful example of the community spirit in and around Beenleigh. The weather was perfect for this year's annual Cane Festival Parade, with thousands of people turning out for the day and some 70 floats taking part in the parade. I would like to congratulate the Rotary Club's Cane Festival Committee Chairman, John Fennell, along with the committee members, community organisations, volunteers and businesses for making this event such a great success this year, and we are looking forward to the celebration of the 50th Cane Festival next year. During its 49-year history there has been a cane quest, which over that time has raised some $500,000 for the local community. This year there were nine entrants: Melina Evans, Lauren Paterson, Kayla Eley, Mikaela Falcone, Jason Howitt, Emily Ponton, Sharni Willmann, Tess Haseler and Lyndon Captain. This year's overall winner and the 2012 Cane Quest Ambassador was Jason Howitt, who has set a first for being the first male to win this competition. I would like to also commend the efforts of Sharni Willmann for her fundraising efforts. She raised $17,884 and received the title of Cane Quest Charity Queen. In total the nine entrants raised over $65,126 for local charities. My thanks also go to the cane quest committee of Vicki Lorisch, Anje Piepier, Rhonda Dore, Katie Johnson and Alisha and June Collard.
Our businesses also continue to give to the community. Recently a sale was held at one of our local Harvey Norman stores, with proceeds going to the Logan Hospital. An event I enjoy each year is the Junior Quota of Beenleigh. They hold a Big Box Sleep-Out to raise funds for the local homeless community. I had the pleasure of going along and cooking dinner on the barbecue for them and taking part in some of the other activities. The aim of the event was to raise awareness of homelessness, and all funds are donated back to the community. I am very proud of their efforts each and every year, and they have another sleep-out coming up in October for Halloween.
Another group in our community that does tremendous work to raise funds for charity is the Shailerettes dance team from Shailer Park State School. Recently they performed in a dance competition to raise money for disadvantaged children so that those kids are able to participate in school events. In conclusion, I am privileged to represent the Forde electorate. It is fast becoming a great place to live and work because of the community spirit that is there in our community. It is a privilege to share some of those stories about the great things the community is doing in the electorate.
Boer War Day was on 31 May and marked the 110th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging, which ended the Second Boer War. So why should we remember a war that for most of the last century has been termed 'a forgotten war'? We should remember because it marked the beginning of Australia as an independent nation and it played a pivotal role in forming our national character.
At the start of the war in 1899, Australia was comprised of six self-governing crown colonies in the final stages of forming a federation. In June 1899 the people of all colonies except Western Australia had voted in favour of federation and in 1900 Western Australia joined them. By then Australians, including the first servicewomen to serve overseas, were already serving alongside Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders as part of an imperial force. The British commanders particularly valued the Australians for their horsemanship, bush skills and initiative. The Australians were becoming known for a special type of Australian mounted infantry, which would become the Light Horse of the First World War. And for the first time Australians and New Zealanders fought together, as they would in future conflicts.
Following Federation on 1 January 1901, the Australian Commonwealth Horse was formed, and the first version of Australia's rising sun badge appeared. And the Australian tradition of raising specific, volunteer forces to serve overseas was established. As would happen later in the 20th century, men were recruited from individual states but they fought as Australians. In all, some 23,000 Australians, including 60 women, served in the Boer War. In that war, 589 Australians lost their lives and 1,400 sustained serious wounds. Australia also lost its first servicewoman when Sister Frances Emma 'Fanny' Hines died of pneumonia. She died of pneumonia—but it was probably really exhaustion—in August 1900. It is sobering to think that almost half of all deaths were from disease or accident.
The Boer War was also the first of our wars to be commemorated by public memorials. These were later erected in small towns and country areas that are today sparsely populated. In many cases they list the names of all local citizens who served, with special recognition of those who died. Although there are local memorials all over Australia, to date no specific national memorial to the Boer War has been built. The reasons for this are many. But now, more than 100 years after the event, steps are being taken to correct this. Very soon Canberra may have its own memorial to the Boer War on Anzac Parade, which pays homage to the troops and the horses who fought so valiantly all those years ago. For the last several years, the members of the National Boer War Memorial Association have been working extremely hard to build a fitting memorial on ANZAC Parade. The site for the memorial was dedicated in 2008 and in March of this year the design was announced following its approval by the Canberra National Memorials Committee. The memorial will recognise that all Australian troops in the Boer War were mounted or dependent on horses to tow their ambulances, their artillery and their supply wagons. It will recall their endurance and sacrifice.
To commemorate Boer War Day this year, a special service was held at St John's Church in Reid here in Canberra to commemorate two local citizens who served in the war: Sergeant William Bradshaw Galliard Smith and William Frederick Young. I was also in attendance at the ACT Committee of the National Boer War Memorial Association's commemorative ceremony at the new site of the National Boer War Memorial on ANZAC Parade. The design for that site is quite extraordinary. It is like a 3D memorial that goes right back towards St John's in Reid. It is a beautiful memorial and I am very much looking forward to seeing it opened.
In a few weeks I will also be attending an ACT Reserves commemoration ceremony for the Boer War. This evening I ask that we all remember the brave men and women who served in Australia's first national war, the Boer War, 110 years ago.
I am raising the matter of skilled workers in the resources industry and the skills shortage because I am so concerned about the people who should be getting a job and who are not. This issue particularly affects Western Australia and the electorate of Canning, which has the second highest number of fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers out of any Western Australian metropolitan electorate.
The Labor Party and Prime Minister Gillard have yet again made a debacle of another policy—this time the enterprise migration agreements and the recent Roy Hill announcement. The coalition supports filling job shortages and knows this can be done through a temporary migration system with integrity, when necessary, and when Australian residents cannot be found to fulfil available jobs. This is sound economic practice. But following the Roy Hill announcement, the Labor Government has rushed the Jobs Board through, simply to appease the union bosses.
Last Friday, a search of the Jobs Board website in my office returned some interesting results. We used the region of the Pilbara in Western Australia as a job search area. We looked at the jobs areas of machinery operators and drivers; technicians and trade workers; and labourers. If you want a job as a casual mystery shopper in Port Hedland, you are fine. The rest of the results were disappointing for someone really wanting to get into the mining sector. What we really need to see are training programs being put in place to get Australians job ready—people such as older age workers and those who have not got skills but who are not getting the mentoring or training they need to get them into a specific role. They need support.
Last Friday I received a visit from one of my constituents, Kathy Webster. She knows two local people who are hard workers, who have families to support and who want to work in the mining industry but just cannot get a job. One is a forklift driver and the other can drive road trains. Both are willing to undertake on-the-job training and upskill. But where do they go to get this help? What is this Labor government doing to get people job ready in the mining sector?
There needs to be more programs like at Newmont Boddington goldmine in my electorate. This company has about 50 to 100 job vacancies at any one time. These vacancies are usually for positions requiring significant experience or technical skills such as engineers, surveyors, mechanics, welders and fitters et cetera. Occasionally, they are calling for equipment operators as well. They tend not to take on people with zero experience; however, they do have a program which is an initiative of the company where they take on people with no experience and provide training through a volunteer system. This is only a token gesture in the scheme of things, but perhaps there needs to be government funding to put in place to create more tailored programs to get those with some skills so that they are job ready and trained specifically for these mining jobs that are in short supply.
The programs could provide certification through industry-recognised training programs. Instead, the government has wound back the funding for trades training centres in the schools. It is a sign of the government admitting that the skill levels in some of these courses offered was not enough to fill certain shortages. This is in comparison to the Australian technical colleges introduced by the Howard government and formed to be centres of excellence and to train people to the highest possible standards. Labor canned these colleges, but fortunately the ATC in Armadale in my electorate has been privately funded and has been able to remain operational.
The Labor government has also facilitated a wages blow-out in the resources sector that is being exacerbated by the union-controlled Trades Recognition Australia, TRA. By TRA getting a say in who comes to this workforce and which jobs they will operate in if their qualifications are sufficient, they have control over the supply of workers. By making mining sector workers so in demand, they have pushed up the wages and also the prices.
The mining boom did not start yesterday. We have been aware of the impending skills shortage in Australia for many years. Identifying this need for workers was something that was done back in 2007 when I chaired the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. One of the key recommendations of this report was protecting employment and training opportunities for Australian workers. Perhaps the recruitment agencies could do more; perhaps the Labor government could support this motion.
One thing in my last few moments is the problem with human resource people at the front desk of these resource companies. They are often young girls with no job experience but they are the gatekeepers stopping people trying to get a job. They are box tickers and they do not have much life experience or know the real needs of workers. The sooner we get some understanding of our workers and their real needs in the workplaces, these skills— (Time expired)
A few years ago a Prime Minister of Australia said the following:
Implementing an emissions trading scheme and setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most momentous economic decisions Australia will take in the next decade.
… … …
This is a great economic challenge for Australia as well as a great environmental challenge. Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that and anyone who pretends otherwise is not a serious participant in this hugely important public policy debate. It will change the entire cost structure of the economy. We must get this right; if we get this wrong it will do enormous damage to our economy, to jobs and to the economic wellbeing of ordinary Australians, especially low-income households.
Of course Prime Minister John Howard was just reflecting conventional economic wisdom when he said this in 2007. The first emissions trading scheme's blueprints were produced in the 1990s.
On 1 July 2012, Australia will undergo a significant tax reform. Taxes on polluters will rise and taxes on all workers earning less than $80,000 a year will fall. In an article in Nature Climate Change, ANU's Dr Frank Jotzo discusses some of the key features of the carbon pricing regime that Australia will adopt on 1 July. Our carbon price will cover around 60 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It will be a fixed price for the first three years, moving to a floating emissions trading scheme in July 2015 'with a fixed number of permits sold at auction, international trading allowed and permits bankable'. There will be 'a floor price starting at $15 a tonne and a ceiling price starting at $20 a tonne above the expected international price'. The policy foresees future linking with the European Union 'ETS and other schemes, subject to mutually acceptable mitigation commitments and compatible design'.
Dr Jotzo points out:
Most lower-income households will be overcompensated for the increase in living costs, whereas households in higher-income brackets will bear most of the net costs.
He also points out that the package involves tax reform. He says this is rare in practice, and much more so at this scale. He says:
Most cap-and-trade schemes have handed back the bulk of the revenue to emitters, missing out on efficiency benefits from tax reform.
Australia is not missing out on those benefits.
The impact of the carbon price will be around 0.1 percentage points per year on Australia's average income growth and, according to Treasury modelling, that will still see average incomes grow strongly under carbon pricing, increasing by about 16 per cent from current levels by 2020. Delaying global action by three years adds another 20 per cent to the first year global mitigation cost.
Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition has been going around the country running a scare campaign. After Norsk Hydro's announcement that it would shut down its aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri, Mr Abbott said that this was the fault of the carbon price. After assistance, the impact of a carbon price will be about a dollar on a tonne of aluminium. Meanwhile, the world aluminium price is down $1,000.
The Leader of the Nationals told parliament in May that the cost of servicing a domestic refrigerator would go up by $300 a year. As the minister for climate change has pointed out, that would involve calling technicians to the house about every five days to replace the entire refrigerant gas. Senator Joyce has said that the carbon price will cause the price of a leg of lamb to go up to $100, to which I can only say: pull the other one, Barnaby. The Leader of the Opposition has said the tax is forever; the compensation is just for today. He misses the fact that there will be regular increases in payments and that pensions, allowances and family benefits are automatically increased for the impact of any future increases in the carbon price because they are indexed in line with the consumer price index.
The Leader of the Opposition has spent the last 16 months telling businesses they face electricity price rises of 25 to 30 per cent, but the Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, has said he cannot see any circumstances in which this would happen. Mr Abbott is saying, 'It's going to be a python squeeze rather than a cobra strike,' but, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has pointed out, the only thing pythonesque about this is the Leader of the Opposition's Monty Pythonesque hyperbole. He should in fact be more worried about the dead parrot that is their direct action plan. As the member for Wentworth pointed out on Q&A on 25 July 2010:
You won’t find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.
Tonight's adjournment debate provides me with an opportunity to highlight some of the Gillard Labor government's failures in the areas of immigration and settlement services for migrants and refugees. I will cover some of the more glaring shortcomings of the following areas: the Adult Migrant Education Program, AMEP, the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, NAATI, and the $12 million in funding for unaccompanied humanitarian minors.
One of the most important settlement services the Australian government can provide to new migrants is language services, skills that are vital for them in playing a meaningful role in Australian society. During estimates in February we discovered that, of the 5,500 clients who had been accessing AMEP, only 2,482 had achieved a certificate in spoken English. When asked during estimates whether this was deemed a satisfactory success rate, the government had to acknowledge that more than 50 per cent of people exiting AMEP leave without speaking a functional level of English. This is not a satisfactory result.
The total funding for AMEP in this budget increased from $204 million to $212.5 million—that is not small change in anybody's language. So we now have a program to teach new migrants English that costs more than $212 million a year and delivers a result where more than 50 per cent of the graduates finish the course without being able to speak functional English. If that were not bad enough, 14 per cent of participants were given a statement of attainment just for turning up.
This is a tragic outcome. One of the best things the Australian government can do for new migrants is to provide them with real English language skills. But, after spending more than $204 million in 2010-11, all the Gillard government has been able to deliver is a failure rate of more than 50 per cent—the English language course you have when you do not want to achieve functional English.
The Gillard government has failed new migrants coming to this country and has failed, most importantly, Australian taxpayers. NAATI was also questioned and the government was not able to give a satisfactory explanation as to the certainty of NAATI's ongoing financial viability. What is more, the government agreed—with the assertion of my parliamentary colleague Senator Cash—that essentially it was bad financial management that required a cash injection last year to stop it from going broke. That is a more than $600,000 cash injection.
I was somewhat surprised when the government had to take on notice a question as to who was accountable for the previous mismanagement of the agency and what measures had been taken to make sure it does not happen again. Then again, we should not really be surprised about this government's total mismanagement. After all, it is a Labor government. Fiscal restraint and responsibility are not in its DNA. Labor has never had a problem in spending other people's money. It is just paying back the debt that it has a real problem with.
What I find even more staggering is the cavalier attitude the government has in turning up to estimates not able to state either who was responsible for sending NAATI broke or what new accountability measures have been put in place to ensure that it does not happen again. Estimates have a habit of creeping up on us in the dark. We all know the parliamentary calendar is set and we know that those dates are communicated quite clearly to us all. There should be no issue of not having sufficient notice to enable the government to gather information and prepare responses.
Keeping this in mind, the government's inability to say either who was responsible for sending NAATI broke or what new accountability measures have been put in place to ensure it does not happen again is really without acceptable excuse. The only conclusion that be drawn from such a response is that the Gillard government is not serious about providing settlement services to new migrants or value for money to Australian taxpayers.
The settlement issues are about people's lives. It is time the Gillard government got serious about getting this problem right, rather than leaving an ever-worsening trail of human wreckage in the wake of its own incompetence.
I rise to speak about the Gillard Labor government's investment in tertiary education, particularly in the Moreton electorate and in South-East Queensland. On 6 June, which is Queensland Day, I was fortunate to have my colleague the minister Senator Chris Evans visit my electorate and officially open the $29 million Campus Heart Building as part of the $105 million investment in upgrading the Griffith University's Nathan Campus. This redevelopment program is the largest capital development program in the university's proud 40-year history, and I am glad to be able to say that it is the Gillard Labor government that is delivering on these fundamentals to improve the quality of tertiary education.
Ian O'Connor and his team, and this new building, have certainly given the campus a new heart. This is the first major stage of the redevelopment giving the university an extensive range of state-of-the-art facilities. I should say it is a new heart and that, prior to that, it was not heartless—it is more a transplant, reflecting the way things have now changed at universities.
This new, multilevel Campus Heart Building includes a major new retail building, a relocated bookshop, a modern cafe, five state-of-the-art seminar rooms and a large balcony for functions, which is where we held the opening. The extended library, the Willett Centre, includes a new student centre, 15 new classrooms, an upgraded library space and a central courtyard with a canopy. It reflects how university students learn now. When I was at university—back in the Dark Ages!—you went into the library, went through the catalogue cards and tried to track down the book. You went to the lectures, took notes and then went over your notes. Now, people can listen to lectures wherever they want—whether it be at the beach or out in the courtyard. The lectures have been recorded. They learn in a completely different way, as it should be in the digital age. That is why we are bringing in things like the NBN—to support the modern way of learning. The new facilities are a great asset for the Moreton region and beyond and will be valuable for teachers and students alike.
This $29 million investment at Griffith University's Nathan Campus is just a fraction of what the Australian government has committed to transform higher education, research and voc ed and training infrastructure, with more than $5 billion having been invested since 2007. It is great to be able to say that, despite a very tough budget, which is part of us delivering a surplus, higher education was able to avoid the cuts, because we understand that the innovation and productivity that flow from university research are a part of Australia's future.
The Gillard Labor government's investment in students' future does not stop here. We are also delivering extra support for students and young Australians who need it the most, to help them make ends meet. I particularly commend Vice Chancellor Ian O'Connor and Griffith University for their particular commitment to helping the disadvantaged, especially students with an ATSI background and rural and remote students. Griffith University is able to have a much higher percentage of these students accessing their services.
This Labor government knows that it can be tough for young people to keep up with the rising cost of living, especially if they are studying or just entering the workforce. So this side of the House voted for delivering extra cash for students and a new tax cut for young people by increasing the tax-free threshold to $18,200. From 11 June, 2,500 students and young people in training in my electorate started to receive extra cash to help them meet the rising cost of living. People on youth allowance, Austudy or Abstudy get an upfront payment of up to $190, and obviously they do not have to worry about forms; this is being delivered seamlessly into their bank accounts.
It does not stop there. In July 2013, students will receive another lump sum payment to give them a bit of extra breathing space. Further, the Gillard Labor government has committed to delivering, from January 2014, a permanent boost to the regular fortnightly student payment. Further still, from 1 July this year, everyone earning less than $80,000 a year will receive a tax cut. For most young people in the workforce, that means at least $300 extra a year in their pockets. For hundreds of thousands of people, especially students, part-time workers and mothers working to make ends meet and get ahead, this is a positive step in the right direction. For millions more, it means there will be more in their take-home pay.
The increase in the tax-free threshold to $18,200 is the largest ever increase in the tax-free threshold. It means students working part time will have more money in their fortnightly pay packet, more money to spend at the bookstore or computer shop and more money that will circulate in the Australian economy, which is obviously better for jobs.
These tax cuts are good Labor policy and I am proud to have voted for them. Unfortunately, some members opposite voted against this policy— (Time expired)
On 6 June the planet Venus passed directly between the sun and the earth. The transit of Venus is a rare phenomenon—it will not happen again for another 105 years—and it holds special significance for modern Australia. In 1769 Lieutenant James Cook travelled to Tahiti to record this celestial event, and it was during that same expedition that he would then go on to discover the east coast of Australia. The intrepid explorer sketched the transit and took detailed measurements. Having completed his mission, Cook then opened sealed instructions for the second leg of his voyage, which was to scour the Pacific and search for the great south land. He sailed west for New Zealand, circumnavigated and charted the islands, and then headed west again. In April 1770 they first sighted land. A few weeks later, on 29 April 1770, on a calm Sunday morning, Isaac Smith, Cook's nephew, stepped ashore on the Kurnell Peninsula. That landfall triggered a chain of events which led to the modern nation we know and love today.
Kurnell, in my electorate of Cook, is the modern birthplace of our nation. In my maiden speech I called on all tiers of government to work together to plan a memorable commemoration in 2020 of the 250th anniversary of Cook's landing. I believe this should be the single most notable event in our national history since our bicentenary. Cook was the greatest navigator of his age and, arguably, any age. He embodied the spirit of the Enlightenment period and displayed a profound empathy in respect of his crew as well as the people and lands he visited. This stood out starkly in what was otherwise an era of brutality. His courage and resilience are traits we admire. The spirit of enterprise and endeavour upon which that expedition was founded has become the overarching characteristic of our modern nation.
The state of the landing site at Kurnell today is a sad indictment of our national attitude towards Cook. It fails to realise what should be our national expectations for such a place and for such a man in our national history. It says much about our apathy and insecurity towards celebrating our national heritage and, in particular, our European settlement. There should be a new monument to recognise this anniversary. There should be upgrades to tourist infrastructure and access roads and a wharf at Silver Beach to enable people to visit this site by sea, through Botany Bay. There should be an interactive museum of discovery that tells all of our national stories. There must be a national program of commemoration, including a re-enactment of Cook's voyage. Importantly, there should be a plan to nurture this living memory, to oversee the improvements now and to ensure the site's long-term preservation, perhaps under the watchful eye of the Sydney Harbour Trust.
The landing at Kurnell was an inevitable convergence and clash of cultures; it was our own nation's date with destiny. The Gweagal people of the Dharawal nation of southern Sydney were the first Indigenous Australians to encounter Cook—and, in truth, the contact was brief. Cook had hoped to engage in trade with the local Aboriginal people as he had done in New Zealand and Tahiti, but the cultures were different and they could not communicate. Cook wrote in his journal of throwing nails and beads on the shore in a gesture of peace. This was unfortunately received as a threat. The Aboriginal people maintained a close physical presence with the landing party, but the distance between them was insurmountable. We have struggled as a nation to overcome that distance ever since. But we are making progress.
The 2020 celebration should be an opportunity to further our cooperation and to restate our commitment around our nation to the reconciliation process that is well underway. But there is so much distance still to travel. There should be a national program of celebration and commemoration that is all encompassing and celebrates the contributions of all Australians from all backgrounds: those who came and settled from Europe; the Indigenous Australians, whose heritage runs over centuries into ancient times; and the migrants who have come since writing our national story. That first encounter did not unfold as Cook had hoped. But 250 years down the track we can at least stand and celebrate in the spirit he intended. As Australia charts its course into the 21st century there are many unknowns, just as they were for Captain Cook as he watched Venus creep across the sun. At Kurnell we can literally stand in the feet of yesterday's pioneers and draw on their courage and vision as we chart our own way forward.
The 400th anniversary of the landing at Jamestown settlement in the United States was a great coming together. The celebrations drew more than three million people to Virginia in 2007. It was a venture that brought people together, cultures together, businesses together and governments at all levels together—as should Cook 2020. Of course, our Australian story is different; it is unique, and that is why we must preserve it. If we do, on 11 December 2117, when our great-great-grandchildren stop to watch the same tiny planet track across the sky just as Lieutenant James Cook did in 1769, they too can share in our experience of nationhood which began when Cook landed at Kurnell.
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend FESTofALL, the launch of the young carer festivals in Launceston. The festivals allow young carers to recognise the good work they do, meet other people in similar situations, build support networks and, most of all, have some fun. This was a fantastic day which provided me with the chance to meet with many young carers, hear their stories, participate with them in some great activities and enjoy the food, entertainment and atmosphere of an AFL game day in Launceston.
The FESTofALL provided these inspiring young kids and their families with the opportunity to see some of their favourite AFL stars in action by attending the Hawthorn versus North Melbourne match at Aurora Stadium. The 'Hawk Walk' from City Park through the streets of Launceston to the ground was followed by lunch at Hawks Central with the Hawthorn mascot, 'Hawka'. The traditional meat pie and Coca-Cola went down a treat with many of the kids, as they watched a magic show and honed their footy skills with some handball and kicking competitions. The game itself was also thoroughly enjoyed by all. Even a young one-eyed Kangaroos supporter, who before the game could only cheer for the Roos, came up to me at three-quarter time, tugged on my jacket and said he was now barracking for the Hawks. It really was a tremendous day. These young people had a great time and deserve a break from the extra day-to-day duties they take on in their role as carers.
A young carer can be any young person from five to 25 years of age who provides regular, sustained care to another person without payment for undertaking this role. There are a variety of situations where young individuals take on a caring role, whether this is for someone with a disability, a medical condition, a mental health issue, a drug or alcohol problem or frailty due to old age. Young carers come from a variety of family situations, including traditional two parent families, single parent households, living with grandparents or extended families. In Tasmania alone, there are some 2,500 young carers. On average, these kids dedicate around 27 hours a week to caring, with many reporting that they often miss out on school and are sleep deprived because of these extra duties they take on. These duties can range from providing assistance with general household tasks to mobility and personal care. Often, the time that these young individuals dedicate to their families can prevent them from enjoying social interaction with others their own age, contributing to a feeling of isolation and being without a supportive peer environment.
The FESTofALL is an initiative under the federally funded National Carer Strategy to support young carers, who are some of the more vulnerable members of our communities. I am pleased and proud that the government has committed $1 million in new funding to provide more of these types of events in each state and territory. The festival in Launceston was just one of the many activities taking place across Australia which are raising awareness of the role of carers, improving the identification of young carers in the community and increasing the social interaction of these young people. The next event to be held in Tasmania will be a day out at Zoodoo, a wildlife park in Richmond. Participants will have the chance to meet and feed a variety of animals and enjoy activities like face-painting, balloon animals and a merry-go-round. I will be encouraging young carers from around the state who did not get to attend FESTofALL to take part in some of these activities.
I would like to congratulate everyone who was involved in making FESTofALL such a wonderful event. I thank all the sporting and community clubs, particularly the under-14 northern Tasmanian basketball team for their time and effort in supplying the food and drinks on the day. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank each and every one of the young carers I met at FESTofALL for their hard work, dedication and compassion in their role as carers. I thank them for their willingness to share their stories with me and for including me in what was a fantastic day of fun and football in Launceston.
Tonight, Vision 2020, the national body working in partnership with a range of other bodies to reduce avoidable blindness and address vision care, brought together professionals and a large number of people from this House to talk about both the importance of vision loss in Indigenous Australia and the work that is being done through national disability initiatives to ensure that disabled Australians who have lost their vision are not forgotten in the enterprises ahead towards a national scheme.
Speakers included Robyn Gaile, Executive Officer of Blind Citizens Australia, which is one of the peak bodies, and Justin Mohamed, who is the newly elected chair of NACCHO. Each of their speeches reminded us just how important vision is as a component in both combating the lack of services in disability and finding a solution.
We also had a number of stars there. There was Brien Holden, who gave a stimulating speech about the international opportunities to reduce vision loss. He pointed out that, around the globe, $269 billion is paid as the price for failing to address vision loss—75 per cent of which is avoidable—and that an adequate response to something as simple as correctable vision loss could cost as little as 10 per cent of the price that is paid globally every year. While Hugh Taylor was not here on this occasion, we also heard from Andrew Harris from the Optometrists Association Australia and Dr Iain Dunlop from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.
What came out very clearly today is that we need to ensure that the partnership documents which have been put forward to government by these groups find their way to be funded, that there are no further delays and that we work with all these groups to make sure that they are part of the solution as we come towards a national disability arrangement.
On another and even more urgent note, last Friday on the ABC's PM there was a report by Nicola Gage of ABC Port Augusta that the Mai Wiru Regional Stores Council is to have its funding cut at the end of this financial year at very short notice and with very little evidence of what will replace it. Mai Wiru has a sensational 10-year history of having worked with a range of extremely dispersed and tiny communities in the APY lands to deliver the most effective, efficient, sustainable and healthy stores to these communities. They have worked very, very hard to take individual Indigenous leadership onto their board—12 of the 15 are in fact store managers themselves. They are all Indigenous, and they comprise members of the NPY Women's Council, the APY Council and Nganapma Health.
Mai Wiru is one of the few success stories in one of the most challenging areas of Indigenous policy in Australia, and it is a real shame that its funding is about to be cut—and for no other reason, it would appear, than that there is no other way to get Outback Stores money into South Australia. We all know that, from 2005, $48.1 million was invested in Outback Stores to improve the infrastructure, sustainability and quality of stores in remote communities, most of which are in the Northern Territory.
Outback Stores were meant to be introduced in communities through mutual agreement—by negotiation—but unfortunately they have had only about 21 conversions out of the 100 potential community stores around the Northern Territory. That means that there is a lot of money which has not been spent, and most of it remains within the borders of the Northern Territory. It is a problem of government's making that the second tranche of money, which is under the same conditions, cannot be shared with other exceptional organisations that have the runs on the board in both remote Western Australia and the APY lands.
It is a shame that a great group like Mai Wiru has to be put to the sword and liquidated within two weeks simply because a government does not have the wit to find another way that this money, which currently resides with Outback Stores, can reinforce equally good, efficient and impressive models. Do not forget: Mai Wiru has offered its books to the federal government to say, 'Examine us for our effectiveness and our efficiency; if you have any doubts, let's make it an open tender and see which model works.' Anungal senior man Frank Young says:
We live here, we eat our food from our shop and we run it as Aboriginal people and we are really proud of what we're doing to ourselves.
They say that they do not want to sign up to the new model for the simple reason that, if they join the government, it will not be them and it will not be their store. Those of us who live in urban Australia tend to forget that, in a remote place like the APY lands, a community store is an essential service. It is not only a focal point for the community to meet; it is something that absolutely sustains the community. This part of Australia has borne of its own people the governance to run its stores; it is something we tamper with with great caution. I urge the government in the next two weeks to have another look at the great achievements of Mai Wiru.
I rise to talk about the importance of investing in infrastructure and how the federal Labor government's historic investment is making a huge difference in communities within the electorate of Petrie. I specifically want to talk about one of my largest growth areas, North Lakes, a community which is only 10 years old. It was established by Stocklands and has grown at such a rate that the region is now the third-largest growth area in Queensland, according to ABS 2010-11 statistics. Much of that growth is happening in North Lakes, Griffin and Mango Hill in my electorate. There are so many families in the area. There is a big Westfield, there are cinemas coming, and there is an IKEA coming. We have amazing schools: Bounty Boulevard, North Lakes State College, The Lakes College, St Benedict's, and Mango Hill State School which just opened this year.
Only a week ago I had the pleasure of having the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Simon Crean, also visit North Lakes. With the Regional Development Authority, Moreton Bay Mayor Allan Sutherland and local councillor Julie Greer we announced $7.78 million from the Regional Development Authority Fund to build the new Corso Civic Centre. It will have a new library, a learning centre, a new community centre, commercial space, outdoor seating areas, parkways and walkways. There will be art work around those open spaces. Right next door the existing community centre is going to be completely refurbished with another $3 million that the government previously announced. We will see the new North Lakes Youth Space built. We will have these two facilities next door to each other, providing for the whole community—our young and also those wanting to learn, working in with local college, the learning space and library. It is going to be a fantastic community hub for the area.
But this is on top of the NBN. North Lakes, Mango Hill, Griffin and other suburbs in my electorate—Aspley, Bridgeman Downs, Carseldine and Fitzgibbon—are going to be the beneficiaries of the three-year NBN rollout plan that was announced at the end of March,. This is fantastic news to know that we have this amazing new civic centre, we have a new youth space and we have the NBN coming to the area.
I had the great pleasure not too long ago—back in March—to officially open the new Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local, which is also now at North Lakes. I have to congratulate my Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local, which is really taking the initiative in relation to e-health and really understands the benefits of fast broadband coming to the area. They are working really hard with our local GPs and medical centres to get e-health into those centres and people signed up, because we all understand the benefits. When we talk about fast broadband we are not just talking about benefits to households; we are talking about benefits to business, benefits to the health sector and benefits to education.
This is also on top of the announcement that the federal Labor government made back in 2010 to deliver the long-awaited Moreton Bay Rail Link, a 12.6-kilometre rail line with six stations: Kallangur, Murrumba Downs, Mango Hill, Kinsellas Road, Rothwell and Kippa-Ring. It is great to see that in this year's budget there was another $20 million allocated to the rail line to keep the work going. We are now at a very exciting milestone in relation to this project, in that construction should begin on the Kinsellas Road East bridge at midyear. The concept designs for the six new stations are due to come out midyear. Tender processes for the rail design and construction should begin in mid-2012 and construction begins on the Kallangur bridges at Dohles Rocks Road and Goodfellows Road midyear as well. These are key milestones. This is real work, real construction—something that people thought they would never see. For 102 years they have waited for this. This is real work and it is exciting.
With the NBN, the rail line, the youth space and the civic centre, North Lakes is coming of age. This is great community infrastructure which everyone will benefit from. (Time expired)
Order! It being 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 22 :30.
I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a great example of how the Bonner local community came together, with bipartisan help from all levels of government, to achieve a balanced outcome for all stakeholders. In late 2011, Optus proposed a new mobile phone tower right next to Guardian Angels Primary School in Wynnum. After some concerned parents looked into the tower's location, they came to the view that, to be on the safe side, an action group should be formed. The action group was called No Tower Near Guardian Angels.
Community engagement on the project revealed that the local community overwhelmingly opposed the tower. This was evidenced by over 3,500 local signatures on a petition to have a more appropriate location found. From my personal dealings with Optus, I know that they work hard to find the balance between community concerns and demand for increased mobile coverage—never an easy balance to achieve. Thankfully, in this case, the balance was achieved. I thank Optus, on behalf of those in the local bayside community who had their say on this issue, for listening to them and, most importantly, for really hearing them. I particularly thank Rowena Gilbertson, Manager of Government Affairs at Optus, for her sensitivity and professionalism in dealing with this matter.
I also acknowledge Natalie Von Hoff, Nathan McNamara, Michelle Evans, Kristy Gilchrist, Raff Foniatti, Kylie Vigen, Sam Johnson, Kellie Sommerville, Paul Caton and Stephen Sherrard—just to name some of the many local heroes who worked hard behind the scenes to achieve this stellar result for the community. I found the group to be very fair and professional. Special mention should also be made of the new state member for Lytton, Neil Symes, and Councillor Peter Cummings for their care and attention to this matter. This result could not have been achieved if the three levels of government had not worked together. I also acknowledge my friend and colleague the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull for his interest in this issue and for his advice and work behind the scenes, as well as Deidre Thomson.
I, along with my state and local colleagues, will continue to work constructively with Optus as they investigate other locations to install the proposed communication infrastructure. We acknowledge that we must continue to ensure that balance is found between community interests and Optus's need to deliver better services to the local community and to businesses.
First of all, I want to wish Mary Hewitt, who turned a remarkable 100 years young on 16 June, a very happy birthday. I want to talk about Local Sporting Champions grants recipients in my electorate. Leo Viitala started playing basketball when he was just 10 and in almost six years he has achieved his goal of representing Victorian country at the national level. The road for Leo to complete in the under-18 national comp in Tasmania in April involved two try-out and selection competitions and a final selection camp. Leo not only plays for a local club in the Seymour Basketball Association but plays for his school team at Assumption College, the country basketball league Seymour team and the Golden Valley Eagles up to the state championship level. He has been involved with Basketball Country Victoria's IAP program, receiving the athlete of the year award last year.
Hayden Gardner this summer competed in the under-18 national youth baseball championships, representing Baseball Victoria. This is the culmination of being selected for Victorian state junior teams for the last five years. That is a great achievement for any sportsman. Angus Wiseman, at 15 years old, is already representing Victoria in junior athletics. In March this year, he went to the Australian Junior Athletics Championships at Homebush in Sydney, at the 2000 Olympics Stadium. Angus's passion is for the triple jump and he hopes to one day represent Australia at that event. He is working a casual job on top of school and athletics to fund his way. I hope that the cheque helps him fund a little bit of the costs involved in competing at the elite level.
Jessica Adams has already reached her goal of many years to attend the age championships, as well as qualifying for nine individual events this year in swimming. She was named Swimming Victoria's age champion for 2011 and again in 2012. She holds a Swimming Victoria butterfly record and 23 northern metro records. Jess has also been awarded a Leader Newspapers sports award for her three gold and four silvers at the 2011 championships. At such a young age, she has achieved a lot and this grant is a well-deserved recognition of that.
Another Jess, Jessica Tatarskyj, swims with the Epping Aquajets and has been in swimming training and competition since aged seven. Jess's dream is to one day represent Australia in swimming and she knows that realising that dream means a lot of hard work. The recognition and support of the Local Sporting Champions grants acknowledges all those 5 am training starts and the sacrifices that her mum has made towards that goal. Jess gained nine qualifying times across all strokes and distances to be able to attend the Australian Age Championships. She was recently named the Swimming Victoria State Age Champion with six gold, three silver and one bronze medal at the state championships. Jess said that one of her reasons in nominating for a Local Sporting Champions grant was her wish to help mum out with the costs of training and competing. I want to put on the record that when these guys all become Olympic champions that I recognised them first.
I rise today to congratulate a local non-government organisation in the community of Midland, the Midland Information, Debt and Legal Advocacy Service, which is more commonly known as MIDLAS. It won the media and promotional category for its outstanding achievement in raising the profile of community services in Western Australia at the Community Services Excellence Awards presented by the Department of Communities in May this year. MIDLAS won the award for its social innovation program. This has seen MIDLAS implement a highly effective social media campaign involving YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for the purposes of raising awareness about the difficulties faced by some of the most disadvantaged families in our communities, distributing relevant and up-to-date information and advocacy options to residents and in forming and building stronger relationships with the wider community. All the staff of MIDLAS are to be commended and congratulated for their hard work, dedication, passion and enthusiasm for not only providing the services but making them as accessible as possible for residents.
MIDLAS, under the direction of Julia Birch and its very capable board, offer an invaluable service to the community. They offer six free services to disadvantaged and vulnerable people within our local community. The services provided include a disability services, financial services, tenancy services, legal services, information and referral and emergency relief. I know that they are very successful in offering those services. I constantly hear about the exceptional work that they do for our local residents. My office and I are confident in referring people to MIDLAS as we know that they will provide an excellent service, follow up issues promptly and act with compassion and integrity. This is an incredibly important service for the residents of Hasluck, who have to cope with continually increasing cost-of-living pressures. They will certainly be hit by the world's biggest carbon tax on 1 July. Currently—and this is taken directly from their website—MIDLAS is now preparing for any repercussions that may arise out of the impending carbon tax.
Like most NGOs that provide invaluable support to some of the most in need residents, they find the current grants system difficult to work with and very short sighted. Annual grant requirements and applications take up a lot of their time, time that would be best directed to serving our local community. Every organisation should have the opportunity to serve their local community effectively, no matter what industry they operate in. The government needs to support our community service organisations such as MIDLAS, which will be witnessing firsthand the effects of this disastrous carbon tax. The Prime Minister will not meet the people directly affected by her policy. The people who work in this industry, like the staff at MIDLAS, will be the ones providing real help and hope to those in this community who will most certainly be disadvantaged. I call on this government to support out local community service industries and review the red tape burden imposed on them by the inadequate grants systems.
On behalf of this parliament, I would like to congratulate Faten El Dana of Mount Pritchard on receiving the Medal of the Order of Australia as part of the Queen's Birthday Honours List this year. The Medal of the Order of Australia is a traditional and highly significant way of honouring those in our society who provide outstanding and invaluable service to their local communities. Faten is one of those Australians whose service has indeed been worthy of particular recognition and praise. She was nominated by her fellow citizens for her hard work, dedication and exceptional service, particularly to the local Lebanese community. The Lebanese community makes up a significant portion of my electorate, with over 2,100 residents being born in Lebanon and another 4,500 having one or both parents born in Lebanon. For the past 17 years, Faten has dedicated her time to assist newly arrived migrants, particularly those coming from her country, Lebanon, to successfully settle here in Australia.
In addition to raising four children, she has been a volunteer at a number of charitable organisations, focusing primarily on encouraging young migrant women to gain an education and contribute in their local community. Faten is a strong and positive voice for the Arabic-speaking community of the south-west of Sydney. She currently serves as head of the Arabic department at Al Amannah College in Liverpool and is participating in the 2012 Muslim-Australian reference group designed to encourage constructive dialogue throughout our diverse community. In the past, Faten has used her role as a presenter on 2MFM Muslim radio to reach out to the community that she represents. Her own experience as a migrant coming to this country in 1989 and the challenge that she faced in settling into her new country have provided inspiration to others facing this difficult transition. People coming to Australia need the support and guidance of those who know our legal and social systems in particular. As a consequence, Faten has been a tremendous source of support and knowledge to a number of newly arrived migrants as they settle in their new homeland, Australia. On behalf of a very grateful community, I would like to thank Faten for the invaluable contribution that she has made to her community and congratulate her on being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia.
I recently had the pleasure and privilege of attending the 100th Nambucca Show at the Macksville Showground. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard over more than 100 years to build the show into the thriving institution that it is today. It was in 1906 that the Nambucca Dairy Company decided to set up an agricultural society to help improve the quality of stock and produce. The world was a very different place in 1906. Information was much harder to come by than it is today and so much more was exchanged face-to-face rather than by phone, the internet or even the written word. What better than to create an annual occasion when farmers and their families throughout the region could meet, exhibit their animals, show off their successes and set a benchmark for others to aspire to, and all for the common good?
The first show was held the following year, in 1907, in the paddock behind the Nambucca Hotel in Macksville. According to the book produced to mark the 100th show, there was a large crowd and the show was 'a distinct success, clearing around £35', which would have been a lot of money in those days. At this point I should say that in the forward to the book—and the book was written by the show secretary, John Harris—thanks go to Betty Trisley for her research and Donna Gaddes for formatting the words and photos, as well as to the members of the 100th show committee. The book chronicles the steady growth of the show and the occasional financial reversal due to bad weather. It relates the formation of the Nambucca River District Agricultural Association, the sale of the original showground to the department of education for a high school, the purchase of the current site on Rodeo Drive and the raising of a loan to build a pavilion and other facilities. While the show remains very much about improving stock and produce, from its early days it was always seen as a social occasion. Even though we have vastly improved transport and telecommunications, isolation and loneliness remain issues for those working hard on the land and the show remains an occasion when the whole community can get together. I mentioned earlier the current secretary, John Harris. John took that office in 1976 and therefore has now served as secretary for some 36 years. It was quite appropriate that the 100th show was opened by John and, I think, a very strong tribute to his long service to the show. His dedication is typical of all those who have given their time, energy and community spirit for more than 100 years to build the show into the valuable and healthy institution that it is today. I would like to congratulate Michael Ettelson, president of the show committee, and the hard-working volunteers for all of their efforts over so many years to continue to produce such a great community event.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, financial literacy falls into my portfolio area and I believe it is one of the most important areas of work for me. The government's National Financial Literacy Strategy aimed at giving people the skills to take control of their finances, make the most of opportunities and attain their financial goals while also protecting themselves from poor decision making. A key plank of the National Financial Literacy Strategy is the MoneySmart program run by ASIC. The MoneySmart website aims to help people make financial decisions that improve their lives. MoneySmart provides not just information and tools, but also the motivation to take action. It takes visitors from simply acquiring knowledge to setting goals and implementing those goals themselves. It recently won award for the Best Service Delivery Website at the 2012 Excellence in eGovernment Awards and in 2011 the MoneySmart website was named Best Government Website at the Australian Web Awards.
It is used by around 120,000 people a month and over 2 million people have used the website since its launch, which demonstrates the need for but also the desire of people to get this sort of information about their financial situations. The best part about this website is that it sells absolutely nothing. It is all about information. It is credible and it is very important. The most popular tool is the budget planner. It is used by more than 28,000 people per month. Another excellent tool is the retirement calculator. People to enter the income that they hope to have in retirement and, based on their current situation, it calculates the income that they are likely to have. This can put into stark clarity the discrepancy that exists for many people between their wishes and their likely income and gives them the opportunities to make changes today that can help them achieve their goals in the future.
Recently I conducted a forum in my electorate in Forest Lake for the Over 50s Club about financial literacy and also about avoiding scams. This was a great opportunity for me to speak to a group of Australians about financial literacy. They were a very interested group from a demographic that is often overlooked, as we sometimes assume that people who have attained 50 years or more of age have accumulated all the knowledge and all the skills to manage their finances. But it is often the case that they are the very group that we need to focus our attention on. In the era of financial literacy, learning never stops. In fact, when people reach middle age, it is often the ideal time to have a financial health check and stop and examine your financial health and make the necessary changes to help ensure that you do have long-term financial well being. I also want to congratulate the regulator—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—for their very hard and good work in this area. It is a fantastic collaboration between this federal government and the regulator in delivering a tool and a resource for ordinary people that really does work.
Today, I rise to voice my disgust at Labor's 2012-13 federal budget cuts of $5.5 billion from Defence over the forward estimates. Despite Labor's rhetoric, these cuts will have a long-term impact on our nation's defence capabilities. Next year's Defence budget has decreased in real terms by 10.5 per cent, which is the largest year-on-year reduction since the end of the Korean War. As a percentage of GDP, defence funding will be 1.56 per cent—the lowest since 1938. Defence personnel are having their conditions trashed, with the announcement that Labor has cancelled recreational leave travel for single members over the age of 21. This will affect around 22,000 ADF personnel, many of whom are based in my electorate of Solomon. When they joined Defence, these members were told that, if they were posted interstate, they would be able to go home a couple of times a year as part of their employment conditions. Now this employment condition has been breached. Mr Paul Potter, a constituent of mine whose son is now posted in Canberra, told my office that he was outraged that Australia's defence personnel were having their employment conditions slashed without any consultation whatsoever. He also said his son is keen to come home to Darwin and see his family but now he will not be able to afford to do so. Paul said he does not want these budget cuts to result in other families having breakdowns and falling apart. Surely we should not be discouraging any family reunions. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel should be ashamed of themselves.
In terms of budget cuts there is no doubt that my electorate will be impacted by the Defence funding cuts. Based on public information and letters from the chiefs of defence, in conjunction with industry analysis, we have determined where cuts and projects will be impacted in my electorate. At the RAAF Base Darwin, the first 12 JSF aircraft, AIR 6,000 phase 2A and phase 2B, have been delayed by two years and phase 2C has been delayed by one year. At Robinson Barracks 15 of the M1A1 Abrams tanks and 100 of the M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers are going to be mothballed. Also at Robinson Barracks the Tiger helicopters are having their flying hours reduced. To add to this, the Robinson Barracks redevelopment has been delayed by three years and the Larrakeyah Base redevelopment NORFORCE redeployment has been delayed by two years.
This Labor government does not understand the detrimental impacts of its decisions on electorates like mine. Only the coalition offers hope, reward and opportunity. We are committed to rebuilding defence and we will not treat our service men and women with the contempt— (Time expired)
I had a very productive visit last Thursday from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, whom I hosted in my electorate of Page. We began at a breakfast at Brookfarm. You would have seen some of their products for sale in Parliament House and offered on various plane flights. Brookfarm is run by Martin and Pam Brook, and they run a really good show. They launched a new product, called Porrij, of which there are three different varieties. Who would have thought that porridge could be relaunched, rebadged and remarketed? There were great chefs there—the Byron at Byron chef, Gavin Hughes, and Fin's Steven Snow; two really eminent chefs—cooking Porrij, the humble porridge. We all tried it and it was wonderful. I brought some down to Parliament House with me and had it for breakfast this morning. It is a great local product. It just shows that small business can do great things when they are creative and innovative.
We then had a productive meeting with a whole range of representatives broadly from the red meat industry. There were about 24 of them. Some of them came to my office and some of them spoke over the telephone from all around Australia. They raised concerns that their voices were not being heard in Canberra because they were not speaking with one voice on clear strategies and clear issues, and I have talked about that in this place before. In responding to concerns they expressed that peak bodies such as MLA and Cattle Council of Australia were not representing them well enough, the minister said he was 'all ears' to suggestions as to how the job could be done better. However, he also said it was up to producers to drive any change, based on long-term strategy for the sector. He said, 'It doesn't matter sometimes whether it is a single voice or multiple voices. What matters is that they clearly articulate what their top 10 issues are, what their goals are and what their overall strategy is so that we can then work with the industry.'
I also had a meeting with the Chairman of the Northern Co-operative Meat Company, George Bennett, and the CEO, Simon Stahl, and talked about some of the stresses that the meat-processing sector was under. I got some good assistance with that and heard some good ideas. I finished up at Primex, the premier national primary industries exhibition. It showcases the industries and is a great boost to tourism and our local economy. It is held in Casino, the beef capital of Australia, which hosts the biggest Beef Week in Australia. I congratulate the Wright family, particularly Bruce, and Primex staff and volunteers for organising Primex, our largest regional trade and commercial exhibition. (Time expired)
Hudson Park Primary School is located in Girrawheen, a suburb in Cowan. For most of its existence it was known as Girrawheen Primary School, but it was in recent times renamed Hudson Park. The children of Hudson Park Primary School are challenged by the lower socioeconomic circumstances of the suburb of Girrawheen. However, it is fortunate that the staff at the school are totally committed to the children and believe that each one of them has a great future. As is usual with schools in these situations, despite the challenges that the schools face you will often find long-serving teachers that have devoted themselves to providing opportunities for the children. Dedicated teaching together with understanding and patience provides positive learning environments. It is about one such teacher I would like to speak.
At the start of July 2010 the school underwent a dramatic change. It was the retirement of long-serving principal Doug Grasso, who had spent 16½ years at the school as principal. His retirement was at the end of 41 years as an educator. When asked about his retirement, Doug Grasso said:
“I love being able to watch kids grow and develop as individuals … I found with teaching, the more I did it, the more I liked it.”
Today I wish to speak of former principal Doug Grasso. Unfortunately, Doug passed away yesterday after a fairly short illness—a tragic illness. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his profound influence on the lives of thousands of students that passed through the school during his leadership. I asked for comments from those who knew him well, or knew him better than I did. It is heartening to appreciate how well he was regarded.
Terri Reid, the principal of the Karrinyup Primary School and a former colleague, said of Doug that he was a true gentleman, always solutions focused, an absolute pleasure to work with and an inspiring role model as a great principal and a great human being. Janet Straker, a teacher for 10 years at the school, said of Doug that he was always kind, fair and compassionate with children, staff and parents. He never showed anger or frustration with even the most challenging of students. He was extremely supportive of staff professionally and personally. He also had a wicked sense of humour. Former registrar Barbara Blake said that Doug always worked hard to get all the difficult students to be the best they could be. Barbara informed me that Doug gained the respect of all students, including those who had been suspended from other schools or who had difficulties, because he demonstrated that he cared for them and believed in them. The result was children that were better behaved, learning more and liking their school experience.
It is little wonder that a couple of years ago, when Doug left Hudson Park and full-time leadership as a principal, the children made and donned hats that reflected Doug's diminished hairline. That was reported in the local newspaper. The guy was simply a legend in Girrawheen—a great role model and a brilliant educator—and his educational legacy will live on for a generation to come. The community most certainly salutes his influence.
Australia's future broadband was an issue that was a big part of the 2010 federal election. In the 2007 election, Work Choices loomed large. In the 2010 Victorian election, health and education were hot topics. In each of these elections, the state of the economy was central. Yet who in Geelong could answer the question as to what were the big issues in the 2008 municipal elections? What were the issues that dominated the news coverage and had every candidate talking? The answer is that there were none, because this is just not how our local government elections have worked. Yet central to the democratic process is not just choosing our elected representatives but also having a debate around issues and having ideas tested at the ballot box. This is not to say that past council elections have been undemocratic. In each ward, there have been key issues which have been debated. But, with no overall Geelong election, what we have really had in past municipal elections is 12 separate ward elections with separate issues and separate debates. Having a Geelong-wide debate about the multitude of Geelong-wide issues and having Geelong-wide agendas tested is what I believe is the real opportunity that comes with the first direct mayoral election later this year. For the first time in a meaningful way, we will have one election for one position across the entirety of the city of Greater Geelong.
A couple of weeks ago I had a meeting about how to energise the Geelong cultural precinct project. My advice was that this is an issue that must be aired in the upcoming mayoral election. It is an issue at the heart of the Geelong debate. Each of the mayoral candidates should be required to express a public view on the issue. There should be public meetings about it. It should be an election issue. I call on every interest group and concerned citizen who has a burning issue to make it a part of this year's Geelong election. While the cultural precinct is important for me, what the city does about jobs and the cost of living and not just what it does about planning and garbage collection—in other words, how we turn our local government into a true regional government—is the really big issue for the Geelong election. The Committee for Geelong and G21 have been important catalysts for debate, but it is this election that must be the most important moment in which to generate a Geelong agenda. Mandates for action around this agenda must be earned. When we look back at the 2012 Geelong election, it must not only be about who ran; more importantly, we must be able to answer the question as to what they ran about. Ensuring that the 2012 Geelong election is not just about 'who' but also that it becomes, for the first time, about 'what' is an opportunity that the Geelong community itself must take.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
It dismays me immensely that I have for the second time to move a motion of this nature in relation to the Torres Strait seawalls. Last year in March I had a motion prepared and I was ready to have it submitted to this place for debate. I was asked directly by the Minister Crean's office not to put it up, that the government had made a decision that they were inclined to support that motion but they needed more time. They could not take the money out of the RDA funds because it was totally inappropriate and the minister was looking for an opportunity to identify funds from another source. In the interest of bipartisan support, I agreed to delay putting the motion up until August to assist the minister in his endeavours to locate the money.
In August, I still had not heard from the minister and I advised him that it was my intention, as per our agreement, to put the motion up. The motion was put up and the government supported it. The motion asked that the issue of seawalls be addressed immediately, that infrastructure be put in place so that we do not start to lose existing infrastructure. We have $1 billion worth of infrastructure that is being damaged every single year. We had lost over half the Saibai Island's cemetery which had been washed out to sea. I was pleased that the government supported the motion. In fact in August I wrote to the minister and congratulated him, thanking him on behalf of the Torres Strait Islands community because he was prepared to support us.
I then asked when the money could be expected to flow and where the money would come from. I had to wait until December, and, after many subsequent follow-ups was told by the minister that he was no longer going to support it, that it was not really a federal government issue but an issue for the state and for the local council. Why didn't he tell me that back in March when I was putting that motion up?
In that period, I have to say, more graves were lost; more graves were washed out to sea. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, how would anybody in this place, whose mother or father, brother or sister, grandparents or whomever was interred in a cemetery, feel when they went there the next day to visit them to find that they had been washed out to sea, never to be found. Anywhere else in the country it would be absolutely outrageous and the matter would be fixed immediately, but up there, it seems, from this minister's perspective, it really does not matter. Like many other things in Indigenous issues, it is all about the politics. It is not about finding real solutions.
But it is also a very, very stupid decision. There is $1 billion worth of infrastructure on the six affected islands and every year there is a couple of million dollars worth of damage. Yet every year they are prepared to fix up that damage but not to fix the cause of the problem. It is not about climate change, it is not about rising sea levels, it is about failing, ageing, 50-year-old infrastructure. That is the problem, and it is easily fixed. It is a $22 million to $24 million fix. This government can find $240 million to give to the UN to give to micro-Pacific nations to address issues pertaining to climate change. They can give that money—$240 million; it is not much when you say it fast—to these countries to build their sea walls. But they will not give $22 million to fix a small Pacific community that just happens to be in Australia. You have to pose the statement: maybe it is about buying a place on the UN for a thorn in this government's side, rather than trying to address the genuine issues that are facing this community every year. We are right on the front line of Papua New Guinea. A couple of kilometres away there is tuberculosis, HIV, meningitis, Japanese encephalitis, cholera. I recently came back from Daru, and when you walk past the cemetery you see grave after grave of people that have just died of cholera. You understand just how real it is, but this mob down here does not give a damn.
More recently the RDA funding came out—this is the second round we have had—and the only money to be given north of Mackay was $5 million that was going to the sea walls in the Torres Strait. Lo and behold: $5 million for a $24-million fix. That is the only RDA money that was given over two rounds, and that $5 million is for a $24-million job. They go up there—Senator McLucas, Minister Macklin, Minister Crean—patting themselves on the back and saying: 'Hallelujah, we've found a solution, but there is a catch. We are going to put another $7 million in, but we don't know where we are going to find that yet. But the whole lot—the whole $12 million or so that we are going to put up—is conditional on the state government finding the money.'
Now we know that the Bligh government left the Campbell Newman state government with a debt that is going to rise to $100 billion. Where are they going to suddenly draw $12 million out to put in there for something that should have been fixed by this government several years ago? This is a problem that has been going on now for six years. It is all smoke and mirrors. You have people up there in the community thinking, 'Wow, it is going to happen.' I have news for them—it is not going to happen. The reason that they did it this way is that it is a guaranteed way that they do not spend a cracker. I was talking to Ron Enosa, the chairman of the Saibai community. He knows that it is a lie. He knows that it is not going to happen. He is bitterly disappointed.
I was talking to Fred Gela, the Chair of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, only yesterday. He said, 'I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the more I speak to them, the more I realise that this is never going to be a reality, because $5 million is not going to fix it and it is conditional on the state government putting $12 million up that they do not have and they did not budget for, and another $7 million that is going to materialise out of thin air; Simon Crean has not yet decided where it is going to come from.' It really made me wonder if the criteria for being a cabinet minister in this government is the ability to continue to mislead the Australian public, the same as the Prime Minister has done—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask the member for Leichhardt to withdraw that suggestion about the cabinet. I find it unparliamentary and offensive.
The member for Leichhardt, to assist the chamber—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also find it unparliamentary and offensive that—
The member for Leichhardt will resume his seat. The member for Leichhardt will withdraw that statement for the resumption of the debate to take place.
I withdraw, but I find it offensive that I was promised—call it what you like—in March that Simon Crean, the minister, would support it. It took till August. I complied 100 percent and it took till August, and the government came out and voted and supported it. There was no argument about it. Now we find, almost a year later, that we are no closer to having it happen. What they have done is totally inappropriate. They have definitely misled me. There is no question about it. They have misled me and they have misled the Torres Strait people, who are sitting there waiting for the next king tide, which is in a couple of months time, when more of the cemetery is going to be washed away and more of their ancestors are going to disappear into the sea. More infrastructure is going to be destroyed, and it is going to raise the risk of cholera, dysentery, meningitis and Japanese encephalitis.
It is a cruel hoax. It is a disgusting trick on the Torres Strait people. The minister and this government should stand condemned for their appalling treatment of these people in their deliberate attempts to avoid, in any way they can, fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities. These people are Australians. They may live in the Torres Strait, but they are very, very proud Australians and they are entitled to have a government that steps up to its responsibilities and takes the appropriate action to ensure that they have security of their own communities.
I rise to oppose the member for Leichhardt's motion on the flooding of communities in the Torres Strait. My electorate is a long way away from the Torres Strait, and I would particularly like to acknowledge the passion of the member for Leichhardt about this topic. I know he has got credibility and the respect of his community for representing the needs of his constituents. However, I will point out a couple of things in response to his speech. This problem did not begin on election night 24 November 2007—as the member for Leichhardt acknowledged. He indicated that it had been a problem confronted by the Howard government beforehand. He said that it had been going on for six years, and obviously we have only been in power for less than five years. So this has been an ongoing issue for a long time. It did not commence on 24 November 2007. That is the first thing that anyone with common sense would understand.
There is another thing that we need to understand—and I say this with a little bit of knowledge, as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and I note that the member for Bonner is in the chamber. We have a bit of familiarity with the Constitution. When I look through the Constitution, I cannot see a reference to the Commonwealth government having responsibility for local graves. That is not in any way to take away from the heartbreak that it must be to experience the graves of your ancestors and loved ones being washed out to sea. I am not in any way minimising the heartache that is associated with that. But, when I read the Constitution, I cannot find a Commonwealth constitutional head of power to look after every single grave in Australia. For Commonwealth war graves, whether they be in Gaza or Thailand or Flanders, we do have a responsibility. However, the 720 local councils in Australia have a responsibility to look after their local graves. That is the first bit of law that I am sure the member for Leichhardt would agree with.
I remind the member opposite that there is actually another level of government between the local government and the Commonwealth government, and that is the state government. The Queensland state government has some additional oversight over local governments and their ability to look after the tasks that they do. As the member knows, with the DOGIT lands in his part of the world, state government and local government interaction is much closer than the interaction between the Commonwealth government and local government. These are some of the facts that we need to get out there.
The member for Leichhardt seemed a little bit ungrateful about the federal government's announcement of $12 million to help fund coastal protection works in the Torres Strait, but it seemed to be more about the delivery rather than the actual policy. This is a complex issue that has required extensive consultation. I am not shying away from the Commonwealth responsibility for that. It has been part of the Labor Party's responsibility since election night 2007. But, I am sure if I look through the member for Leichhardt's webpage, I will see his great press releases commending the Labor government for delivering for the Torres Strait Islander community in all those other areas.
Mr Entsch interjecting—
I will take that interjection that, no, I will not! The member for Leichhardt said: 'It is all about the politics, not about finding solutions.' They were his words. He said that the cause of the problem has nothing to do with climate change. I also think he seemed to be drifting away from the bipartisan support of the parliament for our aid policy in looking after Pacific nations. I am not sure if that was a frolic of his own or a new departure in foreign policy. I will have to explore that later.
The reality is that the Labor government has invested $12 million through this $5 million grant to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council because we know that the Torres Strait has particular problems with their funding base. The nation turned its eyes to the Torres Strait recently on the 20th anniversary of Mabo. We looked at the member for Leichardt's area and the contribution that people there have made. We know about the connection of Torres Strait Islander communities to their land and how, from that, the High Court was able to extrapolate that the mainland Indigenous community also has a longstanding commitment to their land. The $12 million investment will be provided to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Torres Strait Regional Authority to work in partnership to deliver seawalls in six island communities and repair the damaged infrastructure. As Commonwealth parliamentarians we well know that the local government area is where the rubber meets the road, where the shovel meets the road. The local people know the concerns of their community, and the opposition's suggestion that climate change has not had an impact on rising sea levels flies in the face of 99.9 per cent of scientists. Most right-thinking people understand. They can see the tracking. If we look at the Keeling curve and the rise in parts per million of CO2 recorded scientifically around the world, we know that there is a greater cause and that it did not somehow, magically, become a problem on 24 November 2007.
On this side of the House we are a lot more serious about taking out the politics and finding the solutions. We are investing $200 million in projects right across Australia in the second stage of a five-year regional funding program. In Queensland alone, eight projects have been funded under the RDAF round 2, with the Australian government contributing $33.67 million to projects worth more than $134 million. I note the member for Leichardt stood up and said—I assume with some authority, after consultation with his state member and his LNP premier—that the Queensland state government would not give a single dollar to this project. I am not sure whether that was what he was suggesting and whether he had the authority to say that the state government will not match the Commonwealth. Or was he saying that it is too hard? I thought the member for Leichardt had been meeting with Premier Newman. I wish he had talked about his meetings with Premier Newman to request that the Queensland government match the federal government's contribution of $12 million to build seawalls in the Torres Strait. I would hate to remind the member for Leichardt that if Premier Newman cannot even commit to protecting permanent workers in the Australian government after the election, as he did before the election, he might shy away from committing any funding to protect seawalls in the Torres Strait. I ask all Queensland federal members of the LNP to call on Premier Newman to match this $12 million funding commitment by the federal government and to make a commitment to provide coastal infrastructure to protect people in the Torres Strait from destructive tides. Premier Newman has been the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, but I hope he will be the Premier for all of Queensland and make sure that we are looking after these people, who are a long way away from George Street.
The member for Leichardt is very proficient in describing problems, but I would suggest that he is not necessarily being part of the solution. I seem to recall that he was the member of parliament responsible for the Torres Strait for about 12 years. I do not think that these tides magically appeared at midnight on 24 November 2007. If we go back to 3 March 1996, when he became responsible for the Torres Strait, the reality is that king tides were starting to become a problem even then.
No, they weren't!
I am sorry; I disagree. I did not realise that the moon changed its orbit on 24 November 2007. When it comes to addressing the hard issues, the Leader of the Opposition says that he cannot fix anything. Things like the Murray-Darling Basin are complicated processes and you need people to sit down to discuss them. This is another classic example of where we can get all three levels of government on the same page and take the politics out of it. The member for Leichardt said it is all about politics and not about finding solutions. I think it will be best resolved if we can sit down together. The reality is there is a rates base in the Torres Strait that is not able to fund all of these issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member made a comment which is blatantly untrue. The reality of the situation is that in the 2002 election—
The member for Leichhardt will resume his seat. There are ample opportunities to statements corrected in this place. Now is not the time to do it. The member for Moreton.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would remind the member for Leichhardt that there was no election in 2002 federally.
2010.
Obviously the member for Leichhardt will be able to make a substantive motion later today in terms that the cabinet has misled him. There is an opportunity for him to move that substantive motion and we will see whether this motion is all about the politics or whether it is actually about achieving solutions. I know that Simon Crean's door would always be open to him to achieve real change. (Time expired)
I rise to support this motion relating to Torres Strait communities brought before this House by my friend and colleague the member for Leichhardt. It is with some sadness that I speak on this today as this motion has been before the House before and has had bipartisan support, but what we have here is a fundamental breach of faith. I have a great deal of time for the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, but he has let down the very people about whom he should be most concerned. As the member for Leichhardt has already stated, there are six Torres Strait islands heavily affected by king tides, particularly over the last four years. These king tides inundate the low-lying islands which causes roads to flood and we see seawater through houses, businesses and even cemeteries. The cost to repair the seawalls that exist to protect these assets and infrastructure and personal spaces from flooding has been estimated at between $22 million and $24 million.
The minister backflipped on the government's support for Mr Entsch's 2011 motion stating that it was the responsibility of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the Queensland government to fund and that it was not appropriate for it to be paid for from the Regional Development Australia Fund, or RDAF. If that was not bad enough, Minister Crean backflipped again, allocating $5 million for the project through the RDAF this month. So the previous speaker saying that there are not constitutional grounds for the federal government to do this would seem to fly in the face of what the government has actually done. That there is no plan in place for the other $17 million to $19 million beggars belief. They have stated that there should be $12 million from the state government, which has never been involved in this process, and do not even outline where the other $5 million in funding will be found. Perhaps if the Torres Strait islands were declared an independent nation our government would be all over them, like it was 102 degrees in the shade and they were prickly heat, to give them the money.
Our government will spend more than $160 million over five years in funding especially to help the Pacific island nations deal with the impacts of climate change and rising sea levels, yet if you are an Australian citizen this government will walk away from you. What do the people of the Torres Strait do here? Australia's full aid budget for East Asia and the Pacific in 2012-13 is $2.5 billion, and yet we cannot support these people at home for $22 million to $24 million. For that I say: shame on this government. This government always talks a good game when it comes to Aboriginal and Islander affairs, but at every turn it walks away from commitments and opportunities to show that very support, be it in public housing on Palm Island or help in the brave efforts of the community radio station 4K1G to keep an Aboriginal voice over a huge part of North Queensland and Cape York. It is true to form at every turn. The problem with this government is that every time there is an opportunity to do something it simply rolls out the platitudes and starts conversations recognising the traditional owners and then walks away thinking the job has been done. From the first Australians of my electorate and on behalf of those people in the Torres Strait who have been left behind by this government's platitudes, I say, 'Thanks for nothing.'
I will digress to give an example. On Palm Island we build houses not much bigger than a garden shed at a cost of over $600,000. And we build them with the toilet pan below the waterline so they cannot be flushed properly and are therefore uninhabitable. There is no use of the licensed builder and the five licensed plumbers and electricians or even of unskilled labour from the island's residents. The end result could have been so different, but I still have houses on Palm with over 20 inhabitants and that is no good for anyone.
With 4K1G, you will see every manner of government minister ringing Lloydy Wiles to get their message across; but when they receive a call from the station that they are struggling with cash flow but are asset rich, they disappear. They disappear even though you have the Attorney-General, the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, and the minister for communications physically in Townsville for the best part of a week. And yet they cannot spare 4K1G 20 minutes for a meeting. Instead they send a staffer along to tell them which government departments they could possibly write to. It simply is not good enough to come in here and sprout a good game; we must actually do something and have an ability to get behind this thing to fix the things in the Torres Strait and to show the people at home that we actually care about them: the people in the Torres Strait who are without the services and the people in the Torres Strait who are being inundated by health concerns from Papua New Guinea. The people of the Torres Strait are citizens of Australia and deserve better than not having a $22 million wall replaced and not funded. That the government—the member for Moreton—can sit there and say that it is not in the constitution beggars belief. It absolutely beggars belief, and it is pretty much chump change to the people of the Torres Strait.
I call on the government to back this motion and actually deliver for the Torres Strait.
Sitting here listening to the contribution from the honourable member for Herbert, you would think that there was nothing happening. I am sure they have either deliberately or mistakenly not read what is happening. The motion itself is actually redundant, if it was ever needed, because all of the work was actually going on, and it was clear there was a commitment from the Australian government—from the Labor government—to fund and support the Torres Strait Islanders from the severe flooding that they experience.
There has been a $12 million allocation of funds—but I will come to that. If the motion actually took out things like 'condemns the minister'—because it has been the minister and the senator for Queensland, the Hon. Jan McLucas, who have been doing a lot of work on this with locals and with local authorities—then it is something I could get up and speak in support of. But as it is, there is no way that I could give support to it because it is just simply put there as an attack. It is easy to do that; it is easy to put words on paper and it is easy to come in here, speak big and act as though nothing is happening when in fact the opposite is true. Talk about trying to alter reality to fit your perceived political notions of the world!
I would recommend that all the speakers here reflect on the importance of the work being done in the Torres Strait and right across the country—particularly through the Regional Development Australia Fund. Many members would have seen that there was RDAF round 1 and RDAF round 2, which has just been announced across Australia, and quite a lot of members would have seen wonderful projects get up in their area. I will come to my electorate of Page, where a great project got up under Regional Development Australia Fund 2—I had the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government in my electorate, announcing that in conjunction with Ballina Shire Council—but this motion is directed to Queensland.
Some of the things I want to put on the record here that are important with this nonsense motion is that two weeks ago the ministers for Indigenous affairs and for regional Australia, and senator for Queensland, Jan McLucas, announced up to $2 million to help fund coastal protection works in the Torres Strait. I am told that we are still waiting to hear from the Queensland government what they are going to announce and what their contribution would be. Also, if this motion included talking about the Queensland government and what they could do, it would have more integrity—and it does not. It is a glaring omission. The $12 million funding I just referred to includes a $5 million grant to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council from round 2 of the Regional Development Australia Fund and up to $7 million in additional funding. It shows that the government is doing all that it can to support the local council, the regional authority, the communities and people living on the islands to protect their homes. I acknowledge the strong advocacy and support provided by Senator Jan McLucas from Queensland. From her Cairns base, she has travelled many times to Torres Strait to work towards finding a workable funding solution to address the community need. That is what local members or senators with a particular interest in an area do—we work to find solutions. We do not just come in here, throw a few words down on paper, have a bit of a dummy-spit in the chamber and then walk out and say, 'Job done,' before putting out a media release saying, 'Am I not wonderful?' That is how I read this motion from the member for Leichhardt. You can come in here and describe a problem, but it is more difficult to actually put up part of the solution. I come back the point that the Queensland government must surely have a role in this and that it should come to the party.
Earlier, I mentioned the biochar project in my area. It is an $8½ million project being funded to the tune of $4.3 million under RDAF round 2 and being run through Ballina Shire Council. This project is a first in Australia and it is something the shire council have worked on for a number of years. There has been a huge amount of work done in the community, which has provided great support. As a result, when the grant came through, all the groundwork was done—they are ready to roll. This project means that they will be doing their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as saving money.
I stand to support the motion of the member for Leichhardt on the flooding of communities in the Torres Strait. I commend the member for the determination and passion he has shown in bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I know Western Australia is a long way away from the Torres Strait, but, as the member for Shortland and the member for Hindmarsh would recall, we visited the Torres Strait Islands back in 2010 and ran a health inquiry up there. We saw some of the degradation of the islands while we were there.
During the last sitting, I spoke in this place about the importance of maintaining river walls in my own electorate of Swan. My electorate shares a large section of its boundary with the Swan River and I understand the importance of river walls in maintaining the foreshore and protecting existing infrastructure along the river. Despite several requests, local councils—a group of 21 of them—have received no support from the federal government in dealing with the logistical and financial challenge of maintaining this critical infrastructure. As those affected in the Torres Strait well know, this is not a problem that can just be tucked under the rug by this government. With every delay in action, the problem becomes worse and the solution more expensive to implement.
As I said, the member for Leichhardt showed considerable passion in his speech, during which he said that this is about fixing the problem and not blaming local or state governments—which is just what the member for Moreton, who followed the member for Leichhardt, did in his speech. He started going back to the blame game, something this government promised years ago it would not indulge in.
Just yesterday, we read about the latest example of reckless waste by this government, with the Sunday Telegraphwebsite and Tim Andrews from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance describing the $3.27 million blown by jet-setting bureaucrats at the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. In the last year alone, officials from the department racked up more than 6.5 million kilometres of travel, producing 1,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, while going to talkfests about the warming planet in locations such as the Maldives, Vanuatu and the Caribbean. This extravagant travel expenditure is just one more in a long line of examples of wasteful spending by this government—wasteful spending being incurred whilst critical projects are being neglected. Officials appear to have significantly less enthusiasm for visiting the affected communities in the Torres Strait than they do for travelling to five-star resorts around the world.
This is behaviour that, unfortunately. we have come to expect from the government. The government is happy to organise summits and committees and send bureaucrats to luxurious talkfests, but, as the member for Leichhardt pointed out, when it comes to the critical task of actually taking action on issues or actually solving problems—even when the solution is as obvious as it is in this case—this government falls short time and again. Simon Crean, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, made a commitment but reneged on his promise, shifting responsibility to the state and local governments and leaving locals with a commitment from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency which represents only a small fraction of what is needed to fix the problem. Instead of fixing the problem, the government is content to shift responsibility while the locals continue to suffer from flooding events and resulting damage. I note that while local council applications in my electorate are rejected and the damage bill to coastal infrastructure in the Torres Strait continues to mount, this government has spent over $328 million on international climate change initiatives to fund upgrades to infrastructure and coastal resilience overseas. That is the real crux of the matter: the government focuses on overseas projects before it focuses on Australian projects. As my colleague the member for Leichhardt has said, Torres Strait Islanders have every right to feel neglected and offended by the government's response. However, I do see hope at the end of the tunnel. The Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change listened to my recent speech on the river walls in Swan. He said that he would be happy to look at the issue and meet with some of the people from those councils, who are in Canberra at the moment, including the Mayor of the City of South Perth, Sue Doherty. He has said on a couple of occasions that he will make himself available. I applaud him for giving consideration to meet with the people who have been putting in submissions for river wall projects on the Swan River. I will finish by again stating my support for the Torres Strait Islanders. I support the member for Leichhardt. The huge commitments overseas should be matched in Australia.
I rise to talk about this motion and to note the differences between those opposite and we as a Labor government in our understandings of what leadership means. The Labor government wants to make sure that we lead in the local regions. As a Labor government, when we see a problem we get on with the job and move towards a solution. We see in this motion that is before the chamber today the classic strategy of the Liberal Party and the National Party: describing a problem, whinging about the problem, whinging about any offer of a solution to the problem and continuing in that same vein indefinitely. We have seen incredible, aggressive negativity from those opposite, with the Leader of the Opposition as the leader of those who oppose everything in more ways than one.
The reality is that the issue of the management of the sea wall in Queensland is one that the Labor Party is very much dealing with. I want to acknowledge in particular the work of Senator Jan McLucas, who has announced $12 million help fund the coastal protection works in the Torres Strait Islands. We know that she is a passionate advocate for her state of Queensland. Obviously, I believe that New South Wales is and always will be the premier state. But while I take my responsibility as a representative in the national parliament seriously, I am happy to be pleased at the success of others in making sure that those who need assistance receive it. We understand that sea walls and other coastal management measures are vital to this nation and particularly to the vulnerable Torres Strait Island communities in their battle against king tides. That is why our commitment to this region through this $12 million is a very significant one.
The question is now whether Mr Entsch will approach his Liberal-National Party colleagues in Queensland and get them to get on with the job of pulling their weight. We know that they have the classic capacity to whinge, but what are they going to do? When are they going to put some money towards meeting the needs of the community? When are they going to get on with addressing the hard issues? When are they going to address the material threats facing the people of the Torres Strait Islands?
In the time that is remaining, I want to speak about Labor's commitment to the regions through the vehicle of our regional development authorities. In my own region, I want to acknowledge the former head of my RDA, John Dawson, and his CEO, Anthony Dow. They were instrumental in helping us achieve success in our bid for funds in the first round of grants from the Regional Development Australia Fund. That round provided $890,000 for my local community. I am pleased to say that it added to the over $1 million gathered by the local community.
This money has gone to the coast community centre, a vital piece of infrastructure. This refurbishment means that this centre is going to be able to function much more effectively, offering assistance to those most in need. The new premises are expected to be opened before the end of this year, on time and on budget. The centre will then have the capacity to offer meals, shower and laundry facilities and food parcels. It will provide a community meeting room and a conference room and there be a site to make referrals for people who need help in getting that sort of advantage. It is obviously a critical piece of infrastructure in terms of building the capacity and developing the confidence of individuals. It would not have been able to be delivered under the regional rorts system that was run under the Howard government. This was a transparent process. The best bid went forward. This will have a profound and positive impact in my area, again showing Labor's leadership in getting on with the job. I am also pleased to put on the record that in the second round we were successful in getting $2.5 million in funding for the Narara Valley sporting precinct. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the new chair of our board, Dave Abrahams, and his very hardworking assistant and CEO, Andrew Roach, who made sure that we put in a fantastic bid. We have matching community funding for this money from the federal government. This $2.5 million is for a project worth $5.18 million. This project will incorporate the construction of new sporting fields, floodlighting and recreational facilities, bringing a much-needed capacity to our area. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on this very important private member's motion. I thank the member for Leichhardt for his ongoing dedication to ensuring that the sea walls in the Torres Strait Islands are maintained. There are six particular islands in the Torres Strait Regional Council area which every year are heavily affected by king tides, the islands of Saibai, Boigu, Masig, Iama, Warraber and Poruma. These islands are some of the worst hit in the world. The king tides inundate roads, homes and businesses and, in a further blow to the local communities, its cemeteries. The Torres Strait Island Regional Council commissioned a report which showed that at least $22 million is required to rebuild the sea walls in the region. On that issue, the government and the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Hotham, have not done enough. Frankly, the locals are fed up.
On 18 August 2011, this House passed with bipartisan support a motion proposed by the member for Leichhardt. This motion called on the government to commit to restore and rebuild the damaged sea walls on the outer islands of the Torres Strait. On that date, the government publicly committed itself to providing funds and the Torres Strait community took that undertaking in good faith. They were excited that there would be action—until November 2011, when the minister reneged on his promise, claiming that the issue was suddenly one for which state governments and local councils should be responsible. The minister's most recent announcement, which was on 4 June 2012, was yet another example of this government pronouncing that they are going to fund an important cause and take action on it while carefully leaving out critical details, such that the so-called funding will not be directed to where it is needed most.
The member for Leichhardt noted that the announced $5 million is a cruel hoax. Firstly, as we all know, that is simply not enough funding to adequately address the issue of the failing sea walls. They do not know where the other $7 million will come from. On top of that, the minister said that the Queensland state government has to put in $12 million as well. Perhaps if the minister visited my home state more often he would understand that after 20 years of the Australian Labor Party there is no money left. As former federal Treasurer Peter Costello advised last Friday, Labor sent Queensland almost bankrupt. It is now not in a position to commit to funding this. The Labor government did nothing in their 20 years. The federal government must recommit itself to fixing this problem now and deliver real solutions.
Yesterday, I spoke to the Mayor of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, Mr Fred Gela. Fred was locally born and educated and is passionate about the future of the Torres Strait Islands and surrounding areas. As the mayor—he is in his second term—he highlighted to me the absolute urgency of getting funding to restore the dilapidated sea walls. The situation is so serious that Fred has previously pleaded with the Prime Minister, unfortunately to no avail, for adequate funding, saying that if it is not given Torres Strait Islanders could become displaced refugees. Therefore, I speak today because it is an important opportunity to remind the government that they are overseeing serious failures in this policy area, and in many others. The minister's announcements in June came days after the member for Leichhardt tabled this motion. So I am pleased that the coalition has been able to finally pressure the government into acting, even if their announcement was insufficient.
I would also like to thank Mr Fred Gela as well as Mr Ron Saisa, the Torres Strait Regional Authority member for Saibai Island. While Ministers Crean, Macklin and McLucas have made various announcements taking credit for issues in the region, the only two people, as the member for Leichhardt has mentioned, who should receive credit and acknowledgement are Fred and Ron. They are to be commended on their hard work and dedication, and their advocacy for land and sea matters in the region. This motion calls on the government to provide funding and further investigate remediation works for the affected seawalls. I remind the government that people in the Torres Strait Islands region need to see action. They need action now not weasel words, and we need to see action quickly.
I think I might have come into debate the wrong motion because I thought it was about the Torres Strait Islands seawalls and remediation works that are needed to combat serious erosion and inundation—the same seawalls that the government have provided $12 million for in the last couple of weeks. In fact, we are now calling on the member for Ryan's colleagues in the LNP government in Queensland to match that funding and come on board, and be part of the solution, not continue to carp about the problem. I might also point out that, while the member for Ryan and others on her side of the debate are right to point out the very proactive approach of the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the Torres Strait Regional Council on this very important matter, the submission by the Torres Strait Regional Authority to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts inquiry into the effects of climate change on coastal communities pointed out that it was in fact the Queensland Labor Senator Jan McLucas who made a very impassioned plea back on 10 October 2006 to the former Howard government to take action on this issue. So I just point that out to members opposite, and I now return to the motion.
I was driving through my electorate a couple of weeks ago back from a terrific event at St Lawrence when I heard a report on the radio of the projects that were to be funded under this latest round of Regional Development funding. While I was a little disappointed that a project I was very supportive of in my own electorate had not been funded this time around, I was absolutely thrilled to hear that such a significant amount of funding was being made available to the Torres Strait Regional Authority. I mentioned the inquiry back in 2008 and 2009 when our climate change committee looked at the problems facing coastal communities, and in this case particularly Indigenous communities facing the impacts of climate change and possible sea level rise, and we heard at some length from the Torres Strait Regional Authority about the very serious issue of coastal inundation and erosion in all of the Torres Strait Islands. Six in particular were identified in their evidence. The Torres Strait Regional Authority did a terrific job of putting their case and outlining the extent of the problem, and urging remedial action. The government have come forward with $12 million towards this program of works. It is estimated that the entire program to safeguard those islands would come to $24 million, but any fair-minded person would recognise that $12 million pledged by the federal government is making a very serious attempt to play a positive role in addressing these problems. The $12 million will go to rebuilding or building seawalls and wave return walls, particularly on the most vulnerable islands of Boigu and Saibai. They were amongst the six islands that the Torres Strait Regional Authority described in evidence to our climate change committee. There has already been some significant damage to those islands. What comes up most often is the damage that has been suffered by the cemetery and to marine facilities on those islands. These seawalls will go a long way to reassuring the residents of the islands that they can continue to live safely and securely and that their community assets and their cultural heritage will be protected.
It is an example of how regional funding from this government can be made available to communities to meet their priorities. I call on the LNP government in Queensland to match this funding as a matter of priority. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to rise for the second time in this 43rd Parliament to support a motion on this issue by my very good friend and colleague, the Chief Opposition Whip and member for Leichhardt. The member's passion and interest in this problem cannot be doubted. I congratulate him on the way he represents his constituents in this place, particularly those that reside in the Torres Strait.
Of course, we are here debating the rebuilding of seawalls on the two Torres Strait Islands of Saibai and Boigu. This is a terrible story that has been going on for four years. My colleagues have comprehensively covered the background of this issue. Effectively, the seawalls that protect the villages on these mud islands have deteriorated to the extent that, when the king tides occur, intense flooding occurs and the communities get severely damaged. The member for Leichhardt has previously relayed terrible stories in this House about graves in cemeteries in Saibai getting washed out into the ocean after the terrible flooding. It is a tragedy that in the 21st century in Australia we are still seeing instances like this.
I also take intense interest in matters pertaining to the Torres Strait, particularly as they relate to my shadow portfolio areas of international development assistance. I have been working with the member for Leichhardt on issues relating to AusAID funding for tuberculosis treatment for PNG nationals, which affects the people who reside in the Torres Strait Islands. The Torres Strait Island Regional Council Mayor Fred Gela put out a press release on 1 February this year which said:
Mayor Gela said that Warren Entsch’s achievement was great in gaining Federal support when the Private Members motion received bipartisanship in regards to funding the restoration and construction of seawalls in our affected communities, only to be advised by the Federal government that it was State’s obligation to fund such issues.
"Stop passing the buck between Federal and State Government," Cr. Gela said.
"We are all Australians and we are calling upon the Federal Government to put their money where their mouth is.
"They supported the private members bill, so it is in fact their responsibility to determine how and where the funds will come from.
Then surprise, surprise, after Minister Crean reneged on a commitment—after the Labor Party supported the private members' bill—the member for Leichhardt put this motion on the Notice Paper and, guess what, the federal government announced some funding. This announcement came just a few days after the member tabled the motion but, again like so much of what this government does, there is a twist. There is always a twist. You can never take an announcement by this government on any face value.
The announcement—and I have the press release in front of me—was made that the government would commit $5 million from the Regional Development Australia Fund plus up to $7 million in additional funding, which apparently comes out of thin air because nobody knows where that $7 million is coming from. If they were genuine they would announce $12 million, straight and upfront, for the Torres Strait coming under the Regional Development Australia Fund. But now there is a catch, and there is always a catch. The Queensland government must match it with $12 million worth of contribution. What a sneaky, underhanded way of saying that you are going to provide funding. This government knows full well that the Queensland government has been left in a financially unviable state by the former Labor government. The incoming Treasury brief to the Newman government stated that the levels of spending and borrowing were unsustainable. Then we have seen the interim report of the Commission of Audit, headed by my distinguished former colleague Peter Costello, which has revealed the Queensland government debt—
Mr Neumann interjecting—
You don't like the word 'debt'; it really upsets you. The debt is $100 billion. Let me repeat that: $100 billion. You hate that word 'debt'. Well, your previous state government colleagues put us in this situation, yet this government makes an announcement that it is dependent and hinges on the funding by the state government. As the member for Leichhardt said, this is a cruel hoax.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Order! There will be less interjection.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was very timely. As the member for Leichhardt says, this is a cruel hoax. It is smoke and mirrors, and every federal Labor member from the great state of Queensland should hang their head in shame for the damage that their party is doing to our great state. I fully support the member for Leichhardt, and I fully congratulate him for his tireless efforts, for his never-ending work and particularly for putting this motion. I commend the motion to the House.
This federal Labor government has committed $33.6 million across eight projects with a value of more than $134 million in my state of Queensland. We have done that, and there are a number of projects, two in my electorate. The Somerset Regional Council received a second round of funding of $500,000 towards a $1 million Kilcoy Showgrounds facility development, and the Ipswich City Council received $5 million towards the $15 million Robelle Domain stage 2 parkland development.
I also noticed $5 million going to the Torres Strait Island Regional Council towards the $24 million Torres Strait coastal protection works. I then decided to have a look at the application and what the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government Arts and Sport said on their project fact sheet, which I would like those opposite to have a bit of a look at from time to time, because it talks about the Torres Strait coastal protection works helping to protect low-lying island communities in the Torres Strait from destructive coastal erosion. Then there is the matter of how the project will be funded. The application was made by the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, which asked for $5 million from the federal government and made the point that they could leverage a further $19 million in partnership funding. That is what they said, and the project was to be completed by 30 June 2015. We have come up with $12 million: there is $5 million from Regional Development Australia, and Senator Jan McLucas announced up to $12 million to help fund coastal protection works in the Torres Strait.
I have heard those opposite from Queensland waxing lyrical about the member for Leichhardt, but the Regional Development Australia fund and the money we are rolling out—over $1 billion—is funded under the minerals resource rent tax. Every member opposite, including the member for Leichhardt, voted against that legislation, which provides the funding source from which we have given money to the Torres Strait council in relation to this particular Torres Strait coastal protection work. So the member for Leichhardt really has a gall to come into this chamber and say to us that we should be providing all this money when he and all those opposite voted against the very $5 million that is being funded under the Regional Development Australia fund, opposing every last dollar and cent for the Torres Strait coastal protection works.
They are not acknowledging the fact that the Torres Strait Island Regional Council actually put a proposal to the federal government asking for the $5 million. Those opposite say we should be providing $24 million. There is no recognition of the fact that their government—the LNP state government—has not put a brass razoo towards this project, or of the fact that the regional council said that they could get partnership leveraging funding assuming that they could get some money from the LNP state government, as we expected. But no; the LNP state government have just gutted road funding, by hundreds of millions of dollars. All those members opposite who say that we should be putting more money into infrastructure in Queensland should take note of the fact that their state colleagues are gutting road and infrastructure funding in Queensland.
We called on them to put the $12 million into this project in the Torres Strait at the same time as we have doubled funding for infrastructure in Queensland: $8.5 billion for road, rail and port infrastructure. But those opposite not only voted against that in terms of the Regional Development Australia Fund that we are providing for the Torres Strait Island Regional Council they voted against every last dollar and cent that we are putting into Queensland in that regard. If anybody should hang their heads in shame, it should be the member for Leichhardt and all his LNP comrades and colleagues from Queensland, who opposed this funding.
We are happy to work and provide funding for regional Australia and the Torres Strait to take action in relation to the damaging effects of climate change in the Torres Strait and all of Queensland. We are prepared to do it. We are partnering with the local councils, whether it is the Somerset Regional Council, the Ipswich City Council or the Torres Strait. Those opposite are opposing every dollar and cent. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As we now understand from the report into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which was tabled earlier this morning, the public is ready to do the right thing and remove discrimination from our marriage laws. Sixty-four per cent of the people who responded to the survey conducted by the committee supported this bill, and over a quarter of a million people responded to the survey, the biggest ever response for a House of Representatives inquiry.
The Australian population has moved on. The Australian population is relaxed about someone marrying the person that they love. But we should support this bill not just because it is popular but because it is right. Love is a powerful force. Love knows no boundaries. It knows no limits. And love knows when it has found its partner. There have been many attempts throughout history to limit love, and all have failed. As we move further into the 21st century, I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail yet again and that full marriage equality will become a reality.
It is important, not just because we can no longer continue to discriminate against people just because of who they love it is also important because who are we in parliament to tell people in this country that the person they love is not someone they can celebrate their love with in front of their friends and in front of their families simply because of their sexuality? That ultimately is the issue. The arguments against this bill ultimately come down to an argument against same-sex-attracted people themselves and their relationships.
It is more than just preserving people's individual rights, though. It is more than giving effect to what the Australian public wants. It is also sending a very, very important message, from this parliament out to the community, that we believe that love is equal. As we speak, there is no doubt a boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to; there is a girl at high school who is wanting to invite her partner to the school formal and has been told she cannot do it because her partner is a girl. When we have same-sex-attracted people in this country more than four times as likely to commit suicide and when we know that increases the further out that you get from the cities and into the rural and country areas, then we have an obligation in parliament to send a message to every member of the Australian community that you are valued, and that your love and the person that you choose to spend your life with are just as valuable and just as respected as anyone else's. We need to end the situation where we say that in Australia there are two classes of people and some have greater rights than others. It is time for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to get out of the way and allow history to take its course and for parliament to give effect to the will of the Australian people. Unfortunately, we have a situation where one side of the parliament, the Labor Party, has a policy in favour of equal marriage but their members are not obliged to vote for it. Given that, and given that we have the Prime Minister, with a group of MPs, opposing change, to see reform in this parliament we are now going to be reliant on coalition members of goodwill. I know that there are members of the coalition who support this change, but we are in the situation where Labor members are able to have a free vote and the coalition, the party of freedom of choice and the party that is, supposedly, about giving its MPs the right to vote as they wish, is restricting its members from voting according to their conscience. This is the party that says that individuals should be able to do as they choose, so long as it does not harm someone else, and that freedom of choice should be paramount. It seems that stops at someone's door and you are not allowed to marry the person that you love.
I hope that we see reform in this parliament. I will not be pushing this bill to a vote quickly, because at the moment that would fail, but I am confident that in this parliament we can see reform if the Leader of the Opposition allows a conscience vote.
Is the motion seconded?
In order to allow the debate to proceed I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I rise to oppose the bill in its entirety. I rise to speak against the bill and to reaffirm my long-held and firm views that marriage is between a man and a woman. I rise also to acknowledge the coalition's view that we will vote on this issue as a matter of policy. We went to the last election with a firm view expressed to the Australian people that we would not be looking to change the definition of marriage and that we believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. More importantly, we believe in holding our election promises and keeping our word. Our word was that we would vote on it as a matter of policy and, despite the remonstrations of the member for Melbourne, we will not be changing our view on that. We will not be altering our view that this is a matter of policy. In line with our firm commitment to the Australian people that we made solemnly at the last election, we will adhere to the view given at the last election and we will vote against this bill and against any bills that seek to achieve the same thing by watering down in any way the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The marriage equality campaign has been driven by elements of our society including—and not the least being—the Greens, of which the member for Melbourne is the deputy leader. That marriage equality campaign has, deceptively, given the public the impression that discrimination still persists in Australian law for same-sex couples. Let me categorically make a statement: it does not exist; there is no discrimination at all. As family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson said in his submission to the senate inquiry:
In Australia, functional equality has already been achieved.
I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions, other than the right to call the relationship a marriage. Certainly that is so in federal law. For example, there is complete equality in rights in relation to the division of property and the payment of maintenance on relationship breakdown. The Prime Minister pointed out on Q&Aon Monday, 11 June that there is no practical discrimination against same-sex couples. In 2008 I was here, in the House, and I voted for the removal of 85 laws. That was supported unanimously by both sides of the House and it removed all discrimination against same-sex couples from Commonwealth law. State law was generally ahead of the Commonwealth on this, as a matter of interest, and relationship registers or their equivalents existed in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to ensure there was no discrimination at a state or territory level. The issue that has been disingenuously pushed in our community—that this is somehow about discrimination—is patently and utterly false. No discrimination currently exists in law against same-sex couples: all have been removed.
I am equally concerned about the freedom of speech aspects that have been driven by the Greens and others in this campaign for marriage equality. It has been driving a whole range of alternative voices in the debate. There has been public demonisation. People have used a whole range of dreadful labels against the likes of the Australia Christian Lobby and other supporters of marriage. In fact, Victoria's Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, Professor Kuruvilla George, was forced to resign as a commissioner on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because he simply participated in a submission to the Senate inquiry which supported retaining the definition of marriage. There were calls by gay activists for tennis great Margaret Court's name to be removed from an arena at the Melbourne Park tennis centre because she disagreed with same-sex marriage. In every jurisdiction where marriage or something able to be described in the law as the 'same as marriage' has been given, this sort of situation has arisen.
Proponents of marriage equality have tried to assure the church that it will never be forced to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples. Yet Denmark, the first country in the world to recognise civil partnerships for same-sex couples, this month legislated to force the church to provide same-sex weddings. Everything that the Greens have driven out there in the public purveyance in terms of this bill has been wrong. No discrimination exists. Their campaign forcing people to move away from their jobs, forcing views to change because of this, is disingenuous at best. The coalition will not be supporting this bill in its entirety or in its piecemeal.
I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. One of the lasting results of second-wave feminism in the 1970s is marriage equality. That term was used to mean equality of the sexes within marriage—something I believe we in this House all support. Some people still think that is what marriage equality means. But this seemingly innocuous term has been hijacked by those who want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples—for the simple reason that this will maximise support. Most people support marriage and almost everyone supports equality. It sounds so reasonable.
Speaking at the recent Sydney Writers' Festival, early gay-rights activist and author, and now Director of the Institute for Human Security at La Trobe University, Professor Dennis Altman, made some very candid and very revealing points in a panel on same-sex marriage. First, he correctly pointed out that marriage was established to deal with issues related to the procreation of children. Second, he wants the entire Marriage Act to be abolished, saying that marriage sends 'dangerous signals' to people who are not in long-term relationships. Same-sex marriage therefore diminishes the cultural achievement of most gay people, in particular gay men, who are actively non-monogamous and, as Altman said, 'do not need the sanctity of state or church to legitimise their relationship'. He added that same-sex marriage is 'a conservative form of winning respectability'.
Supporting Altman's call to remove the words 'a man and a woman' as a first step to abolishing the Marriage Act, prominent gay writer Masha Gessen attacked those who claim that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage, saying: 'It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won't change … We want to abolish marriage.' Her words confirm my previous speech in this House, when I said redefining marriage would change the meaning of marriage for all Australians. Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless.
Given my public stand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I have received much feedback. Some same-sex couples have spoken to me directly of their desire to get married. But other gay individuals, echoing Dennis Altman's view, said they cannot understand how any gay person would want to embrace an unambiguously age-old heterosexual institution. I have found that most of the support for same-sex marriage has come from people who are heterosexual, particularly young people, including teenagers, who have abstract and less developed notions of equality based on inexperience. Some supporters of same-sex marriage were downright abusive and intolerant of my view, and made it clear that they will never vote for me unless I support their view. That is their right, of course, and I do accept this. However, I do not accept that the move to change the Marriage Act to accommodate same-sex couples is a matter of equality or human rights. It is not about equality for all since there has never been marriage equality, as I outlined in detail in my previous speech on this matter. Marriage, in my view, is therefore only possible between two people of the opposite sex.
Marriage as a legal institution corresponds to the reality of what marriage is: the unique sharing by a man and a woman in all aspects of life. However, the purpose of marriage as a legal institution relates specifically to the distinctive biological possibilities of this union. Some people say, wrongly, that this means couples who do not produce children are not really married. Whether or not children are produced does not change this, as I can attest from my own circumstances on this very day—the 29th anniversary of my marriage to Adriana. Happy anniversary, Honey.
People who want to redefine marriage claim that this will affect only a small number of Australians. In fact, the opposite is true. The definition of an institution determines the way society relates to that institution. Without children, there is no need for marriage. Marriage serves the public interest by connecting mothers and fathers and their children, and holding biological parents accountable for raising their children. That is the crux of this matter.
In joining this debate, I do intend to participate in a very respectful and moderate manner, which is the tone that I believe is required in our community on this very sensitive issue. For the record, I support the recognition of legal rights within same-sex relationships, but I do not support proposals to change the Marriage Act. I am also on the public record in the past as having expressed my support for all political parties to actually grant their members a conscience vote on this issue. My view of a conscience vote may be different from some other members, but it is my view that a conscience vote is not that straightforward. I believe that members should examine their own personal views on a topic but also recognise the views of their electorates, and recognise their role, duty and responsibility as members of parliament.
I think in all good conscience, as a representative of a particular seat, we need to recognise that different electorates have different views on this issue and we need to balance those two issues—our personal views and those of our electorates—and, if there is a conflict, maybe face a tough decision as an individual. I have previously sought the views of my electorate in relation to this issue in a community survey. Like other members, I have received petitions both for and against this topic. My own survey attracted about 700 responses. But I do point out that the survey was self-selecting; it appeared in a newspaper so it should not be regarded as a scientific opinion poll by any stretch. I did receive strong feedback and 64 per cent of respondents to that survey in my electorate were opposed to the same-sex marriage. I am not using that today as a reason to justify my position; I am just putting it out there as a matter of course that different electorates have different views.
The Gippsland electorate, overall, is opposed to same-sex marriage as it stands today, and they support the current system that is in place. I have received many emails both for and against the topic. The majority of emails from within my electorate have been supportive of my position—that is, to continue with the current system and to oppose to same-sex marriage. But that is not the sole basis of my opposition to the changes to the Marriage Act. I believe that as a matter of political consistency and as a reflection on my own role here and my own personal integrity, it would be inappropriate for me as the member for Gippsland to support any changes in this current term of parliament, because I expressed a view in opposition to same-sex marriage in the lead-up to the last election. Unlike the Prime Minister and her breach of trust in relation to the carbon tax, if I intend to change my position the only fair thing to do for the people of Gippsland would be to take a principled course of action and campaign on that basis in the lead-up to the next election, and then adopt that position in a future parliament, just as the member of the Melbourne has done in his own seat. The member for Melbourne, who has put forward this bill today, to his credit had a principled view. That is his view. He took it to his voters and they voted for him, so I have no grudge to bear against the member for Melbourne for taking his position forward. But the position I took forward—and I will be principled in that position for the people of Gippsland—is to remain in opposition to changes to the Marriage Act.
There is only a short amount of time to examine the issues here today, and I am sure there will be future opportunities to debate this issue, but I want to refer to one area of concern that bothers me in relation to these proposed changes, and that is this issue of retrospectivity. I believe there is an element of retrospectivity in the proposals to change the definition under the Marriage Act, and that is because there are millions of Australian couples today who signed up to marriage under the current definition. If we change the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act, we are fundamentally altering the nature of the contract that they have entered into, so I think there is an element of retrospectivity to this debate and to the legislation that is proposed. I know that for a lot of people that is of no consequence whatsoever, and I acknowledge that. They are completely comfortable with such a change, and that does not affect their definition or their own relationship. But for others in the community this is a very big deal indeed, and they have expressed that opinion to me quite strongly. They signed up for marriage under the current definition, and they believe in the sanctity of that definition and the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
I also do not accept the view put forward by others that it is some form of discrimination against same-sex couples to maintain the consistent approach of the current definition and protect the position of couples who have already been married under the existing Marriage Act. I also do not accept the view of some people who have contacted my office, who try to infer that being opposed to same-sex means you are bigoted or homophobic. I do not believe that is a fair assumption to draw. I think it is possible to be opposed to same-sex marriage and still support the urgency of some ongoing efforts, both within my community and more broadly, to work together as a community to support same-sex couples, particularly in regional areas, where younger gay people are over-represented in the incidence of self-harm, mental illness and suicide.
So I will continue to participate in this debate. I believe it is an important debate, and I believe it is critical for members to be very moderate and respectful in their language and not to inflame what can be a very divisive issue in our communities. (Time expired)
I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Like many people in this House, I have relatives and friends living in loving, monogamous same-sex relationships, and I respect and love them. They are cherished, and their love should be accepted, honoured and understood. I love my sister-in-law Rhonda and her partner, Marion. I have friends like Andrew, Clinton and others. But, respectfully, I do not agree with same-sex marriage. As a member of the Australian Labor Party and this government, I was very pleased to vote for more than 80 pieces of legislative amendment which removed discrimination on issues such as immigration, superannuation and the like—without dissension from those opposite.
There have been many wild and ridiculous claims in relation to these matters, on both sides. For instance, from those more fundamentalist extremists from a religious point of view, there have been some ridiculous claims in relation to polygamy et al. This is simply nonsense. I think they are repugnant and really quite disingenuous in relation to their position. But equally, for those people who have argued that this is solely about marriage equality, I think that that same comment in relation to being disingenuous is also the case. For instance, we do not have a situation in this country where one man can marry one woman and then be married to a second woman. That is bigamy, an offence in Australian law. We have prohibitions on marriage between people in close blood relationships. We also have a situation where we have restrictions on the capacity of children to marry. I think it is a clever marketing ploy. I tip my hat to it, but I think that it is disingenuous to argue that it is solely about marriage equality.
I think that marriage between a man and a woman was in the mind of the framers of the Australian Constitution when they enumerated section 51. It gave the power to the new Commonwealth government to legislate in relation to divorce and marriage. I think there is considerable argument in relation to the capacity of the Commonwealth government to legislate in the area of same-sex marriage.
As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs we saw real dispute on this particular matter with constitutional limits of the Commonwealth government to make laws in this area. In written and oral submissions there were disagreements in relation to this. Ultimately, if the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation, I am sure that those constitutional limits will be tested in the High Court. But steeped in history, in religion, in culture and in our law is the concept of the old definition that marriage is between a man and a woman. That cannot be denied. It is part of our history and our tradition going back to ancient times. It is part of English law and Australian law. I do not ever think that the framers of the Constitution thought that the Commonwealth government had the power to deal with this issue.
It has significant repercussions to our society. I believe that a marriage between a man and a women is a fundamental institution of our society. I cast no criticism on those people who find love—no matter how they find it—in adult relationships. I have acted for plenty of people in same-sex relationships when I was a practising lawyer in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. I know many colleagues from my days as a lawyer who were in same-sex relationships. But fundamentally, before we mess with the concept of marriage held by so many Australians, we need widespread and strong community consensus. We do not have it; therefore, I do not support the bill. (Time expired)
I too rise to oppose the bill. I understand there have been a number of speakers who have put this view this morning. I think it is very important that opposition to the bill is articulated clearly in this place, because this is a contested issue in our community at this time. I have had very vigorous communication from a large number of members in my community seeking me to stand and defend the current definition of marriage on their behalf. I know that there will be tabling of documents today regarding an inquiry into this bill and data related to that. I can reflect from my own local community that 70 per cent of the people who have communicated with my office on this matter oppose any change to the current definition of marriage.
I would like to also make an observation from conversations with people in my local community. This is often an issue where views that hold to the current definition are ascribed to older people who are somewhat out of touch with the current values and milieu of our society. In fact, the reality is that there are many young people who speak to me as well. There are many people who absolutely applaud the Labor federal government's amendments to legislation in our very first term to ensure equality before the law. The reality is that they accept that, they are proud of that and they absolutely want to go on the record as having no opposition to homosexuality but much the contrary: to be very clear in their support for the current definition of marriage.
I also want to indicate the large number of submissions that came to the inquiry from the Sikh community, from Uniting Care and also from that great supporter of community social justice, the Salvation Army. I again put on the record my opposition to the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I thank colleagues for taking on this debate with regard to military superannuation and the many concerns in the community in relation to equity and justice within the military superannuation scheme. There is a large and frustrated community of ex-service men and women who feel that the standard of living entitlements are not keeping pace with existing fundamentals within the military superannuation scheme. This motion was, effectively, put through this very chamber nearly three years ago by me and was passed with the full support of the House. Yet we still see frustration, concern and a very active campaign, particularly online, of the ex-service community, who want to see more access to equity and justice.
I accept that there are some realities that government does need to deal with in considering any changes. They relate to cost and, if Parliamentary Library figures are to be believed, there are some substantial costs in relation to any changes in this area. There are issues in relation to impacts on the cash balance and the fiscal balance. There are issues in relation to clawback within the scheme, acknowledging that any increases do potentially have an impact on other arrangements such as those to do with age pension payments. That does need to be sensitively considered through any changes in this regard. Also, there has been ongoing debate since the early 1970s in relation to establishing the appropriate link between indexation with regard to the military superannuation pension and the issue of purchasing power to guard against erosion by inflation. Report after report has been unable to resolve this issue of a link.
The use of CPI methodology is based on recommendations of Professor AH Pollard in 1973. It has been challenged in reports such as the Jess review of 1970. There were Senate select committee reports in 2001 and 2002 and in 2008 there was a Senate standing committee report. ABS is still grappling with it, the Podger review grappled with it, all the way through to the Matthews report in 2008, and remained unable to resolve this issue of how to adequately link military superannuation schemes with those issues around purchasing power and the CPI.
I accept the difficulty in dealing with this issue. However, there are many in the community who are aggrieved and their concerns deserve to be heard in this House. There are many who are frustrated that government, report after report, seems to get the concerns about a lack of purchasing power within the current military superannuation scheme, yet, when it comes to actually doing something about it, the arguments of cost and difficulty in making those changes seem to be directed towards those who have done military service. So there is, I think, some justification in the argument that 'why is it only those who have done military service who get the book of government thrown at them when it comes to all being too hard?' Why not engage the military superannuation and ex-service community in trying to work through the many challenges in trying to answer the at least half-dozen reports that have been done in this area since the 1970s and come up with the right and appropriate scheme that can deliver equity and justice for those who have served this country so well and so often? I ask the government to consider this again and I hope this motion has the full support of the House.
This is the third motion on the indexing of DFRDB pensions to be moved in the last four years. The first was moved by the member for Lyne, the second was moved by me and now the member for Lyne has moved a third motion. I suggest this one will also be agreed to by all members. Yet still nothing has been done.
I support the member for Lyne in his comments. I introduced a private member's bill, through Senator Ronaldson, in the Senate to achieve the very issue we are talking about now. Even though the government agreed twice previously—in the member for Lyne's motion and my motion, which were exactly the same thing, to index DFRDB by the same mechanism as the age pension—on the voices in the last two motions, when a private member's bill went up to achieve the outcome, the government voted against it.
The government has form on this. In 2007 they went to the election promising to fix military superannuation, and they did not. They failed. They failed the veterans of Australia. In 2010, Tony Abbott went to the election with a policy to index DFRDB. On the back of that announcement at the 2010 election, we took a private member's bill into the Senate—because when we announce something at an election as something we are going to do, we follow through with it. But again the government voted against it, as did the Greens.
What did you do in 11 years in government? Eleven years of inaction!
Madam Deputy Speaker, you should know better than to speak out of turn. Yet even in the Greens policy it says quite clearly:
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown wrote to Minister Tanner earlier this year to urge him to re-consider the government's response to the Matthews' review and revise the indexation for Defence Force superannuation pensions. We strongly believe that the Government should now act to provide wage-based indexation on the same terms as the Aged Pension …
That is straight from the Greens policy, and yet when we put forward a private member's bill in the Senate, the Greens voted it down. They voted against their own policy. That is how disingenuous the coalition partner of the Labor Party, the Greens, are. Bob Brown said, 'We can't afford it.' The government said it will cost $175 million; we need savings. As part of the private member's bill that was taken up in 2011 to index DFRDB pensions, $300 million worth of savings were found over the forward estimates by reducing the increase in the public service from 12.4 per cent to a miserly 8.4 per cent—a fairly strong increase nonetheless—but there was a four per cent decrease in the growth of the public service within the Department of Defence. That was yielding about $300 million worth of savings—twice the amount of savings needed to pay for the coalition's DFRDB policy. And still the Greens—and, indeed, Senator Xenophon—voted against it. The government said the savings were not real and then three or four months later the Minister for Defence stood up and said, 'I'm here to announce $300 million worth of savings by tapering off the increase in the public service, taking out a piece of work, almost 100 per cent. The level of disingenuousness of this government is completely and utterly staggering.
We believe in the unique nature of service. If I look at the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations in the inquiry of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the coalition's bill, the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations stated:
In no other calling, occupation or profession has the State the power to accept or demand the surrender of these rights. The Unique Nature of Military Service deserves unique solutions and also places a great burden on the Government as the "employer” to ensure that ADF members are looked after both during and after Service.
The RSL further said as a submission to the Senate inquiry:
An examination of legislation for the Australian Defence Force shows that in almost all respects, the Parliament has been consistent since Federation in regarding the nation's armed forces as a separate and quite distinctly different part of Australian society.
We agree with them that the military is required to do a range of actions on behalf of the nation and that that service is unique. We believe in the unique nature of military service. We accept the concept of the unique nature of military service. We have seen it in action. We have experienced it. We have committed to it, which is why we once again commit upon government that we will fairly index the DFRDB.
This has been a vexed issue for this parliament with respect to Defence and veterans' policy over a number of years so I think that it is important in that context that we explain a little bit of that history. It is an issue which governments have grappled with not just over the last four or five years but quite a while before then, and I draw this particular point in those circumstances.
Those who come here today, as the member for Fadden has done, and state that without doubt, unequivocally, the coalition will act upon the commitment they have now made, needs to remember that for 11 years they did not do it. It was not an issue that was raised only in the last four to five years; it was an issue raised regularly over the previous decade. Throughout the previous decade the coalition government, of which for most of that period the now opposition leader was a member of cabinet, said no. I have even seen recent comments which have suggested that the former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus and now thinks that this is an issue that needs to be acted upon.
I have got to give marks though to the former finance minister, former Senator Nick Minchin, who at least has had the courage of his convictions to be consistent with respect to this issue when recently he wrote in a letter that was printed which said:
It is easy to feel sympathy for the demands made by retired defence personnel for improved superannuation ...
However, all claims made upon the public purse, even those by retired defence personnel, should be considered rigorously and on their merits.
This particular claim was properly rejected by the Howard government, of which I was a member, as well as by the Labor government.
There is no inherent logic to the proposition that a public sector employment related superannuation payment should be indexed in exactly the same fashion as a means-tested welfare benefit in this case, the aged pension.
Defence personnel have their superannuation payments indexed the same way that all other commonwealth public servants on defined-benefit schemes have their payments indexed.
The payments are maintained in real terms, which is what they signed up for. Changing the indexation for defence personnel would create immediate demands for the same change to be made for all other former commonwealth employees, at a potentially enormous cost to taxpayers.
The government should continue to reject this demand.
That is the position of Nick Minchin, former senator, former finance minister, long-time member of the cabinet of the previous government, long-time cabinet colleague of the now opposition leader who has done an amazing backflip compared to his past. Others—and there may be some here—would remember not only that, but that when he was minister for employment and workplace relations, his department actually put forward a submission in respect of considering related issues around the question of compensation in which he argued that defence personnel and people in that area should be treated no differently from other Commonwealth employees. So we have seen a change, and I think that is something that really needs to be remembered by the defence community.
Is military service unique—yes, it is. What do you then do to recognise that uniqueness? A range of things can be done, and a range of things have been done. For example, there is the capacity to access superannuation at an earlier stage under the scheme we are talking about than is the case overwhelmingly for people in the public sector. The fact is that there are various compensatory payments made through the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the impacts of military service. It is recognised.
I would like to address one point that was made in passing, which was the claim that I as a shadow minister prior to the 2007 election went around the country spruiking the fact that we would make changes with respect to this policy. That is incorrect. I must admit that I did when asked on rare occasions make the point that we were committed to a review of superannuation indexation arrangements. That review occurred and was acted on. A set of decisions were made that are well known to the Defence community, decisions that they were not happy with. But the fact that there was a commitment to a review does not commit us to change. I certainly made that point on a number of occasions prior to the 2007 election. I understand the concerns that have been raised by the veteran community. I support their right to pursue those concerns. I wish them well. But we need to try to remove some of the hypocrisy from the arguments that have been put by those opposite about this serious issue.
I rise today to speak on this motion because Australia's veterans and their families deserve a fair go. This motion addresses many serious issues for the Ryan electorate and I thank the member for Lyne for putting this motion today. My office has received literally hundreds of emails and telephone calls regarding fair indexation and the government's failure to appropriately deal with this issue. Fair indexation is one of the most important issues affecting the veteran and ex-service community. I spoke in my maiden speech about Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, which is in the Ryan electorate, and I acknowledged the very valued contribution made by their service men and women. In that speech, I recommitted again to fair indexation of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Scheme, the DFRBS, and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, DFRDBS. It is something that I will continue to fight for.
The coalition believes in the unique nature of military service and believes that current indexation, which utilises the CPI alone, does not adequately reflect changes in the cost of living of ex-service men and women, Australians who have given much to their nation. Fortunately, I am pleased to reconfirm that the coalition has a positive plan to address this problem. This is not a new issue. The Leader of the Opposition announced prior to the 2010 federal election that military superannuation pensions would be fairly indexed. The coalition acted on 18 November 2010 when we introduced into the Senate the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010. But it was a shameful day for the Australian Senate and for Australia when Labor and the Greens combined to vote down this bill. That was a clear demonstration that the Prime Minister, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens are not committed to improving the lives of military superannuants and their families.
On 14 March this year, I recommitted to the reform of military superannuation pensions when I signed the coalition's pledge to continue our commitment to Australia's veterans. This pledge has also been signed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and many other members of the coalition. That pledge says: 'The coalition will ensure DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions are indexed in the same way as age and service pensions. All DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over will benefit.' If we had a government that was capable and responsible, a government that knew how to manage the economy for all Australians, then finding this funding for military superannuants would not be difficult. In fact, it would be paramount. This government is splashing $56 billion plus on the NBN without even referring it to the Productivity Commission but says that it cannot afford to fund this change, which is critical for equity and justice.
The government demonstrated their lack of commitment in this year's budget by announcing that they wish to seek to maintain a yet-to-be-delivered surplus by deferring spending of $33.7 million on compensation arrangements for veterans and giving higher priority to cost blow-outs in immigration detention centres and carbon tax advertisements. This is a slap in the face to veterans. Veterans with whom I have spoken have said how offended they are about these delays. It is simply not appropriate to delay changes recommended in the Campbell review for two years until July 2014 while at the same time wasting taxpayers' money on carbon tax advertisements. This government clearly has its priorities wrong when it comes to doing the right thing for veterans. It is absolutely crucial that the government commit to fully support fair and just military superannuation pensions. It is clear, however, that the only way to deliver this very important reform is to change the government. Should the coalition be elected into government by the Australian people, we will look after all military superannuants and their families because that is the right and just thing to do.
I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lyne. Thank you very much for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. Having had the benefit of being in the parliament for 14 years, unlike the two previous speakers, I know that this is not a new issue; it is not something that has just sprung from a well that someone has decided to do something about. Indeed, one of the big problems with this is that for 11 years under the Howard government nothing was done. Promise after promise was made and review after review was held. The Podger review came out. It was not even released. No-one talked about it. This festering sore of an issue has been allowed to gather steam.
The difficulty is that nobody has said no. One thing in life that you do not want to hear is 'No'. Nobody has mounted the case as to why this should not happen. They have promised reviews. Indeed, Labor was at fault in this as well—we promised and had a review, the Matthews review. The Matthews review said that there should be no change. We have built up a level of expectation among our service men and women, and that is unfair. Our service men and women deserve better than that. They deserve an answer one way or another and not this continual playing of politics with their lives. It has been an ongoing debate, with several reviews. For the last speaker to make statements about what the next coalition government will do is cant hypocrisy, because they never did it in the past.
Indeed, changing indexation methodology may be inappropriate, inequitable for other Commonwealth superannuants and indeed very costly. Where will the money be found? The men and women of our Defence Forces do an amazing job. We should not be playing around with their service. We should recognise it and not use it as a political football. They need to understand that the benefits that they receive are above and beyond those of other people—as they should be, because what they do for their country is above and beyond that of other people. They receive currently higher employer contribution rates of 18 per cent to 20 per cent depending on service time, compared with the nationally legislated rate of nine per cent, which is going to become 12 per cent. There are sovereign guarantees within the fund so that their rates do not go up and down with fluctuations in the market. They can receive lump sum payments. They can access, as they should, their superannuation immediately upon service retirement. They do not have to wait until reaching preservation age as others do.
Understandably, this is a matter that many people feel passionately about. I have had many discussions with my service veteran communities. We need to see the best outcome for those in retirement. It needs to be clarified that superannuation retirement pay is not the same as the age pension. Superannuation is an employment based benefit whereas the age pension is a means tested income support payment that is part of our social security system. I say to many in my electorate: 'You never want to be on a pension. Work hard and never end up on a pension.' We should not be comparing these two benefits. They are not the same. These payments serve different purposes and are provided for different reasons. It is not relevant to compare indexation, as indeed Nick Minchin has stated quite eloquently, with the member for Bruce reading that into the Hansard. It is not relevant to compare them. For many people, the age pension is their only source of income. For many Defence personnel, their Defence Force super is not their only source of income.
However, there are individuals who are receiving less than or the equivalent of the age pension on their Defence Force super. Indeed, many in my electorate who have Commonwealth superannuation are receiving less than or the equivalent of the age pension. We need to deal with that issue. But that is a separate issue. Let us deal with that lingering sore but not by taking up a sledgehammer—which many want to do—to change indexation. Let us deal with those people who are caught in a bind and not put a huge impost upon the budget by going a different route—a route the coalition never chose when they were in government. We need to be seeking the right and just income for our service men and women because they have done so much for us.
In his 2008 Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemesa review the ALP said it would do upon coming to government—Mr Matthews said:
… it would need to be generally accepted that an employer retains a responsibility to compensate former employees for improvements in productivity, as reflected in salary rises, which occur after an employee leaves them. This is not a generally accepted responsibility in Australia.
The view from Matthews was that you cannot keep compensating people. The difficulty with the compensation issue is that it will reward those on the highest income and will actually not fix those who are left behind at the bottom. (Time expired)
This Labor government has not done the right and proper thing by veterans as far as their superannuation entitlements are concerned. I acknowledge what the member for Chisholm has just said. If that is so, let us work together as a parliament for those people she rightly praised in her speech. For people who have bravely and willingly laid their lives on the line for their country, the present indexation levels are unacceptable and need to be rectified. The government's continued refusal to pay adequate and fair compensation to ex-service personnel raises many questions. Why does the government continue to discriminate against military superannuants by not indexing their superannuation to retain purchasing power, as promised by their employer when they joined their respective service? Why do the minister and his department continue to neglect the nation's obligation to honour enlistment conditions—contract vested property—and engage instead in continuous extraneous rhetoric, spin and political posturing? Serving and retired members of the Australian Defence Force should not be treated as second-class citizens.
This is a big issue for the Riverina and for Wagga Wagga, a triservice city, because many defence people retire to the region because of the quality of the regional lifestyle. If fair indexation is affordable for some 3½ million age pensioners and other welfare beneficiaries, and if generous indexation is affordable for certain parliamentary and judicial superannuation pensioners, why is fair indexation not affordable for military superannuation pensioners?
Australian Defence Force people deserve substance, not a so-called fact sheet, the contents of which can be disputed all the way through. Our veterans served their country selflessly and at great personal risk, as we all know too well. In retirement, they, their widows and their families deserve to have their employment conditions honoured as faithfully as they provided their gallant service. As a condition of employment, fair indexation must be a nondiscretionary obligation in the budget. Surely in a country such as ours, where a fair go is one of the cornerstones of our culture, just things such as this are always affordable. When will the government take real action to fix this? Why does the government permit a military condition of service to continue to be breached? The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who claims to be well aware of the concerns of the veteran community, would surely understand this. This condition of service provides for retirement pay, a superannuation pension which maintains its purchasing power. Service people themselves compulsorily contribute to it. The nation is duty bound to honour that employment condition; ipso facto, the budget should provide—veterans argue—for fair indexation as a nondiscretionary item before other discretionary items.
Fair indexation of military superannuation pensions is not a new or improved benefit but a condition of employment. It has been and remains a condition of military service that superannuation pensions maintain their purchasing power. That is why the parliament made provision for that to be done when the schemes were established. This was an employment condition, if you like, or contract which established vested property at the time of enlistment. The cost to provide for fair indexation to meet that condition of service is estimated by the coalition at $100 million over four years before clawbacks—a figure supported by renowned economic commentator Peter Thornton. Of course, any cost to the taxpayer is moot given that proper indexation was a condition of employment and is thus, or should be—according to those who stand to lose out if this issue is not addressed—a nondiscretionary obligation on the public purse. The government's continuing refusal to address this issue cannot be reconciled with Labor's current platform which says it will 'continue to explore equitable and affordable mechanisms for the improvement' of military pensions.
Failure to justly index military superannuation pensions comes at a significant cost to veterans' purchasing power. That cost for an average superannuant on $23,000 per annum who has been retired for 15 years is the loss of some $280 per fortnight in real purchasing power which they would have had if their super had been justly indexed at the same rate as age pensioners. With the cost of living increasing all the time and the carbon tax—certain to place even greater pressures on those relying on a pension to make ends meet—real purchasing power becomes an even more burdensome, everyday issue. Fair indexation of military superannuation pensions to maintain their purchasing power is a founding principle of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits, and Military Superannuation and Benefits acts. This purchasing power is a condition of service and veterans plan their lives in retirement on that basis.
Australia has a magnificent record of service in war and peacekeeping operations since Federation, with nearly 1½ million serving. The sacrifice made by their families has also been enormous. It is now time to honour that service with fair indexation. I support this motion and I call on the government to do the right thing by our retired military personnel. This is about equity and justice for those frustrated veterans who are out of pocket and because they have been let down, unfairly, by this Labor government.
Debate adjourned.
I seek leave to amend my motion so that paragraph 3(b) reads in the past tense.
Leave granted.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses are on the rise, with the latest estimates of approximately 1 in 100 children diagnosed; and
(b) families caring for a family member with an Autism Spectrum Disorder need greater support and community understanding;
(2) acknowledges the need for a National Autism Plan, including a Forum, to discuss how best to deliver support to families caring for a family member with an Autism Spectrum Disorder;
(3) notes that:
(a) an Autism Spectrum Disorder is one of numerous disability categories which should be addressed as part of a National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
(b) 2 April 2012 was World Autism Awareness Day and that the Coalition and Autism Victoria were working to ensure Parliament House will be lit up in blue to acknowledge World Autism Awareness Day.
This motion is all about ensuring that there is even greater focus on the condition of autism spectrum disorder, that we acknowledge the circumstances of families with autism spectrum disorder within their midst, that we acknowledge the need for a national autism plan, building on those elements that are already in place, and we include as part of that a specific national autism forum. In addition, we note that autism spectrum disorder is one of numerous disability categories, which should be considered as part of a national disability insurance scheme, and that 2 April was World Autism Awareness Day. Let me begin by acknowledging the work of the coalition shadow in this space, Senator Mitch Fifield, and the cooperation that Senator McLucas has given on behalf of the government. I respect and appreciate their commitment. This motion is about a bipartisan approach; it is certainly not about anything which could be seen to undermine that approach.
The starting point here is that autism spectrum disorder affects about 30,000 Victorians, on the basis of the advice we have from Murray Dawson-Smith at Autism Victoria. It is a lifelong condition; it is not, however, a lifelong sentence. It is something to be managed and to be negotiated, and the spectrum is just that—it is broad. There are numerous different circumstances that individuals and families face in relation to autism. During a recent visit to Abacus Learning Centre, I was lucky enough to meet three-year-old Charlie and his mother, Nicole. I joined Charlie for his therapy sessions. I saw for myself the painstaking work carried out by early intervention therapists and the benefits that therapy can bring to a family affected by autism. That all lead to the proposal that we had for an autism walk around my electorate. We walked 500 kilometres, visited 56 schools and, most importantly, spoke with thousands of young students about autism—respecting those who have it and helping them aspire to their best. The critical thing that we learned and which was given to them was this sense of possibility and of potential for each young life affected by autism.
On the walk, I had me Marilyn Myszka, Natalie Durkovic, Nicole Devine and Sue DeBono, all of whom walked numerous kilometres—in the case of Marilyn, Natalie and Sue, well over 200 kilometres each, and 300 in the case of my good friend Sue DeBono. It was a real pleasure. Marilyn, Natalie and Nicole are all mothers of boys with autism. Each contributed to the walk in a profound way and contributed to local understanding. At the end of the day, we were able to raise over $35,000 to be shared between Autism Victoria and the magnificent Abacus Learning Centre, which has literally transformed the lives of so many young people with autism in my electorate. In particular, we were fortunate to receive $10,000 from Medibank Private and $5,000 from the Victorian government. I thank both of those organisations and in particular Mary Wooldridge, the state minister who oversaw that contribution.
What we agreed on, though, was that it had to be more than just fine words. It was about next steps. That is where this motion comes in. What we want to do is make sure that there is the push for an advanced national autism plan. I acknowledge the work that governments of all levels, including the current government, have done in this space. I made a commitment to the relevant parliamentary secretary that I would acknowledge the good work of the government.
It is now the moment where we can seek more, where we can be higher and where we can be better in what we do. My view is that to seek out a national autism plan, including a forum, as to how best to deliver long-term, permanent support to families caring for a member that has autism spectrum disorder is the great step forward. I look at the work of the Abacus centre and see what parents such as Michael and Lauren Moore have done and the way in which early intervention is fundamental. What we need now is a long-term approach about early intervention because, of all the investments we can make as a society, investing in these young people is about unparalleled lifelong transformation which makes us the best that we can be as a society. (Time expired)
The amendment requires a seconder. Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. There is absolutely no doubt that autism spectrum disorder diagnoses are on the rise, and nowhere greater than the Hunter Valley. Autism spectrum disorder is a condition that not only affects the individual but the parents, the family and our community as a whole and therefore needs greater support and community understanding.
Whilst it was fitting that 2 April 2012 was World Autism Awareness Day, it was more fitting that in April 2012 the new Aspect Hunter School was handed over for occupation. There is a story about the Aspect Hunter School that is worth telling to this House. In August 2010 I met with a constituent, Tim Austin. He was desperate and despaired that there was no suitable school for his autistic son, Joe. The Autism Spectrum Australia Aspect Hunter School was without a permanent home. They were being evicted from its base at Shortland Public School and a satellite classroom at Tighes Hill Public School the next year. Because of the stimulus package building works, those schools had pushed them out.
During the meeting I called a friend, Hilton Grugeon, and asked if he knew of a block of land that we could acquire to build a school on, and whether he could help build the school. He said yes. I asked, 'How much?' He said, 'How much do you have?' I said, 'Very little.' There was a moment's silence and then he said, 'Okay, let's build a school.' When I advised Tim during this initial meeting that we were going to build a school for the kids and for the parents who have to deal with the lifelong challenges of autism, he thought I was kidding. So I put the phone on loudspeaker. Hilton told him, 'We're going to build a school for the kids.' He broke down and he cried.
The die was set. By the next morning, through the generosity of Richard Owens, 14 acres of land was donated for the school. Planning had begun. The school was designed. The school has six classrooms, each with a bathroom. There is a sensory room, a school hall and an administration block for 60 teaching and support staff. The school caters for 40 students onsite and 100 in outreach programs run from the school.
The project, land and building value was in excess of $5 million, yet Aspect had only attracted $1.8 million in Commonwealth government funding. There was a serious shortfall. It was decided that we would put the call out to businesses and the broader community for support for our kids. That support came. Through Hilton Grugeon's 'Hunter nearly-everything' group of companies—for example, Hunter Readymixed Concrete, Hunter Buildings, Steeline Hunter, Hunter Quarries, and Hunter Irrigation and Water Solutions—and the very generous in kind support from dozens of other suppliers, we were able to start. As we told the story, financial support in cash came from Hilton and Bev Grugeon, Jeff and Tracy McCloy, Michael and Felicity Thompson—it just came forth.
It is hard to say no to this very worthwhile project. They came from all over. The tradies, the plumbers, the carpenters, the electricians, the plasterers, the painters and even East Maitland Men's Shed all lined up to help. Even my son David Baldwin, who had finished his carpentry apprenticeship in October, worked as a full-time volunteer as a carpenter until he started his new job in late February. At 21 years of age he wanted to put something back into a community that had supported him. The earthworks began in late October, and construction began in December. The fact that it was one of our wettest summers did not deter the builders and the hundreds of volunteers. The school was handed over in April. To build a school in just over four months is an achievement in itself. Given that it was one of our wettest summers, this was a truly amazing achievement. It is clear that whenever there is a genuine community need in the Hunter the heroes in the Hunter step up to the fore and that these heroes were not going to let Hunter kids down.
There is planning for an early intervention centre for a two-year-olds and up. It will cost another $750,000 to build. As the state government is yet to provide any funding towards the school, I am hopeful that it will provide the finance for this much needed project so that the school can be complete and that thereby our community can also be complete. Sadly, in December last year Tim Austin succumbed to the pressure, leaving behind his wife, Loretto, and children, Emilie and Joe. This school stands as a tribute to the tireless work of Tim Austin.
It is abundantly clear that there is a need for a national autism plan, including a forum to discuss how to best deliver support to families caring for a family member with an autism spectrum disorder. That support should be addressed as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I commend the member for Flinders for bringing this motion before the House, and I support it in its entirety.
I thank the member for Flinders for moving this motion. I have in my electorate, as there are in every electorate, a number of families who have children with autism. They are one of the most wonderful groups of parents that you can possibly imagine, and both previous speakers have referred to how extraordinary they can be.
One of the things that I am very proud of in being part of this government for the last four years is the work we have done which helps empower some of those parents even further through early intervention and the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Sometimes we think we are pretty clever in this parliament because we allocate money and set up programs, but we all know that at the end of the day it is the work the parent does in the home and how well you can enable that parent to work with their child which makes the most difference at the end of the day.
Back in 2007 in the election we announced that we would launch the Helping Children with Autism program. It was originally meant to be about $190 million; it is now sitting at about $220 million. It unashamedly focuses its efforts on early intervention. We all know that intervention in the early years makes an extraordinary difference to the life of a child with autism and to their family. There are a number of elements to the Helping Children with Autism program which we have been rolling out for quite a few years. There is the Autism Advisory and Support Service, which has some 36 centres with advisers around the country. It is a one-stop shop where a parent can go for advice on how to get assistance. We also have early intervention funding. This is quite a change from the way funding was delivered in past years. It is $12,000 per family with a child under the age of seven. It allows the child's family considerable flexibility in deciding which services—such as pathology, psychology and occupational therapy—they want for their child with autism spectrum disorder. Again, this is quite a change from past years, when the funding was attached to the service itself. It is part of the change we are undertaking which moves us to the National Disability Insurance Scheme where families will have a far greater role across the board and where the relationship between a family and the providers of the services will change in quite a significant way.
We have launched Early Days workshops for parents and carers of preschool and school age children with autism spectrum disorder. We have also launched PlayConnect groups. There are about 150 playgroups around the country specifically for families and children with autism spectrum disorder. Again, both those forums—the Early Days workshops and the PlayConnect groups—provide opportunities for parents, families and carers to come together to share what they know and to feel the support of being with people who face similar kinds of challenges and joys in the raising of their children, something that again makes parents stronger as individuals and stronger as groups. One of the things that we all should acknowledge is that the more we empower parents, the more we help them actually work in the way they need to with their children, the stronger they become, not just as parents but as lobbyists as well. The stronger we make them the more they will rightfully ask of us, and that is one of the things that we will probably do that will have an incredibly profound impact in the long run. They are already one of the most extraordinary groups of parents, and they already know each other, but as they get to know exactly what is happening elsewhere, and build those networks further, they will become even stronger in their quite rightful demands for the future of their children. They are a wonderful group of people.
We have also established six autism-specific early learning and care centres around the country. There is one in south-western Sydney—not one in Parramatta, unfortunately. If there is going to be a seventh one I would like to put my hand up, as I am sure we all would. These centres provide places where children with autism spectrum disorder get the specific help that they need. Their families can see their progress on a daily basis and we have had wonderful reports of how well those things are going. Again I commend the member for Flinders for moving this motion. It is an incredibly important area. The more support we can provide early on in a child's life, the greater the possibilities of that life. I commend the motion. (Time expired)
I rise in support of the concept and the issue behind the motion on autism spectrum disorder, although I have some disagreement with aspects of the detail that the member for Flinders is seeking to achieve as a result of this motion and I will come to those points. The general point about the need to ensure that there is greater awareness and support for action within the community for those who suffer from ASD and those who support them and who deal with those issues is something that I think the parliament can agree on, no question. I know a lot of work has been done, as the member for Flinders said, by governments of both persuasions over the years to try and ensure that this area gets more support.
I know that the current government, of which I am very proud to be a member, has had a range of initiatives over the last few years, since 2008, under the Helping Children with Autism package. The government has provided over $220 million for services for children with ASD. That has covered a range of different issues: early intervention funding available to eligible children to increase and support access to early intervention therapies; Early Days workshops; information for parents and carers of pre-school and school aged children with ASD; an autism advisory service providing advice, information and support following diagnosis across Australia; PlayConnect playgroups—some 150 playgroups specifically for families and children with ASD or ASD-like symptoms; a website; and other positive initiatives via recognition under Medicare. More recently, as I understand it, the government has also established six autism-specific early learning and care centres which provide specific early learning programs and support to children with ASD or ASD-like symptoms in a long day care centre. But we can always look to the future and ensure that more is done.
One general point I would make is about something this government has been very strong on—and I certainly congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, the Hon. Jan McLucas, for the work she has done on this—and that is the development of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to which $1 billion was allocated in the last budget. It is a step along a track, it is a track which will take some time and there are clearly a range of issues which need to be worked through. But there is no doubt that there is broad recognition within the community that a more holistic approach is needed in dealing with the needs of those with a disability, and a recognition that it is a responsibility of all levels of governments and that its time has come. It is something that we can all support.
I will pick up on a couple of points that the member for Flinders had in his motion which I think need to be debated to a degree. Regarding the issue of diagnosis of ASD being on the rise, my understanding from the current evidence base, which the government has from its Helping Children with Autism package, would appear to suggest a prevalence rate in the order of one to 110 for children under seven. This rate has levelled off over the past three years, as it has done internationally. That does not in any way take away from the importance of the issue, but it does possibly suggest that we are getting a fairly sound understanding of the size of the problem and therefore the need for action.
On the question of a national ASD plan and the holding of a forum, again we could debate the question of what we currently have and what the alternatives may be. The point I would make with respect to this is that we need to look at disabilities on an individual basis. The needs of people with disabilities should be focused on their functionality, not on the label. I think we need to look also at the question of what is coming, what is occurring from a national perspective through the NDIS, as a way forward to ensure that there is scope for all children and all people with disabilities to get the assistance that they need as part of a much bigger set of actions by government across the board.
I also note that there are a number of peak bodies that represent people with ASD. They include the Australian Advisory Board on Autism Spectrum Disorders, which provides advice to government; Autism Awareness, which promotes nationally inclusion for people with ASD; and Children with Disability Australia, which represents children with ASD. The question mark I have is whether another forum will in itself produce results which are worthy of that effort. But certainly this is a motion where the concerns around autism should be made known nationally and action should be supported by all sides of the parliament.
I take the opportunity today to support the motion of the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, with respect to autism spectrum disorders. Depending on which research you listen to and who you talk to, autism spectrum disorders are on the rise with, as the member for Bruce just said, one in 110—some say it is one in 160—Australian children diagnosed with a disorder. These figures are increasing and the disorder is becoming more and more prevalent, particularly in First World nations such as Australia. However, research has shown that with proven early intervention measures the effects of the disorder can be significantly reduced and children are even able to rejoin mainstream schooling to continue their education. As we know, the aim of all parents involved is that their child gets to a point where they can live independently at some stage in their future.
Associations such as the Autism Association of Western Australia, led by Joan McKenna Kerr, have structured their early intervention programs based on research into the most effective models of best practice. These include individual support services, highly structured and supportive environments, autism-specific content and a functional approach to behaviour management and family involvement. At this stage I would like to mention also the LEARN Foundation, which is run by Mandy Mason and her great number of supporters, which offers a choice in treatments. As I said, no one should in any way discriminate against or criticise any of the programs, other than to say that a choice and an alternative approach are always welcomed in trying to achieve the best outcome. But, as I said, this disorder is on the rise and it is essential that ongoing financial support is given to these organisations in order for them to cope with an increase in demand and the need to apply early intervention measures as early as possible.
Through the 'adopt a politician' program, five years ago I met young Dermott Barnard his family. Dermott lives with severe autism. I have witness firsthand the huge impact that this has had on his family, his mum Lynn and his Elise. Dermott's mum and sister have always had his best interests at heart, but they have found it difficult to access all of the respite and support services they need to manage Dermott's disorder. Families of children living with autism often go unrecognised and miss out on the support and the respite that they often desperately need. I have heard stories from various people within my electorate who have resorted to desperate and unhelpful measures to give themselves some immediate respite. For example, a mother told me at the door that she had sat her child in front of the front load washing machine just to have him entertained for an hour or so because she could not cope any longer. In my recent Canning Walk for Autism, I was able to raise over $22,500 for the Autism Association of Western Australia and respite services such as INKA Respite in Lake Clifton. Without these small not-for-profit respite services, many families would be feeling even more desperate and might resort to even worse actions.
It is also important to note that, whilst respite is needed for families and children living with autism, it is also essential that a large proportion of this respite be flexible. Flexibility is the key to this respite. This enables families to access respite when they need it and when they are most desperate, rather than having to book months ahead, when they do not necessarily need it. Having a national autism plan, including a forum, would provide the opportunity to discuss the issues further. The families of children such as Dermott would have a clearer idea of where to get further help, and it would provide a framework of the best intervention measures available.
With the rate of autism spectrum disorders increasing, this action is needed now more than ever. There is no doubt that these disorders should be included as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As we are being positive today, I will say that the scheme is supported by this side of the House, although we do have some issues about the level of funding. I will not say anything further about that. But, if the scheme were implemented in full, it would provide a positive opportunity for families to get some relief.
I would also like to support national recognition of World Autism Day on 2 April by lighting up the exterior of Parliament House in blue. This would significantly help raise broader awareness of the disorder, as well as reaffirm the commitment of this House to providing ongoing support and services. This year, World Autism Day fell during my Walk for Autism, and I was lucky enough to be welcomed by the students of Dale Christian School for a fundraising barbecue. I was also joined by Joan McKenna Kerr and Paul Beard from the Autism Association of WA, as well as by my colleague Christopher Pyne. He came and walked with me on that day. This significant day helped bring wider awareness, and I support this motion. (Time expired)
Autism spectrum disorders are a group of development disorders that are apparent usually before the age of three and are overwhelmingly predominant amongst males. Whatever the country, it seems that the proportion of females with the disorder is always under about 20 per cent. The disorders are a unique combination of abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction, patterns of communication and restricted and stereotyped interests and activities.
On 26 May, I was fortunate enough to attend, with my colleague the member for Hughes, the annual gala event of the Autism Advisory and Support Service. The member for Hughes is a member of that organisation. During that evening, while discussing things with his wife, I learnt more fully—I already had some appreciation of them—of the kinds of challenges that families face in this sector.
Coincidentally, last week the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers announced a $300,000 allocation towards establishing a Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism Spectrum Disorders. That is a very worthwhile gesture. The centre would have the support of 11 organisations, seven universities and one medical research institute, as well as 30 other organisations. This is in conjunction with the $1 billion over four years for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
There was some speculation earlier about the reasons for increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorders. Who knows whether it is because of more knowledge in the sector, a willingness of people to come forward, improved testing or some phenomena related to our environment and our lifestyle? There is a prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in south-west Sydney. People have put that down to a possible genetic connection with ethnicity, and particularly to the prevalence of public housing. One of the realities is that autism and many other of these kinds of issues lead to the separation of parents and the need for one party to go into public housing. Recently the Sydney French Film Festival featured the film Declaration of War by Valerie Donzelli. It was not about autism but it certainly drove home this issue. It was an account of the director's life as a young mother and the break-up of her relationship in connection with a child who had issues.
The Autism Advisory and Support Service is based in Liverpool. It has had a strong connection with me, the member for Hughes and the member for Fowler. The parliamentary secretary was there and she is certainly aware of the organisation's services and issues. At the moment, they are seeking a meeting with the parliamentary secretary to drive home their concerns. I particularly appreciate that a group of families in south-west Sydney can accomplish what they have, using volunteers to get off the ground, establish premises and run a 24-hour telephone service which is utilised nationally. They are heavily involved in a variety of other activities. There is a young adults—over 16 years old—peer group that meets every second Sunday and a family support group that meets twice a month. They have obtained significant support from a number of organisations, such as the Mounties club—otherwise known as Mount Pritchard—Canterbury League Club and Bunnings.
The event that we attended in May was again this year a very successful fundraiser. It enjoys very significant broad public support. The facility at Liverpool is first rate, with playground and teaching facilities to give parents some respite. The organisation also works very well with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, who provide concerts for children. The founder of the Autism Advisory and Support Service, Grace Fava, has said on the question of music in the lives of these children:
Children with autism and additional needs have a great affinity for music in general and classical music in particular. It relaxes them and gives them a safe outlet for their emotions.
I want to reiterate that all members, regardless of their political allegiance, are very supportive of Grace's efforts. We hope that the federal government can make sure that her knowledge, her activity, her enthusiasm and that of the other volunteers are recognised and that they get some say in the process around funding in this country and with regard to upcoming developments.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:20
I would like to make some remarks in opening about the departmental budget for 2012-13 for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The department will receive an appropriation totalling $218.5 million. Of this, the department will receive administered funding of $114.1 million, down quite significantly on last year as a result of the termination of various programs. It will receive departmental funding of $97 million and capital funding of $7.4 million. In addition, the Clean Energy Regulator associated with the department has been established and it will receive an appropriation totalling $763.1 million, comprising administered funding of $670.8 million and departmental funding of $92.3 million.
The major components of the department's administered funding include the Low Carbon Communities program, energy efficiency measures, land measures and climate change science applications. Measures for the portfolio announced in the 2012-13 budget included $37.1 million for the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards program, $2.8 million for the building energy efficiency program and $3 million for climate change adaptation. Additionally, in the budget the government decided not to proceed with the tax breaks for the green buildings program. That will provide a saving of $405.2 million over the forward estimates.
The budget for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is fiscally responsible. It reflects the fact that much of the government's climate change policy is now contained in the clean energy legislation, the policy for which was announced in July last year. The clean energy legislation and its implementation from 1 July in the form of the carbon price mechanism in particular will decouple economic growth from growth in pollution. Our economy will grow but greenhouse gas emissions will fall, reducing the emissions intensity of the economy over time. It will improve Australia's economic competitiveness in the coming decades when clean energy and low-pollution technologies will be a key to competitive advantage. That is particularly going to be the case in the Asia-Pacific region, where our major trading partners are located. The economies that are able to reduce their emissions intensity—the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic output—will have a competitive advantage. That is why it is perfectly valid to assert that the introduction of the carbon price mechanism will drive not only emissions intensity reductions in our economy but productivity improvements as well. Those opposite contend quite differently. No doubt that will be part of the debate that we will have in the upcoming period of time.
The Clean Energy Act become law nearly eight months ago. Since that time, the fact of the matter is that there has been record investment in our economy and exceptional economic growth. We are currently growing faster than every single major advanced economy, as illustrated by the figures released two weeks ago. GDP growth is currently running at 4.3 per cent. Unemployment is at five per cent. We have very high levels of business investment, with more than $173 billion in capital expenditure expected in the year 2012-13 and half a trillion dollars in the resource investment pipeline. This is an essential economic reform at a time when the economy is in a strong position. It is in the long-term interests of the country. As 1 July comes closer—it is now less than two weeks away—I think people will have the opportunity to experience the real world rather than baseless fear campaigning in relation to this issue. The economy is strong. This is a reform that needs to be made and the policy measures associated with the clean energy future package are included in the 2012 budget position for the department.
I thank the minister. To assist the chamber I note that the proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio and is for $296,757,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
I take my beginning from where the minister left off with his reference to the real world, lived experience of the carbon tax. I note in particular the decision of the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to authorise electricity price rises of 18 per cent from 1 July. I note that, as part of that, in the average case across the state at least 50 per cent of that increase will be as a consequence of the carbon tax and that, in the case of Integral Energy, up to 85 per cent of the price rise will result directly and solely from the carbon tax.
The rise in prices is going to occupy almost the entire amount of the 10 per cent allocated by the government in its modelling. I refer specifically to Strong growth, low pollution:modelling a carbon price: update,from late 2011, and, in particular, to page 12, where it says, 'Over the first five years of the carbon tax'—not just the first day—'the price rise as a consequence of the carbon tax on electricity will be 10 per cent.' Is the minister really saying that there will be no further price rises as a consequence of the carbon tax in the electricity space? I refer to the fact that the government's own modelling shows a more than 25 per cent increase in the carbon tax on electricity between now and 2017. In particular, the most recent budget showed that the rise would be from $23 to $29 on the carbon price by 2015-16.
Will the minister deny that that 25 per cent plus increase in the carbon price will have any impact on future electricity prices? Will the minister deny that the auctioning of forward permits in April 2014 and beyond for the electricity sector will have any impact on electricity prices? This is particularly so given that the Electricity Supply Association of Australia warned last year that this additional forward auctioning of permits would add another 10 per cent to the price of electricity immediately. So I refer to the fact that five years worth of electricity price rises will have occurred on day one. Does the minister believe that there will be no impact from the additional 25 per cent increase in the carbon tax and does the minister believe that there will be no impact from the auctioning of forward permits, which the Electricity Supply Association of Australia has predicted as of April 2014 will have a further 10 per cent impact on prices?
The government has a great degree of confidence in the modelling that has been undertaken. It was independent modelling of a very comprehensive nature by the federal Treasury, supported in the case of the energy market by two private organisations that did extensive modelling of the electricity price impact. We stand by what that modelling says, which is a 10 per cent increase in household electricity prices averaged across the country. Different scenarios were contained in that modelling and the government has a lot of confidence in them.
It is interesting and—from a standpoint where the Leader of the Opposition has been saying there would be an unimaginable price impact and at various times has asserted that electricity prices will rise by 25 per cent and then 30 per cent and even more—it is important to note now that in various jurisdictions regulators are examining this issue and what the real-world price impact will be, and they are confirming that the Treasury modelling is accurate. Just last week, the South Australian regulator issued the estimated price impact in South Australia, and it is $1.50 averaged across households in South Australia. In Western Australia, it is averaging $2.50. In New South Wales, IPART has confirmed that it is $3.30. It is important that we keep these things in some perspective. We certainly have a lot of confidence in the modelling. The regulators are now resolving that the electricity price impacts are consistent with what the Treasury said; in fact, in some jurisdictions it is less than what the Treasury had estimated.
The other important point to make is that the attribution of carbon pricing to everything that is happening with electricity prices has been misrepresented in this debate. In various jurisdictions, electricity prices have risen by over 50 per cent over the last several years. I was in Western Australia last week. Electricity prices have risen by 50 per cent, I think, in two years in Western Australia. None of these things have anything to do with carbon pricing, which commences just from 1 July. My colleague the member for Chifley and I, as New South Wales politicians, are acutely aware that there was, I think, an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices in New South Wales last year This had nothing to do with carbon pricing, and it came off the back of previous significant increases. This has all been driven by the investment in poles and wires in our transmission and distribution system in a host of jurisdictions throughout the country. An urgent investment has been recognised as necessary in those areas. If there is excessive investment—and I note that some commentators are indicating that gold-plating is going on—then that is an issue that needs to be tackled by the relevant jurisdictions and the relevant electricity market regulators.
It is very important to make that point about what is really driving electricity prices in this country. There has been an underinvestment in the network for quite a significant period. It is important that it be addressed. It is important that it not be gold-plated. We have to do all that we can to help people at a household level deal with the impact of these price rises. Only $9 in every $100 that a household consumer pays in their electricity bill is going to be attributable to the carbon price, averaged across the country. To assist, the government have announced—and it is the only government acting in this way—a significant number of measures to assist households with these cost pressures. Specifically, with the introduction of the carbon price, there is $3.30 a week averaged electricity price impact and $10.10 assistance provided by the Commonwealth through tax cuts, increases to pensions, increases to family tax benefits, payments to many self-funded retirees, payments to many veterans and increases in a host of other Commonwealth entitlements. This is what is important to bear in mind. Clearly the coalition, having failed in its fear campaigning up to this in time and confronted now with some facts about actual increases, are now moving to try to scare people about impacts over the next five years. They cannot have it every way. The facts will out with the fear.
I thank the minister for his attendance today and for the opportunity to ask him some questions, particularly given the Gippsland-Latrobe Valley region is recognised, I think even by the government, as one of the regions that will be most adversely affected by the carbon price—or the 'carbon tax', as we like to call it in the Latrobe Valley, even though apparently no-one on the other side of the House likes to call it a 'tax' anymore. I will refer specifically to the regional structural adjustment package, which is supposedly being developed as part of the government's carbon tax package. It has been confirmed by the minister for regional development that there are no guidelines in place for the distribution of this $200 million package. Even when you consider that this $200 million package is grossly inadequate to assist the affected regions, it strikes me as staggering that we are only days away from the implementation of the carbon tax and this $200 million structural adjustment package is without guidelines.
Given that there are no guidelines now and that the tax will come into effect in just a couple of weeks time, can the minister explain how regions which are going to be adversely affected by the carbon tax will be compensated for those adverse impacts?
The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government was in my electorate quite recently—I think it was last Wednesday or Thursday—and he gave the impression that the vast bulk of the money that was allocated under the package would be contingent upon regions demonstrating that they had been adversely affected by the policy through such things as contracts for closure. Given that the government so far has refused to fund even a socioeconomic analysis of the Latrobe Valley to assess what the impacts of the carbon tax or a contract for closure would be, I am interested to know how the government proposes to demonstrate which regions have been adversely affected and how these funds will be allocated. On that specific issue of the contract for closure, given that we are just days away from the implementation of the carbon tax and given that the government was going to make some announcements on 1 July in relation to the contract-for-closure tender process, will the minister deny that the government is going to announce an extension of time for contract for closure?
I thank the member for Flinders for his questions. I appreciate that he has a number of apprehensions, and I hope that I can dispel them to the extent appropriate this afternoon. Sometimes the coalition believe their own propaganda, and I think that is part of the problem we are dealing with here. They have gone around the country—and in particular the Leader of the Opposition—to regions like the Latrobe Valley and terrified the living daylights out of people and created enormous apprehension. I have experienced the same in my own region, which is a coalmining region, where, because the Leader of the Opposition has done the most unconscionable thing and stood before people and said to them, 'You are going to lose your job,' it has created enormous apprehension—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Order! The minister is responding.
One of the first things I learned as a trade union official is that you never, ever, ever mislead people, and the Leader of the Opposition will pay for what he has done. He has created this apprehension in the Latrobe Valley and in many other regions with statements to the effect that Whyalla will be wiped off the map. Just imagine what that means to families in Whyalla—what a disgrace. You have to stand before people and deal with them with some integrity, and that has been lacking in the coalition's approach. As the carbon price comes into effect, this will become clearer and clearer to members of the community, including the Latrobe Valley.
I do not suggest the question was put in any inappropriate way. I know that the member is genuine in his concerns, but I think that we have to keep things in perspective here. We are acutely conscious of the circumstances that the Latrobe Valley and, in particular, the brown coal generation sector find themselves in. A very significant amount of funding of course was allocated in the form of energy security payments in the package to ensure that there was confidence on the part of the investors, the equity holders and the debt providers, for the brown coal generators in the Latrobe Valley, and I think there is evidence that those payments have been successful by their continuing confidence in the assets that are there. That is very important for people's jobs as well. The government committed significant funds to ensure that there was ongoing confidence in those assets and in the region.
I have visited the Latrobe Valley a couple of times over the last 12 or 18 months to talk to people about this issue, and I can assure the member that I am as concerned as anyone else to ensure the wellbeing of that community. A number of the electricity generators in the Latrobe Valley region did indicate that they would like to discuss, in the appropriate process, the contract-for-closure issue, and those discussions have been continuing in an appropriate way through the department of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy. They are commercial-in-confidence discussions. Our public policy announced in July last year, to which we continue to adhere, is that that process would be brought to a conclusion by 30 June, which of course is imminent. That remains our policy position.
It is not appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome at this point in time, but the process that we initiated should appropriately be continued and a conclusion reached. I can say to people in the Latrobe Valley that we are very mindful of the circumstances there. We have put a lot of resources into supporting them. We are working very closely with the business community and, I might add, with the Victorian government in relation to these issues.
I want to refer to the impact of the carbon tax on the aluminium sector. In doing so, I remind the chamber that of course answers given in this chamber have the same weight and bearing as answers given in the primary chamber of the House, with all the consequences for statements made that may or may not be true. Very briefly, my question to the minister is: is the government considering, involved in or negotiating any form of bailout package for sections of the aluminium sector, given the imminence of the carbon tax?
I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to put on the record once again a number of the difficulties that are confronting the aluminium-smelting sector in particular. Essentially, there has been a very significant fall in aluminium prices on the London Metal Exchange—in fact, a 40 per cent depreciation in prices over the last few years—and that is impacting on the profitability of much of the aluminium industry within our domestic economy. Added to that, given the strength of the economy and the investment in the resources sector in particular, we have been experiencing a high dollar, above parity with the US dollar, for some months, and for an extended period of time the value of the dollar has been well above its historical average. It could be that that situation will be sustained for a significant period of time, given the strength of the economy and the drivers of the high valuation of the Australian dollar in the marketplace. Those two factors alone—low prices, associated with oversupply in the international market, and the high value of the Australia dollar—are impacting significantly.
Added to that, of course, are pressures arising from the fact that long-term electricity contracts that had been negotiated between various state governments or state instrumentalities with the aluminium smelters, as is the case particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, in recent times and in the coming years are expiring. They are contracts that have had perhaps a 25- to 30-year term. Many of those contracts have involved a discounted electricity price for supply for the aluminium smelters involved, and the repricing of those electricity contracts by the relevant generators or state instrumentalities is a very material factor in the viability of these businesses. There has been extensive discussion between the aluminium industry, and the smelters in particular, and the various state governments and state instrumentalities in relation to that issue, including in Victoria. It was one of the key issues behind the decision by Norsk Hydro a month or so ago to close the aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri in my own region, the Hunter. To put that into a fair historical perspective, it was a decision of the New South Wales government, followed by a decision of the O'Farrell government, that they would not renew the electricity contract on terms sufficiently favourable to Norsk Hydro to allow the continued operation of that smelter.
All of that—low prices, the high dollar and electricity contracts—is yet again being completely misrepresented by the coalition in a misleading way. They are trying to attribute these problems to carbon pricing, which is completely fallacious. To put that in context, aluminium smelting is an industry that in 2012-13 will attract for free an average of 94.5 per cent of the permits it will require under the carbon price, reducing the effective average carbon price in aluminium smelting to $1.30 a tonne. It is a trade-exposed industry, and that is why the government has taken a significant step. That is the assistance that has been provided. Aluminium companies are in constant discussion with the government about these issues and, particularly with my other portfolio hat on, it is not surprising that I would be having discussions pretty regularly with the aluminium sector and others who are feeling some of these pressures—for example, the steel industry—and continuing to monitor the situation.
I want to pick up on a number of things. The member for Flinders referred to Western Sydney and my home state of New South Wales and what is going to be happening there with power prices. He referred to the fact that power prices will increase by 18 per cent. I think it is important to state that more than half of that is not due to the carbon tax or carbon price but, rather, has a lot to do with the decisions that have been made as a result of approval given by IPART to the pricing movements requested by state owned corporations, which are the responsibility of state governments. I do not recall that there has been any move to provide any sort of household assistance to cover for the increases to power prices that the state owned corporations have had approved through state based regulators.
I understand that there is a household assistance package that will cover households as a result of any move to introduce a carbon price from 1 July, as opposed to what is happening due to the state owned corporations. On top of that, there has been a very active scare campaign about the impact on councils in New South Wales as a result of the introduction of the carbon price which I would like to get some clarity on. So the first thing is to get clarity on the impact, particularly in Western Sydney, of the carbon price on power prices for households. The second thing is the impact on rates and council operations in Western Sydney.
The third thing I want to get clarity on follows from an opportunity I had to visit De Bortoli Wines, which has a distribution centre based in Western Sydney. They have been the beneficiary of assistance to help them shift their operations to a more sustainable footing. I was very impressed when I went out to Glendenning on Friday and met the New South Wales manager of De Bortoli Wines who outlined the types of measures that have been taken to move to a more sustainable footing and use their energy more efficiently. While there has been a lot of focus on the carbon price itself, there has not been enough focus on what measures are being taken by businesses and industry to make themselves much more sustainable, to use energy more efficiently in the way they conduct their affairs. I would like to know, particularly from a Western Sydney focus, what other businesses are able to do and what assistance they are able to tap into to find more energy efficient ways to operate and thereby reduce their own costs.
I thank the member for Chifley for the question because there are some important issues traversed there. I will take them sequentially. It is very important to note that 8.9 per cent, as I recall, of the electricity price rise approved by IPART in New South Wales is attributable to the introduction of a carbon price. That equates to an average household cost of $3.30 a week—exactly what the government said it would be. And of course, with respect to that, the federal government is providing an average of $10.10 per week to households in New South Wales in assistance in the form of tax cuts, family tax benefit improvements and pension increases. In Western Sydney, where I had the privilege to grow up—in fact, in the electorate of the member for Chifley, an excellent representative for that area—this is very important for people. There are many people in New South Wales, in Western Sydney, doing it tough. The tax cuts, the pension increases, the family tax benefits, the help for self-funded retirees, for many veterans and many others are very, very important to them. The federal government is the only government that is helping in these circumstances.
As to the rest of the electricity price rise approved by IPART, there are very significant factors that are within the New South Wales government jurisdiction to deal with. They are providing no assistance. The federal coalition have banged on for the last 12 or 18 months about all the doom and gloom, the fear and the terror that is created by carbon pricing. Do you know, the investment in poles and wires in New South Wales equates to the price impact of carbon pricing coming in, as it does in other jurisdictions—and, not only that, it has been more in previous years. Yet they have been claiming doom and gloom for everything with respect to that, when in fact the federal government is providing $10.10 a week, on average, in assistance. The New South Wales government is not helping people. It is not even actively looking at how it can ensure that there is no gold-plating of these investments, which are going on within its jurisdiction, so that New South Wales Electricity consumers are not placed under even greater pressure. That is a very material factor. It is total hypocrisy for the O'Farrell government to try to attribute the totality of the price rise to the carbon price as the member for Flinders was trying to do in his first question. It is completely fallacious and factually untrue. The New South Wales government is not providing assistance to help people in the way the federal government is.
The other thing that IPART did in recent weeks was to examine in a thorough way the potential price impact of carbon pricing on councils and their costs. There is a very thorough breakdown published on IPART's website which demonstrates very clearly that we are talking about an increase in the range of 0.4 per cent to 0.6 per cent in local government costs in New South Wales—I do not have the material before me, but it certainly was not more than 0.6 per cent. Fortunately, in that jurisdiction IPART keeps a pretty close eye on what the councils can do, along with the state government. Those are the facts of the matter.
I was in Brisbane last week. The Brisbane City Council, which is, of course, under Liberal National Party control, has come up with a completely fallacious claim. Given the same circumstances, they will be putting rates up by 1.9 per cent and ripping people off and having no transparency and accountability about it. These are all material factors.
The member for Chifley is right to point to the importance of programs generally that will assist organisations such as manufacturing businesses and local governments to reduce their energy consumption. Of course, some of the revenue from the carbon price mechanism is dedicated to programs which will assist in this. Last week the government announced a number of recipients among local governments and not-for-profit organisations of energy efficiency grants which will see energy consumption and electricity bills reduced. Last week I visited a food manufacturing facility at Emu Plains called Crafty Chef. A co-contribution by the government is expected to reduce the carbon emissions intensity of Crafty Chef by 54 per cent, deliver CO2 savings, boost its turnover from $20 million to $50 million and increase jobs.
I have two sets of questions for the minister. The first is in on the solar hot water rebate program. This program was axed in February, with $45 million lost. Although at the time the government claimed there was no reduction against budget expenditure, on budget night it was shown that the net loss as a consequence for the sector was $45 million, and the budget papers were reduced accordingly. The government has now reinstated that funding, although in a different format. My first question to the minister is very simple: where does that $45 million come from? Within which programs was it contained in the current budget? If it was not contained in any of the programs, will the minister confirm that the government's so-called surplus will be reduced by $45 million?
The second set of questions relates to landfill and the number of liable entities on the government's register of liable entities. Is the minister aware of plans by some landfill operators, and indeed potentially by some councils, to divert waste from consolidated high-quality landfills to smaller regional landfills so as to legitimately avoid the 25,000 tonne limit but in so doing potentially to lead to an increase in overall emissions and a decrease in environmental standards? Is the minister aware of any case where this is occurring, and can he rule out that landfill is being diverted from larger landfills to smaller landfills so as to avoid the liability but in so doing also losing the potential for methane strip and diverting waste to landfills which may not have the same lining and environmental standards?
In relation to the solar hot-water rebate, which was introduced in 2007, it is material to point out that the government has now provided over $320 million to help more than 258,000 Australian households replace older, higher emissions related hot-water systems with renewable, lower emissions alternatives. As at 31 May this year, an additional $68 million had been spent on rebates above the budget for the program announced in 2007, and an additional 33,000 systems have been installed above the target announced in 2007. It has been a program with a significant degree of funding expended on it over five years and with a significant number of systems installed—over a quarter of a million. The program has not been closed early; it was always designed to be closed in 2012, and that is what the government has done. We have obviously consulted widely in the industry and with associated stakeholder groups about this issue, but I emphasise that it was always scheduled to end on 30 June this year.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
On 6 June, just a couple of weeks ago, the government announced through Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus that the $44.7 million that I think the member for Flinders is referring to, which remained from the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme, will be used to support two national programs assisting local communities and low-income families to become more energy efficient. This will involve a new $24 million Local Government Energy Efficiency Program, established to help councils install solar or heat-pump hot-water systems in community facilities, and an extra $20.7 million under the Home Energy Saver Scheme, to support low-income households to invest in a bigger range of energy-efficient whitegoods and heating and cooling systems. This does not add to the budget in the way that was implied by the member for Flinders; this is an underspend from the program.
That is untrue. The budget was corrected and the money was taken out.
I am afraid that that is the position. I am reminded that it was factored into the budget surplus in a contingency reserve, and perhaps that is why the member for Flinders had not picked that up.
In relation to landfill, only 34 councils—as of Friday, according to the list based on current data published by the Clean Energy Regulator—have been identified as liable entities on the Liable Entities Public Information Database. That is 34 councils of 559 nationally. The coalition, in yet another example of fearmongering and campaigning and misrepresentation and misleading statements, has been running around trying to terrify local governments about this issue. The fact of the matter is that the government has worked very closely with the Australian Local Government Association for several years—since the previous parliament—about how to structure landfill emissions to minimise methane liability under the carbon-pricing mechanism. Many local governments that operate landfill sites have already invested in methane capture technology, which is what triggers landfill liability. Many local governments, including in my own region, have already invested in methane capture technology in order to either flare the methane, which under a carbon-pricing arrangement will potentially reduce their liability below the emissions threshold that triggers liability, or use it to generate electricity. We have consulted very closely with the landfill sector and local governments about the issue that the member for Flinders pointed to—the potential diversion of waste. It might be recalled that, under the CPRS, mechanisms had been mooted to deal with the potential of that issue. We satisfied ourselves in consultations that that is an issue that it was not necessary to address under the clean energy future package at this point in time.
I must admit that I was struck by the member for Chifley's question before. It seemed like the 'don't mention the war' episode out of Fawlty Towers, only heslipped up and mentioned the carbon tax. 'I did it once but I think I got away with it'. I am sorry to say, Member for Chifley, that the people of my electorate and right throughout Australia do not feel that you are getting away with it. They know what this tax is going to do to their lives. This is a tax, and all the bribes and the slick advertising will not hide the fact that this tax is going to cascade through the economy and have a big impact on regional communities. It is also a tax that your Prime Minister specifically ruled out ever introducing. But I do thank the minister for his answer previously, and I also acknowledge, Minister, that 1 July is the government's policy in relation to contract foreclosure. But the practical reality of the situation is that contract foreclosure negotiations are going nowhere fast, and I think the minister knows that. My community in the Latrobe Valley is suffering right now because of the uncertainty being created by your government's policy. Your government has no plans in place in relation to structural adjustment. Your Minister for Regional Development, Regional Australia and Local Government has acknowledged that as well. There are no guidelines in place for that particular policy, and there is a crisis of confidence going on right now in the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley region which is directly related to the carbon tax policy which the Prime Minister explicitly ruled out in the lead-up to the last election.
I repeat my question from before, Minister. Will the minister deny that government is going to announce an extension of time for its contract foreclosure negotiations?
Our policy, just to restate it, is that it will be resolved by 30 June.
I want to refer the government to the revenue measures contained within the carbon tax, and in particular the gross figures of approximately $36 billion to be raised. Will the minister confirm that if the price of the government's carbon tax falls below the $29 predicted for the first year of a floating price—and I will remind the House that that price is predicted to be $29, multiple times more than the current European price of approximately €6.9 as of today—that there will be a significant budget black hole?
I thank the member for his question. This is where the coalition tries to have it every way, of course. On the one hand it is doom and gloom and terrible. I think the Leader of the Opposition today was forecasting the price to go up, and so on, but on the other hand, when it is politically suitable for them, they try to point to the price falling and therefore holes in budgets and all the rest.
We have confidence in the Treasury modelling, and that is reflected in the budget. I was reminded today in question time in relation to this issue, when the member for Flinders was googling the European Union allowance prices, that in fact in July 2008 the European unit price was, I think, A$56 a tonne just prior to the global financial crisis. It is an emissions trading scheme, it is a market price that is set. Of course, the carbon price mechanism that we have implemented will migrate to a floating price, a market price, from 1 July 2015, and the market will set the price. The Treasury has modelled that, in one of the most comprehensive modelling exercises undertaken for a public policy change, at $29 a tonne in 2015-16. We have confidence in the modelling. If the member for Flinders is a derivatives expert on carbon markets, that is great. However, to be suggesting at this point in time that, in three years, we will still have low prices in Europe is a pretty big call, for a number of reasons. One of them is that we would all share the hope that the current debt crisis that is being experienced throughout the European zone is resolved as expeditiously as possible. That debt crisis has affected many markets, including the carbon market in the EU. I know, through consultations that I have with the EU in relation to this issue, that there is a great degree of concern about that and the need to resolve the debt crisis and restore confidence and stability to markets in Europe, including in relation to the trading of European Union allowances.
The government has already announced that we are in consultation with the European Union about the potential for ultimately linking the two schemes, which would be an important policy initiative—it is the largest carbon market in the world. The European Union scheme goes into a third phase in the not-too-distant future. There is a lot of discussion in Europe about the application of that phase and whether there would be contemplation of measures to support the price in the EU ETS as part of those changes. That is a matter for the European Union to deal with. The point that I am endeavouring to make is that 1 July 2015 is some period away, and we certainly anticipate that carbon prices and international markets will recover. By the time that we migrate to a floating price, from 1 July 2015, I think the Treasury modelling is going to prove to be as sound as the confidence we have in it.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Treasury Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $4,441,842,000.
It gives me great pride to be able to speak in support of the measures contained within the appropriation bills. The 2012-13 budget delivers on the government's commitment to return the budget to surplus. The surplus is growing over the forward estimates. As well as returning to surplus, the budget spreads the benefits of the resources boom to help families and low- and middle-income earners with increases in the cost of living. The return to surplus is the right decision for the Australian economy because it will sustain confidence in the strength of Australia's public finances, it will strengthen the government's balance sheet, to support Australia's capacity to respond to future adverse economic shocks, and it is appropriate for an economy expected to grow around trend and allows monetary policy to respond to economic conditions.
Australia's budget will return to surplus ahead of any other advanced major economy. Many other advanced economies are still grappling with the task of rebuilding their economies as well as setting their public finances on a sustainable footing. The current European sovereign debt crisis makes maintaining strong fiscal discipline and credibility more important than ever. Australia's strong public finances, very low public debt, solid economic growth, low unemployment and contained inflation make it one of the strongest economies in the world.
The government will return to surplus despite tax receipts being revised down by $28 billion over four years from 2011-12, relative to the 2011-12 MYEFO, due to parameter and other variations. Relative to the forecast made in the 2008-09 budget, total tax receipts have been written down by around $150 billion over the five years to 2012-13. The government has taken a disciplined approach to both return the budget to surplus and create room for new investments. This has required the government to identify $33.6 billion over five years in savings, with those savings split roughly equally between expenditure and receipt measures. These savings have been designed to be targeted and responsible, ensuring that the most vulnerable Australians and front-line services are protected. In addition to delivering the surplus and spreading the benefits of the boom, the 2012-13 budget contains a number of important initiatives, including establishing the first stage of a national disability insurance scheme; reforming Australia's aged-care system to make the system fairer, more transparent and responsive; delivering additional dental health services; and investing in a number of high-quality infrastructure projects, including funding for duplicating the Pacific Highway, additional funding for Roads to Recovery and Black Spot programs, committing to develop the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal and the Torrens and Goodwood rail project.
Average real growth in payments over the forward estimates is 1.8 per cent. This is within the commitment to maintain a two per cent annual cap on real spending growth on average, until surpluses are at least one per cent of GDP and while the economy is at or above trend. The budget also sees a fall in nominal payments in 2012-13 compared to 2011-12—the first fall in 42 years for which data is available. This highlights the key role disciplined spending is playing in the fiscal consolidation. The discipline imposed on real spending growth has reduced payments as a proportion of GDP to 23.5 per cent in 2012-13—that is a fall of 1.6 percentage points from 2011-12. In 2012-13 and each subsequent year in the forward estimates, payments as a percentage of GDP are expected to be at their lowest level since the onset of the global financial crisis. Across the forward estimates from 2012-13, payments are expected to be below 24 per cent of GDP. This is the longest sustained period below 24 per cent since the 1980s.
The budget includes measures to support the integrity, fairness and sustainability of the tax system, such as the removal of tax concessions for golden handshakes and living-away-from-home allowances. Nonetheless, over the forward estimates the tax to GDP ratio is projected to remain below what it was in 2007-08. In 2012-13, the tax to GDP ratio is expected to be 1.6 percentage points lower than the 2007-08 level, which equates to around $24.1 billion worth of tax in 2012-13. Tax receipts are projected to reach 22.9 per cent of GDP in 2015-16, around one percentage point below the levels reached in the mid-2000s. Tax receipts as a proportion of GDP in 2011-12 and the previous two years were the lowest since 1993-94. (Time expired)
I thank the Assistant Treasurer for his opening remarks. I want to touch on a few things before moving to his specific responsibilities. I would like to focus on the general issues around the budget. There is some confusion surrounding the budget papers and why in a number of cases they were delivered late to coalition people in the opposition budget lock-up. Assistant Treasurer, was it Treasury's responsibility to deliver the budget books to the opposition in the budget lock-up? Were any copies of the budget or related papers, including the portfolio budget statements, shredded at any stage during the printing process in the lead-up to the 2012-13 budget? Copies of portfolio budget statements were not available at 1:30 pm when the opposition budget lock-up started. I wonder whether the Assistant Treasurer could shed any light on that; whether there was any delay in the loading dock. I am curious as to why those papers were not available when they would ordinarily have been available.
I also want to talk about the clarity within the budget papers and their transparency in accurately reflecting the Commonwealth's budget position. You would be aware of criticisms from Ross Gittins, who was quite vivid in his criticisms of the actual budget position and how that was communicated—the transparency in a range of transactions that have been shifted off budget and the accounting rationale there; a table that aggregates all those transactions under a range of different headings; and their headline and underlying impacts. You would be aware that he was pointing to a budget surplus when, in his words, 'it actually hides an $8.7 billion budget deficit.' He goes on to say:
The hiding of the headline deficit is just one example of the way the budget papers are becoming less informative rather than more, and the way the spin doctors are turning them into an exercise in media management rather than transparency and accountability.
He provides a number of specific examples. I invite the Assistant Treasurer to address himself to those criticisms that Mr Gittins outlined in relation to payments to NBN Co. as an example, and also on the Clean Energy Development Bank and why that is presented in the way it is in the budget papers.
AAP also had a complaint, which Mr Gittins has alluded to:
This year AAP has accused the government of leaking budget information to selected media for broadcast during the budget lock-up. How's that for duplicity.
Has the Assistant Treasurer had those complaints by the AAP investigated, either by the Treasury or the government? What are the outcomes of those arrangements? Does he agree that this in part undermines the whole point of the lock-up, where there is selective release of information? The Assistant Treasurer and I share a spot on a particular television program, where he is fond of saying, 'I won't be drawn on budget speculation,' and then proceeds to talk about the selective speculation he would love to be drawn on and was actively involved in propagating.
I would invite the Assistant Treasurer to comment on those two very concerning issues about the integrity and transparency of the process and the papers themselves, and on the bewildering reason why key documents were not available to the opposition as they would ordinarily be in the regular course of events.
The first point that the member for Dunkley raised—which goes to the question of documents and materials that were provided or were intended or meant to be provided to the opposition and the timeliness of their provision—is not a matter that has been raised with me previously. Certainly, that is something that I will endeavour to look into and provide the member for Dunkley with further information on. It is my understanding that it is up to the respective individual departments themselves to make available information to the opposition. I am not aware of any instance in which the way in which departments conducted themselves in the most recent budget departed in any way from the way in which matters would ordinarily occur. I have no knowledge of anything untoward in that regard, but I will certainly have a look at the matters that the member for Dunkley has raised.
I welcome the member for Dunkley's interest in transparency, because with a $70 billion black hole the Australian people are going to be very interested in the transparent in way in which the opposition presents its proposals to the Australian people ahead of the next election. The budget papers, in all regards, comply with the usual accounting practice in terms of how budgets are recorded and matters are disclosed. There is no suggestion that that is not the case. It is good to see the member for Dunkley imbibing his daily or weekly element of Mr Gittins's commentary, because I think the opposition could learn a lot from much of what Mr Gittins has said. He has been a very strong critic of the lack commitment to fiscal discipline on the part of the coalition.
On the question of transparency, the government is very pleased to stand behind a budget that is being returned to surplus. We have stated the reasons why it is so important that we return the budget to surplus. We have done so using all of the accounting mechanisms that would ordinarily apply to the way in which these matters are reported. That will show that we are delivering in 2012-13 a $1.5 billion surplus. The surpluses that will be achieved into the out years grow over time. Of course, this is a remarkable result when we consider what is occurring all around the world at the moment. Indeed, these projections are based upon strong growth, growth that is strong by international standards. There is good reason to believe that those projections will be realised. In recent national accounts data released we see that the Australian economy continued to grow more strongly than any other major advanced economy. The Australian economy today is somewhere in the order of nine per cent larger than the economy that existed before the GFC. We are experiencing growth at rates that no other major advanced economy can even come close to, and we are returning our budget to surplus faster than any other major advanced economy. Indeed, as we return the budget to surplus others are still grappling with very large deficits, and we all operate in the current global economic settings with the inherent challenges they bring.
The government are very pleased that in this budget we have been able to spread the benefits of the mining boom, and that is so important. The national accounts data really did show that the growth in this country is occurring much more strongly in some parts than in others and in some sectors more than in others. As we extract mineral resources in this country today to meet the demands of the global economy and the global marketplace, it is absolutely important that we extract a sufficient and appropriate return for the Australian people from those resources. Through the mining tax and the minerals resource rent tax we are doing that, and we are determined to make sure that the benefits of the boom are being spread. I think that is the responsible thing for the government to do, particularly in a climate where the resources boom, which has meant so much bounty for so many, has also provided structural challenges and changes that have impacted on so many others throughout the economy. This is a very good budget, one that has returned to surplus and one that helps spread the benefits of the mining boom.
I want to ask the Assistant Treasurer about the government's decision to return the budget to surplus, but I also want to make a couple of observations in that context about the state of the Australian economy, which is today nine per cent larger than it was before the global financial crisis. Like the Assistant Treasurer, I am a subscriber to the Treasurer's Economic Note, which reminds me that, compared with pre-GFC levels, the Italian economy is now five per cent smaller, the British economy is three per cent smaller and the Japanese economy is one per cent smaller. Other economies have grown, but not by much. The United States economy is up by one per cent and it is the same with Germany; the Canadian economy is up by four per cent. So the Australian economy, having grown by nine per cent from pre-GFC levels, really is in a class of its own.
I also want to raise the recent national accounts figures. As the Assistant Treasurer has noted, the release of those figures really did give the lie to those who argue that Australia's best days are behind us. As the Treasurer put it, the release of those figures was a week when the optimists won over the pessimists. It is important to put in place productivity-boosting reforms and they are reforms that Labor is currently undertaking. The National Broadband Network, the historic investment in schools and boosting the quality of Australian schools are reforms that will pay dividends, but they will not necessarily pay off in the year in which they are implemented. We know this from looking back at past reforms. We can see, for example, that the deregulation of the financial sector and the cutting of tariffs in the 1980s paid off in productivity in the 1990s.
In terms of Australia's debt level, which naturally goes to the question of the return to surplus, it is worth drawing on a number of observations made in the press recently. The Executive Director of the Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, has noted that Australia's level of public debt is among the lowest in the world. In fact, he noted:
At less than 10 per cent of GDP, the Commonwealth’s Net Debt is so low that the financial sector has urged the Gillard Government to issue more government bonds than is actually necessary to ensure the ‘liquidity’ of the government bond market.
Stephen Koukoulas, in the Australian Financial Review on the morning after the budget, noted, 'Not once did the Howard or Fraser governments in about 20 years in office achieve a single year where government spending was cut in real terms, while Labor governments have been able to cut real spending in five years since the mid-1980s.' Mr Koukoulas further notes that in the 2012-13 budget the ratio of government spending to gross domestic product will fall to 23.5 per cent, which is 0.7 per cent of GDP lower than the average of the 12 Howard government budgets. 'In today's dollars, that is around $10 billion less spending.' George Megalogenis, writing last year in the Australian, had this headline: 'ALP best manager of money, history shows'. Mr Megalogenis goes through the average annual real spending increase when the economy was growing at better than two per cent a year. Those figures show that under John Howard as Treasurer growth was 2.3 per cent. Under Peter Costello mark 1, it was 1.9 per cent. Under Peter Costello mark 2, in the salad days, it was 3.3 per cent. Under Wayne Swan, it was 1.0 per cent.
There is a fear campaign being run by those opposite against the debt that we took on in order to save 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses, which I am sure that the member for Dunkley is deeply concerned about. Yet we still see those opposite running scare campaigns on things like the debt cap, which we have been advised to increase in order to take account of the fact that there are fluctuations in government revenues through the course of the year. We are raising the debt cap prudently. But those opposite seem keener on taking a leaf out of the playbook of the US Republicans.
My question to the Assistant Treasurer is: why is the government returning the budget to surplus and why is this important for maintaining Australia's economic prosperity?
I thank the member for his very informed and insightful contribution. I welcome the opportunity to respond to his question. He asked why it is important to return the budget to surplus. There are many reasons why it is important to return the budget to surplus. We as a government should be attempting to live within our means. When the economic circumstances are as strong as they are—and the economic circumstances in this country stand in stark contrast to the challenges that so many other economies are facing around the globe—these are precisely the times in which governments should be attempting to return their budgets to surplus.
What are the indicators to which I refer? When it comes to solid growth, the recent national accounts figures are a testament to the strength of growth in the Australian economy. I often hear those on the other side allege that the government has a preference for redistribution over wealth creation. The strongest endorsement of this government's commitment to wealth creation is the fact that this economy has grown faster in the period since the global financial crisis than any other major advanced economy. As a Labor government, we are committed to ensuring that there is fairness in the way in which taxation and transfer systems operate. But we also believe first and foremost that an economy must grow. Through growth and enlarging the pie, we are able to give more and more Australians the opportunity, with government support and assistance, to realise their potential so that they can make the contribution that our country requires and deserves from them. Our growth is very strong.
We also operate in a context in which unemployment is relatively low. An unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent is relatively low compared to those economies with which we would normally compare ourselves. If we have a look at those economies in Europe and economies such as the US and the UK, what we see is that our unemployment levels are considerably lower. All of those countries to which I have referred would give their right arms—they would give a limb—to have an unemployment rate with a five in front of it. And that is what we have in Australia. In fact, much of the discourse in this country at the moment is positioned around the challenges of confronting labour and skills shortages. And this is a government that has a plan to address those matters as well. We have strong growth and low unemployment, and we have contained inflation. Containing inflation is the best way that any government can attempt to fight the rising cost of living. Containing inflation is, by definition, a government's efforts to contain rising costs of living. With contained inflation, we see strong growth and low unemployment. At the same time, as the member for Fraser rightly pointed out, our net government debt is amongst the lowest of major advanced economies, peaking at 9.6 per cent this year. In fact, if you look at comparable nations and put them all in a basket and work out their average, our net debt peaks at about one-tenth of the average for those countries. We have low net debt, despite the carry-on and the protestations of the opposition. Whenever they have this discussion they firstly do not wish to acknowledge the international realities and the comparisons with other countries.
The other point that those opposite seem to forget is that we have been through the global financial crisis. They want to forget that because they are ashamed of their record of having voted against so many of those important measures that we as a government implemented to support jobs. I have mentioned all of these indicators, but the 800,000-plus jobs that we have created in our time in office are perhaps the strongest indication of this government's agenda. It is about growth. It is about jobs. We have delivered those jobs. Often we have had to do it without the support of those opposite, because they come into the parliament and vote against these measures. Then they want to pretend that there was not a significant international economic incident and a period of challenge that we have been through. We tackled it. As a result of having tackled it, hundreds of thousands of Australians had a job who would not have otherwise had a job.
The Assistant Treasurer talks about the stimulus measures—I think that is what he is alluding to—which in broad figures saw the budget position expand expenditure by $40 billion in that year. Is it not true that the so-called targeted and temporary measures involving the GFC response were neither temporary nor targeted but that they elevated the floor for Commonwealth expenditure by some $40 billion? It has never turned back. On your analysis, Sir, that would mean that every day that Labor has been in office, we have been in a GFC mode, because there has been no reduction in expenditure or no removal of that GFC stimulus for any of the years that followed. It just represented an elevated floor against which further increases were added. You now claim that those increases were not as substantial as they might have otherwise been, conveniently ignoring the $40 billion uplift in one year under the name of the GFC. Is it not true that those stimulus uplift factors created a new floor for the Commonwealth outlays, that we are now spending $370 billion a year compared to $270 billion a year four years ago, that there has been no restoration of the budget base nor the trajectory that was in place before the GFC, and that all of your comments about modesty in expenditure are completely fallacious because there has been no restoration of the expenditure trajectory prior to the GFC?
On the issue of those outlays and the budget position, may I remind you that you have not delivered a surplus; you have forecasted one. None of your economic forecasts have come within a bull's roar of the end-of-year position. How confident are you that this budget will have some sort of accuracy that belies the track record up to date? What analysis have you done on the sensitivities that you have factored into the budget parameters? I refer to what was a remarkable inclusion under the contingency reserve for budget year 2012-13, which is a sizeable negative number. After some flapping around in Finance estimates, the explanation that was provided for this unusual occurrence was there was a lower than expected March quarter CPI outcome that needed to be factored into the papers and that this was 'received too late in the process to be allocated to individual agencies or functions'. Is this answer accurate and reliable? How is it that this reduced CPI outcome is not reflected anywhere else in the budget or, if it is, can you please point to where it is? Could you give some indication of the size of the downward forecast revision and what this downward forecast revision has meant for revenue? And, to pursue this matter further, in terms of that late revision and the economic parameters that it is supposedly influencing, what are the revenue and growth projections that are now in the budget if you have got that downcast in there covered by a negative contingency reserve amount but it does not appear anywhere else in the budget papers?
I will move on to the budget issue. You touched on debt. If you are claiming it is a surplus, how is it that there is a growth in the debt profile and why are you seeking an increase in the debt ceiling? How is it that the explanation you provided relating to the fluctuations in revenue throughout the year cannot be accommodated by an existing mechanism available to you through the Loan (Temporary Revenue Deficits) Act 1953? How can you credibly say there will be a surplus when you are forecasting a need to increase the debt position? On the issue of the sensitivities regarding the downward revision in GDP, what is the sensitivity to net debt for each year across the forward estimates of a one per cent increase or a one per cent decrease in GDP and where does that leave the final budget position?
On the issue of taxation, you talk about the taxation measures that are included. When was the decision made to abandon Labor's company tax promise? Less than 24 hours before the Treasurer delivered the budget speech, the Minister for Small Business claimed that that was still part of the budget and, when asked why 92 per cent of small businesses feel that no government policy is helping them, reached for that measure. Being on the Expenditure Review Committee, he must have known that that was not the case, so why was he not being straight with people? That is probably why the member for Deakin has circulated that information. What is the status of the company tax cuts?
Finally, doesn't your budget confirm the abolition of the entrepreneurs tax offset, which will put up the level of taxation on the income of about 400,000 of Australia's smallest businesses? How is that assisting small business, in the manner you claim, in distributing the proceeds of the mining boom?
I welcome the member for Dunkley's intervention on this occasion. In particular, I welcome his willingness to bring small business front and centre into the debate about what this government is doing. Once again, I am surprised that he would come into this place and seek to draw attention to his own abysmal failure. The member for Dunkley is the shadow small business minister, and he would have to be the only shadow small business minister, certainly from the coalition side, in the history of this parliament who has voted against tax relief for small business. He came into this parliament and voted against tax relief for small business, and then he has the audacity, the hide, to come in here.
But it gets much better than that. He glossed over the fact that he voted against tax relief for small business—the instant asset write-off measure, which will ensure that small businesses all around this country will be able to share in the benefits of the mining boom by getting an upfront deduction, an instant asset write-off for every asset they purchase under $6,500. This will be a massive boost to small business and will give them the capacity to invest in their own capabilities and in their own capital and equipment, making sure that they are able to take advantage of the opportunities that arise in the markets they serve. Not only did he gloss over that point, he had the audacity to come in here and challenge the government when it comes to the question of company tax cuts. Day after day we came into this parliament and those opposite jumped up and down and said, 'We will vote against company tax cuts.' The rationale for that was, they said: 'We don't support the income-generating source. We don't support the minerals resource rent tax. So, because we don't support the minerals resource rent tax, we won't be supporting any of the expenditure measures that are attached to it.' They made that point. They would have an ounce of credibility if they would at least maintain some consistency on that point. But what have they now done? We have handed down a budget where we have made it clear that, despite their determination to block our company tax cuts, we will make sure we spread the benefits of the boom. But we are going to do it by providing some other forms of assistance—in the form of increases to family payments and increases to allowances—to ensure that those individuals and families who are doing it tough share in the benefits of the mining boom. And what did they say?
All of a sudden they discovered that they were in a position where they could support expenditure measures that were linked to the MRRT. I think the real issue here is that the shadow small business minister does not have the clout in shadow cabinet. When it comes to small business issues, he was not able to get them over the line when it came to supporting a tax cut for business. What a shameful position to be in! He has been the only shadow Liberal small business minister to vote against tax relief for business, but then he got rolled. He got rolled in shadow cabinet on trying to give a company tax cut. For the member for Dunkley to come in here and try to challenge the government when it comes to tax reform, particularly in relation to company tax cuts, not only is really gilding the lily but is beyond the pale.
The member for Dunkley also made a few points in relation to the global financial crisis. He wants to block it from his memory. We all remember the shameful position that they took when they voted against the stimulus measures that supported this economy—or at least those that managed to turn up to parliament to vote against them. The member for Dunkley voted against them. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been protected and supported as a result of that. One challenge I hand down for those opposite is that they should come forward and tell us which economy, which country, out of all those economies out there in the world handled the global financial crisis better than Australia.
China.
China! All I can say is that I am pleased the member for Dunkley— (Time expired)
Mr Billson interjecting—
A bit of coverage on superannuation is important, member for Dunkley.
Mr Billson interjecting—
He does not need protection; he could take all three of you on. The 2012-13 budget delivers on the government's commitment to return the budget to surplus from surpluses growing over the forward estimates. But, as well as returning to surplus, this budget spreads the benefits of the resources boom to help families on low and middle incomes with the cost of living. The return to surplus is the right decision for the Australian economy because it sustains confidence in Australia's public finances and it strengthens the government's balance sheets to support Australia's capacity to respond to future adverse economic shocks. Return to surplus is appropriate for an economy expected to grow above trend, and it allows monetary policy to return to surplus ahead of any major advanced economy.
Many other advanced economies are dealing with the very difficult issue of an ageing population and how to make sure that there is enough money for all people who reach 65 to retire. That is why we had some measures in our budget which improve the superannuation prospects of Australians. Unlike the coalition, who consistently vote against increases to superannuation, we on the Labor side believe in boosting Australian's superannuation. We also believe super should be concessionally taxed, and we are making the system fairer for millions of low-income earners by removing the compulsory tax on compulsory superannuation contributions from 1 July 2012. It was also clear to us that a small number of people on very high incomes are getting a better tax deal out of superannuation than millions of Australians on average incomes, because most compulsory superannuation contributions are taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent, regardless of the person's income. This is why we are making the system fairer by reducing the higher tax concession that the very high-income earners receive on their concessional contributions. Indeed, in this budget we announced that we would take steps to more closely align the tax concession for very high-income earners with the concession received by average-income earners. The government took this step because it is not fair, nor is it good economic policy, to give 128,000 Australians a 30 per cent tax break, excluding the Medicare levy, on their superannuation contributions. We are better targeting the tax concessions for superannuation by reducing the significant concession which very high-income earners receive on their contributions. This reform will affect only people whose income is more than $300,000, which is approximately 1.2 per cent of people contributing to superannuation in 2012-13. We are reducing the tax concession which wealthy taxpayers receive on their contributions from 30 to 15 per cent, so it is more in line with the concession received by people with average earnings. This reform builds on our low-income superannuation contribution, which will make concessions on contributions fairer for about 3.6 million low-paid workers in 2012-13. The low income superannuation tax abolition—that is, getting rid of the 15 per cent tax paid on superannuation by people who earn less than $37,000 a year—will also support, in particular, women. Of the 3.6 million Australians who earn less than $37,000 a year, approximately 2.1 million are women, thus ensuring that they have more money for their retirement, when it is well known that women find it more difficult to save money for their retirement when they have to step in and out of the workforce.
In addition, in 2012-13 and 2013-14, all individuals will be subject to the general concessional cap and will be able to make concessional superannuation contributions of up to $25,000 per year. We are deferring the start date of the higher cap by two years, from 1 July 2012 to 1 July 2014, in light of comments made by industry about the difficulty in administering the higher cap before the new start date. During consultation, the superannuation industry raised concerns in relation to the cost and complexity involved in administering the balance limit and the difficulty some individuals may face in determining whether they are eligible for the higher cap. Deferring the start date will significantly help resolve these issues. It will allow implementation to occur at the same time super funds are making more changes to their systems to report more information to the ATO as part of the SuperStream reforms. In addition, individuals will be able to more easily determine whether they are eligible for the higher cap when the ATO provides access to comprehensive account balance information from early 2014. The Labor government is the only party in federal politics that is interested in improving superannuation for all Australians. (Time expired)
Could the minister confirm that the superannuation contributions paid by employers that are legislated to increase from nine to 12 per cent are indeed paid for by employers and have been legislated? There has been some suggestion from Labor members that this is subject to some kind of negotiation and wiggle room. That came as news to most people. Could he confirm that that is the case. Could he also turn his mind to a question that has been put to the coalition which relates to the number of small businesses that are suffering at the moment through a 48 per cent increase in small business insolvencies. A number of them point to their business being their retirement nest egg and thank the coalition for the capital gains tax rollover relief and other measures that they had planned to rely upon for their retirement. They point to the lack of appetite for purchasing new businesses or instances where a business has hit the wall and there may be a limited window within which to accumulate a retirement nest egg. Has the minister any plans to examine the contribution cap for mature age people, particularly in light of the reduction that the government has introduced where there might be a limited period of time—say, for the people over the age of 50—to accumulate a retirement nest egg and whether that is on his radar screen?
I move to a related area about the accountants exemption that the minister would be aware of and FOFA changes first announced by then minister Bowen. It was proposed by the government that this exemption would be changed. This has created some uncertainty and concerns for accountants across Australia. Can he update us on progress of the proposed changes to the accountants exemption allowing them to provide advice on setting up or closing SMSF funds? I believe that was to come within weeks back in February. I think the minister was reported as saying that that was forthcoming within the next two weeks. So there is a bit of date slippage, but we are just wondering where that has got to and whether any changes to this measure are being contemplated that deviate from what Mr Bowen had to say. What action is being taken and when will this next two weeks arise as the minister promised?
I will just more onto another related area, mindful that I suspect the clock will be run down by Labor colleagues. In the investment manager space, can he explain the delay in finalising the investment manager regime legislation? Is one of the issues resourcing of Treasury? I note there was a report of about some four dozen—
Do you like Treasury? You normally hate them.
I am always fond of Treasury. It is Treasurers we have to keep an eye on. We look out for the pre-election budget outcome, because we know your mysterious hand has not gone over those figures and so they have a degree of tidiness about them. Is this an issue of the resourcing of Treasury? Has Treasury received any stakeholder feedback on the delay and is there some reason that that seems not to be 'moving forward', to coin a phrase?
On payday lending, could the minister update us on progress with the proposed payday lending changes contained in the Consumer Credit and Corporation Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011? I acknowledge that the minister has appreciated that payday lending is different to microfinance, and there has been some change there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order.
There are no points of order.
I just want some clarification. Several of the questions asked by the member for Dunkley have nothing to do with the appropriations bill which we are discussing. I am more than happy to answer them but ask that he refer to the part of the budget he is addressing.
It is quite simple: Treasury officials are funded by appropriation. You have a football team of them here, Minister. They certainly are related to the budget. I am confident you would be able to cope with them.
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
I have never seen anything like it before! I hope you appreciate us seeking clarification about how your portfolio is financed, Minister. What is the status of the review of the definition of retail and wholesale clients? The options paper was released in January 2011 and submissions closed over a year ago, on 25 February 2011. It is unclear why it has taken so long. Have any decisions been made to abandon this process or to change the process? When can we expect an announcement relating to that?
Finally, regarding APRA regulated funds, were all of them compensated for losses in Trio? Has the process for providing compensation been finalised? I would be grateful for an answer to a couple of those questions. (Time expired)
Following on from the Chief Opposition Whip's interest in fishing, the member for Dunkley has decided to do his own form of fishing which cannot be regulated by protection of the Barrier Reef. Fair enough. The most substantial question which the member for Dunkley led off with was about superannuation and who pays it. Let me be very clear on this matter. It is not appropriate for the opposition to spend their time scaring business and misleading people about who pays for superannuation. Superannuation increases are paid for out of the creation of value and wealth in enterprises going forward. For this, I submit the real-world evidence of what happened between 1992 and 2002. Over that time period, where compulsory superannuation was increased from three per cent to nine per cent, we saw at the same time a decrease in the unit labour costs of business, an increase in business profit as a share of GDP, an fall in unemployment from 11 per cent to something around six per cent and a rise in real wages in a continual pattern. It is not good enough that those opposite, who are the shipwreck survivors of the Howard-Costello era, without necessarily the capacity of some of those former members, have forgotten their own party's record on superannuation. What they always do is initially oppose and then they try to own the changes.
Why don't you talk about your record?
The member for Higgins, who has had a very bad weekend in preselections, is now interjecting. What I recall is that her former boss, the former member for Higgins and the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, acknowledged the benefits of superannuation. I touched a raw nerve there with the member for Higgins. As for who pays, it is paid for out of the creation of productive value in enterprises. The only way you could argue that it is some sort of a cost on business would be to suggest that there will never be real wage increases in the whole period going forward and that the wages in 2013 would, without superannuation, be the same remuneration received by employees in 2019, which is patently false. The question of who pays is clearly and succinctly dealt with. To paraphrase former Prime Minister Keating, 'When conservatives tell you that this is some sort of tax on employers, they are either misinformed or they are lying, and they are wrong.'
Some of the other questions raised by the member for Dunkley include the proposition that superannuation is another impost on small business. Having first established that it is not actually what it has been described as by the shadow minister for small business, I would also remind him of the measures which this government has put in the actual appropriation bill to help small businesses. Of course, that includes not least the loss carry-back provisions. I also remind him of the deduction for motor vehicles which are purchased. I remind him of the tax deduction for purchase of capital equipment. These are real measures which help small business.
Of course, in politics it does not do anyone any credit to practise political amnesia. The reason why small business did not get a tax cut is that those opposite were against it. To quote the Assistant Treasurer in the chamber, the first spokesperson for small business ever in the history—
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The louder you shout, Member for Higgins, your logic does not improve. Does anyone remember a coalition small business spokesperson ever voting against a tax cut for small business? You look through the history. You look through Hansard from 1901. There is only one person who wins that prize, and that is the current member for Dunkley.
He also asked questions about contribution caps. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! There is only one party in this parliament that believes in increasing the contribution caps. That is the Labor Party; that is the government. We believe in increasing the contribution caps for people over 50. The opposition, as on many things in terms of policy for the nation, have their policy on contribution caps in a witness protection program. We know they cannot afford to be positive and match Labor's policy of lifting it to $50,000 in 2014 for people over 50 with account balances up to half a million dollars. We know that those opposite cannot afford to be positive because they cannot afford to pay the bills. They have done no work in opposition and they do not know how they are going to fund it.
In terms of the other questions asked by the member for Dunkley, the IMR regime legislation will come forward soon, as will legislation on payday lending. We are most interested to see if those opposite will actually support reform of payday lending. In terms of the accountants' exemption, that will be resolved fairly soon after continued discussions with all the relevant bodies. In terms of the APRA-regulated funds within Trio, people who had money which has been lost through malfeasance in APRA-regulated funds have in fact been compensated. (Time expired)
Obviously this is an opportunity for us to talk about the things that actually matter for real people in real places like the seat of Robertson. If it were not for Labor, with a vision for the future and a capacity to articulate with hope for an Australia where there is an opportunity for people to share in the wealth, there would never have been a superannuation scheme. Right now, at this point of time, in the budget that is before the House at this stage, we see another articulation of what it means to be Labor and to believe in ordinary Australians.
In my seat, there are a number of groups of people who I have particular concerns about, Minister. I would really be very keen to hear how the government's reforms that are being revealed through Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, which is before us today, will assist these particular groups of people. First of all, I am thinking of people who are roughly at the age of 30. Thankfully, having grown up in a period after Labor brought in superannuation, these young 30-year-olds know the term 'superannuation', and in their lives they will have some experience of the benefits that that has given to people who are older. But, for our 30-year-olds, what does what we are about to implement with the appropriation bill coming to pass actually mean?
Another question I would really like a response on, Minister, is about the commitment that we have to people who manage on a very low income. What is it that Labor is doing in this appropriation bill to make sure that low-income earners in the seat of Robertson are going to get the advantage of having voted in a Labor government, knowing that we are going to honour our word and honour our ideological commitment to making sure all Australians move forward together? What is there for the low-income earners of Robertson?
One of the features of the seat in which I live is that we have a large number of people—over 18 per cent of the population in my seat—over 60. I note that many of them have given great service to this country and have an incredible level of experience that they still want to contribute to the community. Being over 70 does not mean that you are unemployable; it means that you are much more employable in many, many ways than others. What are we doing to help people who are over 70 in my electorate to get their fair share of what is going on in this country?
It would be unsuitable for me not to ask a question about women. Being a working mother myself and having faced all of the wonderful opportunities and challenges that come with being a working mother, I know that Labor has a legislative commitment to advance women's rights and issues, to advance the economic potential for women to provide for their own futures and to have a secure retirement. We know that, currently, women are terribly underfunded in terms of their retirement savings. What is there in this budget that helps and supports women in getting better equity in life outcomes?
I know there has been considerable argy-bargy here this afternoon with regard to small business, but the reality is this is a government that absolutely understands that small business is a major employer. In seats like my seat of Robertson, where there is a large service and retail sector, small business employers really need the advantages of what we can offer them as a federal government at this point in time. I am very interested, Minister, to hear what is in the appropriations bill that we can give to the small businesses in the seat of Robertson.
I thank the member for Robertson and I will call on the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation to respond. It is by agreement that we go through to 6.30 pm. I am conscious that we will chew in to people's time if there are further questions for the Minister for Financial Services. I will therefore let the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation respond, but then I am keen, as chair, to get over to the new minister.
I will try to be brief in answering that question. In terms of the propositions made about superannuation, there have been a range of measures made in this appropriations bill and there has been work done by the Treasury officials funded in this appropriations bill previously and going forward. So, adopting the standard of the member for Dunkley, I will range widely in terms of giving a comprehensive but brief answer to the member for Robertson.
First of all, Labor is the party of superannuation. Without the successive Labor governments, the superannuation system as we know it now—universal and providing retirement nest eggs as part of people's retirement strategies—simply would not exist. It is also fair to advise the electors of Robertson that, whenever the coalition has had an opportunity to increase superannuation, they have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Again, the latest budget just represents more of the same of their DNA—to make superannuation the preserve of just some, not all.
In particular, the member for Robertson asked me about what is being done to in support for women and their superannuation. I would obviously refer not only to this budget but also to earlier legislation which has seen the abolition of the 15 per cent contributions tax paid by people who earn less than $37,000. As the member for Robertson well knows, a high proportion of the very large number of Australians who earn less than $37,000 are women. What we have done is, basically, provided in the course of this year an almost billion-dollar tax concession to the low paid. That is good news for the people of Robertson, in particular to the women electors who earn less than $37,000.
But that is part of the broader superannuation strategy in which we have been assisted by Treasury. We have increased the rate from nine to 12 per cent—that is good. We have abolished the tax for the low paid—that is equitable. We have put on a slightly higher charge for people who earn over $300,000—that is equitable and it is making sure that tax concessions are falling to those who most need them. We have also been improving the back office. I do acknowledge that the coalition today has voted to support some of our efforts in the back office operation of the SuperStream levy. We have also managed—although we were opposed by the opposition—to abolish the discrimination against people over 70 who are employees. Courtesy of this government, if the member for Robertson has people over 70 who are still employees, they will, from next year, be able to get superannuation on what they earn.
In addition we have propositions in the parliament about better governance of superannuation. We had to take the difficult decision to defer the concession caps—that is the amount of money you put into superannuation above which you do not get the tax concession advantage. We had hoped to make it $50,000 per annum for people over 50. This year, clearly, the need to get back into surplus and the wise economic stewardship of the nation required a deferral of a quite attractive proposition to July 2014. I note also, for the member for Robertson to advise her electors, that we are the only political party interested in having an increase in the concessional caps. Unfortunately, we have heard nothing from the opposition—they are very good on the negative but not so good on the positive—in terms of superannuation.
We have three ministers here at the moment. On the agreement I have in front of me there is only a need for one to be before us, but I will leave it up to those on the jump to test their luck. The member for Higgins.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply want to place on notice that the minister arrived half an hour late and we did not have the time required to question him fully. He has 16 officials sitting behind him. I think it has been an enormous waste of an opportunity. It is, again, a demonstration that the government is trying to avoid scrutiny.
I have only just taken the chair so I do not know what happened previously. The Federation Chamber is dealing with proposed appropriation for the Treasury portfolio of $4,441,842,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Treasury portfolio be agreed to.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $648,549,000.
Tonight I have serious concerns about the management of the tourism portfolio. This is an industry, when you combine tourism and hospitality, that employs about one million people or 8.8 per cent of the Australian workforce. The issue I want to start with is the funding for Tourism Australia. When this government came to power the budget for Tourism Australia was $136,269,000. This year the proposed budget is $130,178,000 and in the forward estimates it is $134,556,000. This is the lowest funding level ever for Tourism Australia—the lowest funding ever for an industry that employs a million people. In fact, in real terms, the dollar loss between 2007 and 2012 is $18,949,000 or 16 per cent, and projected through to the forward estimates it is $22,943,000 or 19 per cent less. So, Minister, given that last year Australians spent 132 million bed nights on holidays overseas and that in 2008 Australia dropped from fourth to 13th place in the World Economic Forum's travel and tourism competitiveness index rankings, how do you justify reducing the budget for Tourism Australia when the numbers have dropped off so massively?
The second thing I want to raise with you, Minister, is about your announcement on 2 May, the week before the budget, when you launched the Australian Tourism Investment Guide with great fanfare, yet in the budget—and you must have been aware of this—the MIT withholding rate was increased from 7½ to 15 per cent. Minister, surely you would have understood that that was going to have a massive effect. You got people wound up, geed up and excited about investing in Australia and then, after barely a week had gone by, that confidence for overseas investment particularly in our hotel industry was absolutely destroyed. It is no secret that there is a bed shortage in Australia, particularly of quality hotel accommodation. We both agree on that. So how do you address the fact that you launched the policy knowing what was going to be in the budget? You are a cabinet minister and I can only assume that things affecting your portfolio would have been discussed with you.
The third thing I wish to raise with you, Minister, in the limited time we have here is the passenger movement charge. When you came to government in 2007 the passenger movement charge was $38. It was increased to $47. It is now proposed to increase it to $55. Minister, how do you justify a 45 per cent increase in a tax when this, projected through on the forward estimates, will raise $1.04 billion but the operational cost for Customs in delivering the services is around $239 million? On top of that, how do you justify putting a CPI on the PMC tax going forward from next year? Minister, given that you turned up at the National Tourism Alliance on 2 March, the final line under item 2 of their communique says:
The Minister stated there would be no increase in the passenger movement charge.
And then later on, in discussion on 'passenger facilitation', it said:
The Minister informed the meeting he had heard of no proposal to raise the PMC in the upcoming budget.
Minister, how can an industry have confidence if you are telling them one thing before a budget and doing something different afterwards, or does this equate to the promise that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' and then you introduce one? You have gone to the tourism industry and told them that there will be no increases in the PMC, and then after the budget they find that they are getting whacked.
I know you are going to say that you are offsetting with the Asia Marketing Fund of $61 million. Minister, your CPI increase alone will collect $156 million just on the CPI increase, and you are giving $61 million back to the industry. How do you justify that when our tourism industry is doing it so tough?
Firstly, I note that I was here ahead of time. There was half an hour set aside and I will be leaving at 6.30 because it is in accordance with the scheduled timing of this portfolio.
You can rest assured that the chamber will be moving onto other business at 6.30 pm—
I take it from the honourable member's intervention that, based on his reference to the passenger movement charge, the media release that attacked the New South Wales government over its dramatic change last week with respect to the movement of passengers in the cruise ship industry—
This is about your government, Minister, and your accountability.
Let us have a little bit of consistency when it comes to the question of the movement of Australians in and out of Australia. It is all right when out of the blue the New South Wales government introduces a new cruise ship tax of $20 per person, whereas previously it was an amount levied on each vessel by the appropriate port authorities.
Minister, this is about your tax!
If it is good enough for the coalition in New South Wales to do this, then why can't the Australian government similarly adjust taxes as required?
Perhaps the member for Paterson should also give the House an explanation as to why it was all right for the coalition when in government to increase the passenger movement charge on a regular basis, but it is not all right for the current Australian Labor government to do so. Let us go through a little bit of history in terms of when he was a member of the Howard government over 13 long years.
You are not answering the question.
Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?
No, I am seeking to answer a question, as the minister has actually asked me a question.
No, sit down please.
Let us go to the passenger movement charge. Yes, there was an increase in the budget—
A rip-off.
just as there was an increase in the passenger movement charge in 1999 by the Howard government, from $27 to $30. Then they sought to create the impression that this would just be to cover short-term costs related to the Olympic Games, but all of a sudden we found that increase was to continue—it was set in concrete.
Then we go to 2001. It increased in 1999 and then in 2001we had a further increase from $30 to $38, an increase of 27 per cent. So it is good for the coalition, it is okay to increase the passenger movement charge, but when it comes to a government of an alternative political persuasion it is not appropriate.
Let us also go to what we did as against the opposition. The increase in the passenger movement charge will have a minimal impact on the Australian tourism industry, because it is actually going better than the member for Paterson would like it to go both internationally and domestically. The average international visitor during the 2010-11 financial year spent $4,096 when visiting Australia. The proposed increase in the passenger movement charge of $8, or 17 per cent—a lower increase than the 27 per cent increase in 2001—represents only a small cost in the context of total visitor spend: 0.2 per cent.
I also inform the House that work undertaken in 2011 by the Centre of Economic Policy at the University of New South Wales on behalf of the state and territory governments—overseen by Tourism Research Australia—modelled a 20 per cent increase in the passenger movement charge, higher than what the government proposes. It found that it would have minimal impact on international visitation and potentially a positive impact in terms of Australians not going overseas, which is one of the desires of the Australian tourism industry. At the moment, we have 5.5 million visitors per year from overseas with 7.5 million Australians going overseas per year because of the strength of the Australian dollar—and the strength of the Australian economy.
On the question relating to how the Australian tourism industry is going, the truth is that in relative terms, given the challenges in North America and Europe—and I suppose the opposition spokesman has not noticed that there are major economic challenges in North America and Europe at the moment—international tourism is doing well from an Australian perspective. In 2011, there were 5.9 million international arrivals, a similar result to 2010, which is not bad given the challenges in Europe and North America. Growth in Chinese arrivals was particularly strong, with an increase of 19.4 per cent in one year. Indonesian arrivals were up 13.2 per cent—and people forget the importance of Indonesia. And there was an increase in Indian arrivals of 6.8 per cent. (Time expired)
I ask the minister if he would not mind switching hats for me—switching from his beach hat to his mining and resources hard hat. I have a great deal of sympathy for you, because you strike me as quite a practical man. I do not know how you manage to sit through some of your cabinet meetings listening to the bulldust about the carbon tax. I know that in your heart of hearts, Minister, you do not actually believe in what you are being forced to implement.
I want the minister to try to explain to me the seemingly contradictory position that he has. He has openly spoken about his support for efforts to clean up brown coal, possibly for export purposes. I think that it was the minister who coined the phrase, 'The Latrobe Valley could be the Pilbara of Victoria.' I believe that that position contradicts and is in stark contrast with your government's contract-for-closure policy, under which you are seeking to force the closure of 2,000 megawatts of brown coal power production and force the owners of those power stations out of business. Perhaps the minister can explain to me the miracle that occurs on the ships as they cross the seas in which this brown coal is somehow cleaned of its carbon content. Minister, I do not believe that you have any love for the contract-for-closure policy. Previously, you have left yourself a fair bit of wriggle room in your comments. You are saying that it is not contract for closure at any price. You are probably the only minister who has left himself a bit of wriggle room in that regard.
On the contract-for-closure policy, given that we are just days away from the 1 July deadline the government has set, will the minister deny that the government is going to announce an extension of time for this process? Isn't it a fact, Minister, that the whole process is completely off the rails and there is no prospect of an agreement within the next couple of weeks and that you need an extension of time to try and salvage something from this policy wreckage? Rather than announce an extension of time, Minister, why won't you do what you really want to do, which is abandon this dud of a policy, a policy that will cost jobs and do nothing to change the temperature of the planet? Minister, we both know that closing coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley will not deliver a single direct environmental benefit anywhere in the world. We both know that contract for closure is a dud policy. Minister, will you deny that the government is going to announce an extension of time on its contract-for-closure policy?
The Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. But before I do call him, I would remind the member for Gippsland about parliamentary language. There was one particular word used in that speech with the blank look. I will remind him the word 'bulldust' is certainly in context. It is a word where better words can be found to describe the same concerns. The minister.
Let us, firstly, deal with the nature of the Latrobe Valley. The Latrobe Valley is rich in brown coal reserves. Let us also be frank, historically it is not able to be exported because it of its high moisture content and its combustible nature. The government is therefore absolutely involved with the Victorian government in exploring potential technology opportunities. The opportunities are basically driven by the private sector to which both parties are prepared to make a financial contribution and to assess potential technology, which would reduce the moisture content, and hence make it exportable. Also from an export potential it would represent a further energy opportunity for countries not as rich in resources as Australia in reducing emissions. For example, one of the projects involves Australian proponents in association with a company out of India. The lignite in the Latrobe Valley is akin to the lignite in India—high in moisture content—and if we break through on the technology front we create a new export opportunity.
I am pleased to say that there are a whole variety of potential technology solutions in the Latrobe Valley including carbon caption storage which we also committed money to in trying to guarantee the future of the Latrobe Valley. In terms of the contract-for-closure process, obviously there are a range of issues of a commercial-in-confidence nature. I can also say that a number of the applicants—as has the government—have negotiated in good faith. They are interested in assessing whether or not it is possible within the envelope provided by government to enter into an agreement over time to reduce the emissions in the Latrobe Valley in terms of the high-emitting nature of the Latrobe Valley. No-one can deny that in relative terms the emissions out of a coal fired power station in Victoria are significantly higher than most other coal fired power stations in Australia.
Hence, we also have the approach to technology of how to reduce the moisture content and, in doing so, reduce the emissions. With respect to the contract-for-closure process, if we make the breakthrough in technology, who will know what we will get out of the contract-for-closure process? There is an envelope and I will not go beyond the envelope because our assessment of what is value for money in terms of those existing power stations. Should one power station, for example, close, a change on technology can guarantee the future life and even potentially extend the life of other coal fired power stations because of the potential capacity to reduce emissions.
These processes and negotiations are continuing, including with HRL and Energy Brix. I had further discussions today including, I might say, with the Victorian government to assess all available options. The real issue is: how do we assist the Latrobe Valley in creating a new future. I remind the honourable member that, under a direct action of his own coalition party room's policy at the last election, their intent to close power stations in the Latrobe Valley was absolutely reflected in direct action. I am reminding him of the policy at the last election—he was a candidate at the last election—
Mr Chester interjecting—
It would be done by using consolidated revenue, which would close the Latrobe Valley because the coalition at the time also appreciated—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Order!
If possible, we had to work on a technological front to reduce the emissions and to guarantee the Latrobe Valley a future. That is what I am consumed with and that is why I have a close working relationship with my Victorian counterpart, the minister for regional development, and with Mr Ryan the Deputy Premier of Victoria.
Have you concluded your answer, Minister?
Yes. If he gets his time, he could ask another question.
Does the member for Gippsland seek to ask a question?
Yes, if that is okay, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Minister, will you allow a question?
Of course.
Very briefly, Minister, in your comments you referred to the fact that Latrobe Valley coal could not be exported and perhaps used in China, India, Korea and Japan. If it is okay for the Latrobe Valley coal to be used in those contexts, why is it not okay for Latrobe Valley power station workers to keep their jobs?
Consider my answer. I refer to the technology which reduces the moisture content therefore, potentially, makes it exportable because it is no longer combustible. It also means the end use has low emissions, be it in Australia or overseas. My answer also referred to the fact that, if you get the necessary break from technology for whatever power stations that may continue operation in the valley, it makes them lower emitting; therefore, more viable under a carbon tax regime.
I ask the minister a few questions about the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. Does he agree with the new CEO of that institute, Brad Page, who said in the press on the weekend in regard to the seed capital of $100 million a year being given to the institute that it 'was more than it knew how to spend' and said further:
It's actually impossible to spend that amount of money responsibly.
Does the minister agree with that statement? If he does not agree with that statement, can he explain to the House exactly what control he and his department have over the expenditure of the institute, which according to an article written by Lenore Taylor—who I am sure the minister has respect for because Lenore gets things right—describes a lavish lifestyle of that committee as it travelled first-class around the world having meetings at exorbitantly expensive venues. The questions are: does he agree with Brad Page that it is actually impossible to spend that amount of money responsibly, and can he explain what control he has over the institute to stop it wasting money?
I have not seen the comments of the CEO, in whom I have confidence.
Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—
I might have had other issues to attend to over the weekend. The total Australian government funding for the institute is $315 million to 2016-17. You will find that, since the institute was first established through normal budget processes, I as the minister have been part of the process of winding back, in my opinion, the institute's allocation of funding to what we believed was appropriate. I was part of that process. The initial figure raised is no longer the figure, as the honourable member appreciates.
The current funding allocation enables us to pull our weight internationally as the major coal-exporting nation in the world, to participate in other countries in terms of the research and learning processes potentially related to how we reduce the cost of carbon capture and storage. The technology is not proven; the issue is how to reduce the cost to commercialisation. In the same way we have to work out how we reduce the cost of every other form of clean energy, be it nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal or whatever. Our responsibility as a nation is to invest in R&D in these alternative forms of clean energy with one exception. We are not investing in nuclear because, frankly, we do not have to. If Australia at some point decides to go nuclear, there are further technological advances being made by other countries, who are responsible for this technology, which we will buy off the shelf at a point in the future if the community so decides. For other forms of clean energy such as carbon capture and storage, we have to pull our weight.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate the minister's explanation but the questions were: does he agree with the comment that this is more money than they can spend, and if he has not seen the comment—I apologise and appreciate why he may not have—can he tell me what control he has over the institute?
I have control through the budget, my friend.
Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—
No. I have made it clear in terms of where we think the institute is at, what is appropriate and how it is being managed. I have confidence in the new CEO, Mr Page, to attend to the requirements of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in terms of current government funding and accountability, and, I might say, moving it to a model which requires industry to commence part funding of this organisation. We either front up and invest in technology or we walk away from reducing emissions, because fossil fuels, whether some people like it or not, are part of our future.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
It is good to be here in the Federation Chamber with my friend the member for Mayo. I look forward to his contribution as always.
What about me?
And we can all hope that we are Griffinesque. That is all I can say. I would like to congratulate the member for Fraser on his motion. It is a good motion. It looks at the economic situation, and there is much to be positive about—800,000 jobs since 2007 and an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent, lower than all but one of the major advanced economies. We are beating the rest of the world, whether you look at the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe generally. We have a very good news story to tell on jobs. We have a very good news story to tell on inflation, which is low. We have a very good news story to tell on wages growth, which is faster than CPI. We know that the best way to deal with the cost of living is to have growing wages and, if you have not got a job, to get a job and, if you got a job, to get a better job. That is always the best way of dealing with the cost of living. We have got low interest rates, which of course are a major contributor to family and household budgets. We have got low debt—not high debt but low debt—and we have got an investment pipeline, which, according to the Treasurer tonight, increased by 12.3 per cent in the March quarter, to reach a record of $1.086 billion, the first time more than $1 billion has been spent on mineral exploration in a single quarter. That exploration has risen by 35 per cent since the price of carbon was announced, and 80 per cent since the minerals resource rent tax. So we have a stunning investment pipeline, which will basically underwrite future economic growth. We have doubled investment in schools. We have an extra 116,000 university places, which we know are a major contributor to future economic growth. We have a record number of people in training and apprenticeships. We have some 460,000 Australians currently in trade apprenticeships or vocational training nationwide.
So we have got a very good news story, particularly when you look at the rest of the world. The US recovery is slow due to the housing overhang and the results of the household debt and banking debts that were incurred during their crisis. Europe is having a political crisis which has economic implications, which is all basically around the security of debt and who is going to be responsible about it. We see them pursuing damaging and counterproductive short-term austerity programs, very similar to what the coalition would advocate for Australia. We know that in Europe the only solution is a guarantee of all European debt, followed by short-term growth policies and finally a program of long-term austerity, not short-term austerity. That is what will fix Europe.
We know what is going to come up next. The member for Mayo is going to stand up here and pour scorn on Australia's economic record. We know that the opposition like going overseas and talking about how good Australia's economy is and then, when they get in front of a hometown audience, they will have you believing that black is white and up is down. They will be talking the place down, trying to damage consumer confidence and pretending that Australia's economy is like the rest of the world's. This is very damaging speculation. We know that the member for Mayo has speculated about mining investment in my state, South Australia. He will do so again—talking the state down, talking mining down in the state.
You're talking down Jac Nasser!
I am not attacking him; I am attacking you.
Order! This is not the place for attacking anyone. For short-term reasons, the member for Mayo will talk down the Australian economy. They have very little to say about their own economic policies, which are basically austerity policies. They are based on the simplistic notion that a complex national economy or an international economy is somehow like a household budget. It is not, and it is ridiculous to suggest it is.
I am pleased to follow the member for Wakefield and I am pleased to see that he continues to support the Australian wool industry with that jumper that he has on this evening in the Federation Chamber.
It's the Kim Carr collection!
The Kim Carr collection—the member for Wakefield has just revealed his true colours! I thought the member for Wakefield was from Don's right, but it turns out he is from Kim's left, so that is a bit of a shock. That is a revelation in this chamber this evening. It is coming back in the new line.
Order! This is about the national economy, not about fashion. Can we get on to the debate, please.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a motion moved by the member for Fraser. I think it is the second or third time the member for Fraser has tried to use a motion in the chamber on the economic situation to prove his economic prowess to the current Prime Minister—although he does spend a fair bit of time up in that back corner talking to the former Prime Minister and potentially future Prime Minister about seeking promotion, no doubt. I think the last point is a very important aspect of the motion. It calls upon members to approach economic debates with 'facts rather than fear'. That is true, and I agree with that provision of the motion. My good friend the member for Wakefield said in his contribution that I had raised questions about mining investment in South Australia and the potential risks to it. Actually, it was not me. As much as I would like to be the chairman of BHP at some stage in the future, I am not; that position is held by a man called Jacques Nasser—who used to be, of course, in charge of one of the member for Wakefield's beloved car companies in this country, so I would have thought he would be quite supportive of Mr Nasser.
He was a Ford man!
He was a Ford man, rather than Holden. Unfortunately, the member for Wakefield has launched a vicious attack on Mr Nasser in suggesting that Mr Nasser is raising fear and scare tactics on the Australian economy by saying that the absolutely vital investment for our state in Olympic Dam, the expansion of that project and the huge opportunities is brings—we have seen in the state budget that 0.5 per cent of the lowly growth predicted in the state budget will actually be contributed by the Olympic Dam expansion—are all at risk because of four factors. Three of those factors are in the hands of—
You should have gone into state politics. You'd be a great premier!
Don't abuse me like that!
You would make a great premier!
Order! Can we keep the debate civil.
Civil—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You know how abusive that threat is! Three of the four policy decisions that are putting at risk this investment for South Australia's future are in the hands of the federal government. We know that includes the reregulation of the Australian workplace and the empowerment of the union thugs back on the work sites. We have seen that with strike after strike, with coalmines shut down in Queensland. Those opposite want to blind themselves to this, because of course they receive such significant donations. But we know that this is causing such problems with the Australian economy. We read it day in, day out. We know that Mr Nasser also pointed to the inconsistent policy approach when it comes to tax—the mining tax debate which has caused so much sovereign risk to our country. The Labor Party pretend that we are the only country in the world with—
Why is there such a big investment pipeline?
It is an investment pipeline. It has not been fulfilled yet, mate. That is the bit we want. We want tomorrow's prosperity. Economic figures today reflect yesterday's performance. Today's reforms will reflect tomorrow's prosperity, and this is the bit the Labor party do not understand. They want to treat our mining industry as if we are the only country in the world that has resources. Of course, that is not true. The world is awash with resources. If we make it harder to compete on the international stage with our resources industry that investment, that pipeline they like to talk about, the $20 billion potential investment at Olympic Dam in South Australia will not go ahead and tomorrow's prosperity is then at risk. This is the risk of the Labor Party and their legacy to this country. Do not worry about the sleaze and the incompetence. The real insidious legacy of this government, when they finally finish off the current Prime Minister and go back to the former Prime Minister, will be the economic reform record of this government. It will leave Australians with a debt legacy for a generation and with a prosperity problem for a generation.
Before calling the member for Chifley, the member for Mayo spoke a lot about BHP chairs. Unknown to many members is former BHP chair Jerry Ellis, who was recently recognised in the Australia Day honours. Just putting on the record the congratulations of the House to him. The member for Chifley.
I was actually going to get up and move an extension of time so we could actually get to the motion that was being debated. I heard a lot there, but I do not know at what point the member for Mayo was actually going to get to the resolution that has brought us here.
To be fair, I did not speak to it either.
That is a rather inconvenient admission. I do not need you to admit that in here. I start my contribution quoting three numbers: 22, 20, and 4.9. The first is 22 per cent unemployment in Greece; 20 per cent in Spain; and 4.9 per cent here in Australia. Imagine the way the political discourse would be carried on in this country if we were loaded up with the number of jobless that exist in those countries. Certainly no-one wishes that on anyone but having that level of unemployment, not only as an economic issue but as a social one as well and its massive distortion on politics, would be phenomenal if it were to occur in this country. If anything, in terms of this debate, it is not so much that we talk about facts themselves; it is more getting a recognition of facts from those opposite. When you look at where our economy is relative to others, our economy has done phenomenally well. We are right to be proud.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
There are a lot of people that, I would say, Member for Mayo, seek to be gracious about the contribution of those opposite. It is easy to flog off a major asset like Telstra and use that money to retire debt, but where were you when we needed investment in education?
Why have we got a skills shortage?
And let us talk about health.
Order! There is one member who is on his feet. Please respect him.
Instead of actually investing in health care, there was a massive dole out of funds through private health insurance. There was not an investment in hospitals; there was an underinvestment in health. In terms of education itself, instead of putting money into TAFE, those opposite sought to duplicate the TAFE system by setting up their own rival TAFE system and underfunding TAFE. Yes, you did get a surplus—everyone acknowledges that. It is the way that you got there and the underinvestment and what was left as a result of that and the type of issues that we have to deal with now. The Reserve Bank was saying from the early part of the last decade that capacity constraints were the biggest threat to the economy, that those capacity constraints were in the form of skills shortages and infrastructure constraints that needed to be addressed and were not. I have already talked about what happened in education. Where were you on infrastructure? You pretty much abandoned, for instance, anything to do with urban planning or involvement in urban infrastructure—not only making cities liveable but ensuring the fluid movement of people and goods within cities.
I will give credit to those opposite. The one bit of infrastructure that you did get to was the M7, and you only got to it because you put a toll on it. I am first to admit that the M7 was certainly—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Well, my preference is not that we have to rely on tolls, but that we are able to invest without putting the imposition of tolls. Most of the infrastructure in this country has not been developed simply as a result of putting a toll bucket on the end of it. Again, if you look at unemployment, at inflation and at growth, we have a great advantage relative to others. My biggest concern is not just about our recognising the strength of this economy but about making sure that we continue to ensure that this is an open economy, one that connects within the region, that maintains, for example, a commitment to recognising the value of Australian investment, along with foreign investment; that we are able to take advantage, for example, of what we have as a result of the NBN and take advantage of our IT sector and what that can do in connecting us, not only internally but within our region. As much as this is a discussion for here and now—and what I will pick up on in terms of what the member for Mayo is saying—the reforms that we make now generate prosperity down the track. I am certainly proud of being part of a government that has put us in a position where we are able to leap off the advantage that has been given to us.
What we are seeing in this motion and in all of those opposite who speak on it is so typical of this government's approach: they automatically think that the good aspects of the Australian economy have something to do with them. I would not be so churlish as to say that the past reforms of past Labor governments have not contributed to Australia's economic performance today, just as the past reforms of the coalition government. But those opposite—
That would be your ex-boss.
belong to a government that has done so badly in so many areas. There is no shame; repeatedly, week after week, day after day, there are motions of self-congratulation when, really, if you look at what this government has done and the way it goes about it, it is very, very obvious to Australians that not only is this a bad government but it is a government that will claim credit for things it has not done. It is a government that, still, with every breath, with every day and with every act will not be straight with the Australian people. My friend and colleague the member for Mayo articulated very eloquently the government's failings on some major policy areas. If you take this long motion from Dr Leigh, it calls, amongst other things, for debates with facts. Now, this motion is coming out at a time when the government is sending letters to pensioners about cash for the carbon tax, and the Prime Minister's office is tweeting 'cash for you'.
The public rightly see through this. There are letters such as the one I have here with the headline 'Extra cash for you' and reads: 'Cheaper than a $2 shop, extra cash for you. P.S. This is just part of the extra help the government is giving millions of Australians.' Extra help for what? 'Extra help to deal with the carbon tax, compensation to help with the injury we are causing you with the carbon tax.' Dr Leigh says there should be debates about facts. What about some facts on a letter headlined 'Extra cash for you'? What about another P.P.S saying: 'All of this is borrowed money.' That would be one fact that, if you were upfront with the Australian people, you would put in a letter that you were sending out. What about explaining to the Australian people that every dollar that the government is giving is borrowed and they will have to pay it back, and their children will have to pay it back? But, no, you do not get that from this government or from those who support this government—those who prop it up.
As I mentioned at the outset, we saw on the weekend the hashtag from the Prime Minister's office, 'Cash for you'. Quite rightly, the Twittersphere responded as you would expect. One tweet likened it to an African bank scam, as you would expect: '#cashforyou. Urgent business relationship. First, I am a Nigerian prince and must solicit your strictest confidence in this transaction.' This government that seriously stands before this parliament is sending out letters with 'cash for you' and twee hashtags, as I have said, and is expecting the public to take them seriously. What the Australian people know is that this money that is being sent out is borrowed money. There is $100 million a day being borrowed. In your personal life, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Oakeshott, because you are a normal family guy, if you spend on your credit card you get the bill. With the government, they have got the card, but it is the families that get the bill. They pay the bill. This government borrows money on their behalf to send out to them and then writes them a letter congratulating itself on sending the money out, headlined, 'Extra cash for you'. We have all the oratory from the Prime Minister. That is what it has come to for the Labor Party. From Curtain to Chifley, I would even say the oratory of Whitlam, down to this Prime Minister: 'Cash for you.' That says it all about this government, and to have a motion from Dr Leigh on serious economic issues— (Time expired)
The member for Casey talked a bit about history. I was very interested to read the recent book by George Megalogenis and to read about Billy Snedden, then opposition leader, in about July 1973 summoning the coalition leaders to Sydney to talk about the fact that the Whitlam Labor government had failed, that the experiment was wrong and all these jeremiads about how bad it was. When I read the book it was like reading a speech from the current Leader of the Opposition. It was the fact that those opposite never, ever accept the legitimacy of a Labor government. It is the divine right to rule that is in their heads and in their hearts.
What you really should believe is what they say when they go overseas, not what they say when they are campaigning here. We have had the Leader of the Opposition running around like some sort of Old Testament prophet saying, 'We're all doomed,' like Sodom and Gomorrah or something like that. The whole thing is about to collapse. Australia is like Sodom and Gomorrah: it is going to collapse; the economy has completely had it. But when they go overseas it is a different story. When they are speaking to an international audience they endorse the direction and the strong economic fundamentals of the economy. In fact, in his budget-in-reply speech, the opposition Treasury spokesperson said that economic growth under this government had been poor. But he went on Bloomberg TV and conceded that the economic fundamentals of the economy were strong. The Leader of the Opposition declared that the federal Labor government would never return the budget to surplus, as we projected and Treasury projects, but he actually recalibrated his message, with his Treasury spokesperson talking up the Treasurer's steps to deliver a surplus when he was overseas. When he is overseas he says, 'Yes, it's going to happen.' But, when he is in Australia, it is a different story entirely because it does not suit their narrative and their campaign purpose. Last year when he was in London, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that Australia had serious bragging rights, but now there is a sovereign risk with a Labor government.
All we can say about those opposite is that they are inconsistent. They have a mercurial if not schizophrenic approach to economic management that is governed by 30-second sound bites. But I prefer to listen to what the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development have to say about our economy. When those opposite are in power they say that they are great managers of the economy, but when Labor is in power and the economy is going well it has nothing to do with the government; it is all to do with other events and other people. But when they are in power you hear the exact opposite.
If they had bothered to go to the recent forum in Brisbane, they would have heard firsthand what the participants at the forum said. But they called it a talkfest. The Premier of my state did not even bother to turn up to it in his hometown. It was a missed opportunity to meet with the captains of industry and leaders of the unions to talk about how to improve the economy and improve the productivity of the country. We know when you have a look at the economy, you see the five per cent unemployment rate. About 835,000 jobs have been created since we have been in office, while 27 million jobs have been lost in the Western world. We have low interest rates—lower than when those opposite were in government. I distinctly remember being a candidate in 2004 when former Prime Minister John Howard talked about interest rates always being lower under a coalition government. It is completely untrue. We have a growing economy. We are one of the few countries to actually avoid a recession and it is because we were not asleep at the wheel when it came to the global financial crisis. We invested in timely, stimulus events and it had to be done. Those opposite failed. They would have taken us to unemployment and recession. We invested in road infrastructure, school infrastructure, health infrastructure and community infrastructure. Why? We wanted to keep jobs going. That is why we have an unemployment rate of about 4.6 per cent in Ipswich. Traditionally, Ipswich has almost double the national average rate of unemployment during times of hardship and decline. We invested in great projects like the Ipswich Motorway, where about 10,000 people had jobs. We invested in those projects; those opposite spent three campaigns campaigning against that. That is an indication of why the economic fundamentals are strong in this country.
I rise also to speak on this thesis of Dr Leigh's, and quite a thesis it is. I just hope that the one that got him his doctorate had a little more substance than this one. He talks about the key issue being whether we want the economic discussion to be about fact or fiction. My view of this thesis of emotion is that really it is Dr Leigh's motion of no confidence in the Treasurer. It is saying that the Treasurer's record cannot stand on its own; therefore we need all members of the Labor Party to stand up and hail the Treasurer for the wonderful job that he has done, whereas they all know and see it in question time everyday that this Treasurer has no credibility whatsoever. He can take credit for nothing because he has done nothing of substance as Treasurer to in any way improve the productivity of this nation.
This no confidence motion in the Treasurer, as set out in this thesis by Dr Leigh, has no substance to it. Let us look at what is fact. Let us look at the fact that the Labor Party will not call the carbon tax for what it is: a tax. It always says 'carbon price'. Yet the Prime Minister, under duress, admitted that it is a carbon tax. So now they must not dare mention carbon tax in anything that goes out; it has to be carbon price. Let us get some facts. Let the Labor government tomorrow in the chamber come out and use the words 'carbon tax'—call it for what it is. Let us see some facts.
Let us also see them detail the real impact that it is going to have on the Australian community. I do not think that Dr Leigh or the others we have heard from today will do that. The memo has gone out to the Labor Party: 'You cannot use the term "carbon tax", even though the Prime Minister admitted that that is what it is. You have to use carbon price.' Not only do they have to use carbon price; they then use bribes to try to overcome the detrimental impact that it is going to have on the Australian people. They will use those bribes and market them under this '#cashforyou'. I must commend the member for Mayo for the wonderful press release that he put out last week on this '#cashforyou', where he demonstrated magnificently what it is all about: cash being taken from future generations of Australians to bribe the current generation of Australians to try to forget about the impact that this carbon tax will have on them. He referred to it as being very similar to an African Ponzi scheme, with the emails we all get trying to rip off the Australian public. It was extremely apt and hit the nail on the head when it comes to fact versus fiction with this government.
We also have other examples. Let us look at the budget surplus—the budget surplus which the Treasurer has said that he will deliver. Why then, on the nation's credit card, did he sneak through a rise from $250 billion to $300 billion? And why, when we sought to make this clear in the budget papers, would he have nothing of it? We wanted to get the fact in that, even though he was budgeting for a surplus, he wanted a $50 billion extension on the nation's credit card. Would he allow that fact to be revealed in the budget papers clearly? No, he would not.
Let us look at cost of living. I do not see any mention of cost of living in Dr Leigh's motion before us. Since this government came to power, electricity costs have increased by 65.7 per cent; water and sewage, 59.1 per cent; utilities, 58 per cent; gas, 38.7 per cent; insurance, 33.4 per cent; education, 31.1 per cent; medical and hospital services, 28. 8 per cent; and rents, 25. 8 per cent. The list goes on and on, and I have not even got to child care. The government has done nothing to address these cost-of-living issues and it is about to make it worse when it introduces the carbon tax on 1 July.
We on this side are happy to talk about facts until we get to the next election and we can get rid of this incompetent Labor government.
Debate adjourned.
Let me start by saying that we have seen over the past few months a classic example of alleged horrendous misuse of some union members' funds by some union officials. It is a disgrace to this nation, not to say embarrassing for the union movement as a whole. Moreover, given the widely criticised role of Fair Work Australia in recent weeks, a better system or policy needs to be set up to investigate any possible regulatory breaches by the unions, while enforcing regulations and any new powers to bring criminal prosecutions directly to the courts.
In his address to the 2012 ACTU Congress on union governance the ACTU Secretary, Dave Oliver, said:
We have a significant responsibility to our members to ensure and make double sure that members’ money is only used for purposes to advance our members’ interests.
I believe Dave Oliver's comments to be sincere and that the union movement want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the sordid affairs of the misappropriation of members' funds. This motion allows that to happen by expecting the same level of accountability for union officials as expected of company directors under the Corporations Act, which is enforced by the relevant regulatory bodies. Here we have it: even a secretary of the one of the biggest union movements in Australia recognises change is needed to ensure better accountability and transparency for our union leaders. Furthermore, in his opening address the 2012 congress, Mr Oliver said that unions 'have a significant responsibility to our members to ensure and make double sure that members’ money is only used for purposes to advance our members’ interests'.
We have seen shameful actions by union officials time and time again and it is well due that we as federal members do something about it. I can no longer sit back and watch the tireless efforts and hard-earned dollars of mums and dads and men and women—some of whom are in my electorate—who pay their money to these unions allegedly be misappropriated. I am talking about the money that is earned by some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, by people who face an incredible struggle every day just to put food on the table and pay their bills, people who, for the sake of their job security, pay union fees because they believe or are led to believe that union officials represent the interests of their members. Failure to implement this motion would be a grave action of injustice towards the Australian people—towards their integrity and their dignity—because it speaks directly to ensuring that the rights of the Australian people are put first. The union movement in Australia, as I understand it, was constructed to work as a collective group with the aim of bettering workplace conditions. Yet we have seen time and time again, particularly in recent times in relation to the HSU, the misuse of members' funds to the denigration, reputation and personal gain of union leaders. Something has to change and it is time to make that happen.
The regulatory approach of company directors outlined in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission states that company directors are expected to comply with the law. It is backed by the requirement laid out in the Corporations Act 2001. So I ask: if it is good enough for company directors, why is it not good enough for the union officials as well? Well, it is. In fact, it is the intention of union officials such as Oliver and Howes who are calling for this motion. They are calling for this motion because they know that it offers them a level of protection. They want to be measured by the same levels of integrity that are imposed by the Corporations Act. They want to distance their respective organisations from the allegations of poor governance resulting in 156 alleged contraventions which were identified in the recent Fair Work Australia report. It is these findings that afflict a stench over the whole union movement.
The act also states that they are to comply with statutory due care and diligence, that a reasonable person would exercise their power and discharge duties in good faith in the best interests of the company for proper purpose and not improperly using their position to gain advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the company and not improperly use information, and to disclose to other directors any material personal interest. ASIC Chairman Jeff Lucy AM highlighted the importance of these aforementioned points in an address to the 2006 Australian Institute of Company Directors. The address of Mr Lucy also looked at the experiences of companies whose directors were charged with criminal neglect of their duty and their companies obviously went broke.
I am slightly surprised that the task of implementing this motion has not been tackled earlier by my colleagues in this place. I truly believe that the aim of protecting the interests of the Australian people—for me the people of right—through implementing this motion is imperative to safeguarding their rights and future. It is with great honour that I put forward the motion. I say this for two reasons because it concerns the lives of innocent working people that I represent as the federal member for Wright. Their welfare is paramount to my role as the federal member, and tougher supervision of unions in this matter is, I believe, an effective way to stay on top of our game. In a common sense approach in saying this I asked the question: who are the union officials? They are, as I mentioned earlier, representatives of some of the lowest paid workers in this nation. In a recent opinion column published in the SundayTelegraph on 20 May 2012, Australian Workers Union National Secretary Paul Howes said:
Being a union official should make you less likely to steal money from workers, but that's not always the case.
It is a sad situation for the entire nation when even union officials admit that other union officials would possibly steal funds from their members. There is no excuse for accepting this type of criminal behaviour. I wholeheartedly endorse this statement when it goes on to say that:
The new compliance structures will work to restore our members' trust in their unions.
What a powerful statement to come from a union official. It is absolutely imperative that this motion work to restore confidence of the Australian people.
We have, as members of parliament, a duty to work constructively to increase the levels of transparency and accountability of unions to their members. Furthermore, Health Services Union secretary Kathy Jackson has also come out in support of making unions subject to the Corporations Act. In her speech to the HR Nicholls Society on 12 June she said, 'Union leaders have urged for tougher regulations of companies to protect investors, but union members need to do more to protect.' Finally, in an opinion column in the Australian Financial Review last week, Ms Jackson said:
Reform brought in by a Coalition government and resisted by many unionists actually served for the better governance of unions.
There is some fine work done in this nation by unions and there are some fine people who contribute to unions, but there is a stench at the moment around the governance of specific union membership and where the contributions of mums and dads to unions end up.
Here we have two senior union officials—Oliver and Howes—both calling for more accountability and transparency. They support accountability and transparency being brought into line with the Corporations Act. If it is good enough for company directors, why is it not good enough for these organisations? In support of my motion, I ask for the government's support in establishing, for the sake of union members right across the nation, the same level of protection that is offered to those who contribute to banks—or anyone whose peak body falls under the regulatory auspices of the Corporations Act.
I support the proposition advanced by the member for Wright that unions play an important role in this country. I support the proposition advanced by the member for Wright that, when working men and women in Australia pay their contributions voluntarily, as they do, to an association known as a trade union, those funds be used for the purposes for which they are contributed—that is, to advance their interests. These are interests like advancing wages and conditions, and legislation and other regulations that are often the subject of debate in this place. It is to ensure that they get the best deal from legislation and from government and the best deal when it comes to their wages and conditions. I support that proposition. In fact, it would be pretty hard to argue against it although, from time to time, I have heard members stand up in this place, particularly members of the coalition, and argue against those propositions. But it would be very difficult for right minded—no pun intended; a reasonably minded person—to advance that proposition.
Further, I support the proposition that a union official should be accountable to the members they are elected to serve. I say this with some authority on the matter, having spent some six years of my life as an elected representative of the trade union movement and it is something I am very proud to have done. I can honestly say that for six years of my life I went to work every day attempting to do something to advance the living conditions of the working men and women I represented. I am also very pleased to say that, in an overwhelming number of instances, I left that union—and those men and women—in a better state that when I found it. I do not say this because I think I am some exception; I say this because I think that the overwhelming number of men and women whose calling it is to represent union members in this country go to work with that aspiration. They attempt to do that.
I know I represent the views of the men and women on this side of the House when I say, and it was not said by the member for Wright, that the allegations that have been made in relation to the misuse of members' moneys by branches or parts of the Health Services Union of Australia, if found to be true, are nothing short of deplorable. They stand to be condemned by every union member in this country and those who hold and share the values of the union movement. If those allegations are proved to be true, then they stand to be condemned. In so much as the motion goes to the heart of those issues it is very difficult, and I would say that every right-thinking person in this country and in this place should support them.
But that is not really what this is about. This is about the coalition party having another go at the union movement in an attempt to use this place, this chamber, as an opportunity to rake the muck and make allegations against unions and unionists in this country. We know this because, in his address on the motion before the House, the member for Wright advanced that on the basis that it was in the interests of low-paid workers. The member for Wright is an honest man; I know him to be a man who approaches his job with integrity. But if he really had a concern for the plight of low-paid workers in this country, he would leave this chamber immediately and go to his leader's office and to the office of the opposition spokesperson on workplace relations and say: 'This year should we the last year that we have opposed a wage increase through the awards system for the lowest-paid workers in this country. I know that we have done it every year since Federation, but this year should be the last year that we do it.' I know the member for Wright to be an honest man with integrity and he believes in the things that he is advancing. If he wants to do something for the low-paid workers in this country he should make that march into his leader's office and say: 'This should be the last year that we do this. We cannot on the one hand advance a motion in support of low-paid workers in this country and on the other hand oppose wage increases going to the lowest-paid workers in this country.'
The second thing the member for Wright should do is move from this chamber to the nearest phone at his disposal and call the Premier of New South Wales. He should say, 'Dear Premier, I am concerned about the plight of working people in New South Wales and, for that reason, I ask you to withdraw the laws that you are ramming through the New South Wales parliament which are an attack on workers compensation in New South Wales.' That is the second thing that he can do.
I do not believe that that is going to happen and, even if the member for Wright does make that journey and that phone call, I do not think we are going to see that about-face. From that, and upon that evidence, we are entitled to form the conclusion that this is nothing short of a ruse. They are crocodile tears.
Let me contrast that to the very real actions that have been taken by the minister for industrial relations to address the issues. We have taken steps and the minister has announced that we intend to introduce legislation into parliament before the end of the year which is specifically designed to increase the transparency and accountability of registered organisations, both employer and trade union registered organisations. For instance, it will require the full disclosure of remuneration and board fees to be made to all members.
I interrupt my line of thought here for a moment. When I was running my union—and I am sure that the member for Chifley had a similar approach—we had a very simple rule: if you are a representative of the union and you are sitting on a board, you take one salary and not two. If you are receiving remuneration as a result of your being a nominee on a board, whether that be a superannuation board or any other board, you donate those fees back to the union because that is the right thing to do—you take one salary, not two. I think it would be a good thing in this country if many of the employers and corporations took the same approach instead of featherbedding their own remuneration. I think that is the right principle. But the proposition that will be advanced by the government is that all board fees and remuneration should be disclosed to members, and I think that is the right thing to do. It will require transactions with related parties, including family members or companies related to family members, to be disclosed to members as well so that we cannot have registered organisations taking advantage of union funds to send contracts to family members or other related entities where that would not otherwise pass a due diligence test. It will require officers to undertake training in financial accountability that is related to their duties. It will require organisations to develop policies in relation to financial accountability and management. It will recognise the important role played by trade unions and employer organisations in our federal workplace relations system.
I support bona fide reform in this area. Members should have full control over the affairs of their union, including the remuneration paid by their union. It was interesting to note that, when the executive remuneration legislation was before this House earlier this year, those opposite took an entirely different approach. They said that the shareholders should not have tools at their disposal to control the remuneration of board members of publicly listed companies. They want to impose an obligation on union officials that in many instances they are not willing to impose on employers. The whole thing is a ruse. We need reform, and members on this side will support genuine reform.
I am pleased to support the excellent motion moved by the member for Wright. It is one that encapsulates the feelings of many Australians who are very angry at the form of the Australian union movement and in particular at the political arm of the union movement, the Australian Labor Party. The reality is that tens of thousands of ordinary working Australians who are making award wages have seen their money frittered away by hacks in the union movement who have squandered the hard earned money of those lowly paid Australians while members of the Labor Party averted their eyes.
This motion seeks to encapsulate the strong community sentiment that enough is enough. Australians are tired of the Australian Labor Party looking the other way while tens of thousands of dollars—and in some instances there are allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars—of the money of low-paid Australian workers is spent at the behest of union leaders to support the things that union leaders want. This motion is a good starting point, but in reality what we need is a royal commission into the Australian union movement. The Australian union movement should be subjected to a royal commission so that we can get to the bottom of what is going on. A labour force of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are seeing the money that they pay to the union movement—a million dollars in one union alone—misappropriated.
I noticed that Labor members opposite laughed. Labor's fundamental problem is that they think it is funny when potentially millions of dollars are misappropriated. When a member of parliament stands up and says, 'We will stand up for low-paid Australian workers', says that it is not good enough that their money is being misappropriated, it is not good enough that the Australian Labor Party turns the other way and it is not good enough that they fly blind in the face of the allegations, it concerns me that Labor Party members think that is funny. And why do they think it is funny? Here is the great con: the reason they think it is funny is that basically every single member of the Australian Labor Party is a former union hack who has bought their way into the Australian parliament. Workers pay their fees to the unions and that money helps pay for the campaign activities of Labor members. That is why people on our side turn their noses up at the sheer rank hypocrisy of Australian Labor Party members when it comes to the fees that are paid to low-paid Australian workers.
There should be a royal commission into exactly what is going on the trade union movement. But the extraordinary thing is that the allegations have been around for a long time. I have had allegations put to me by an unsuccessful tenderer for a public authority who lost out on a tender despite the fact that they were the cheapest tenderer. They investigated why they lost the contract. What went wrong? It was reported back that they had not made big enough contributions to the so-called training funds of a particular union. This is what concerns us. Allegations like that have been around—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! I ask the member to resume his seat. I ask the honourable member to come back to the motion before the chair.
The motion before the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, deals with arrangements of oversight of union movements. Very serious allegations against union movements have been around for years. That is the reason there needs to be better transparency, that is the reason union officials should be held to exactly the same standards that apply to company directors and that is the reason we need a royal commission into the trade union movement. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not equitable for those workers who pay their money, day in and day out, expecting that their rights and their best interests will be upheld by people who are more interested in finding their way into this federal parliament or into a state Labor parliament. That is the reason we need to have better oversight.
In summary, there should be a requirement that union officials exercise due care and diligence that a reasonable person is expected to undertake, to act in good faith in the best interests of the company and for proper purpose, and not improperly use their position to gain advantage for themselves or someone else or cause detriment to the company. That is what applies to company directors and it should apply to union officials as well.
What stunning hypocrisy; what unbelievable behaviour! If anything, that last contribution really demonstrates what is beneath the veneer of this motion. Those opposite wring their hands at any sign of criticism of corporate Australia. They are out there upset and uptight at any point at which you criticise corporate Australia. They drag their own feet on reform that might not reach the approval of corporate Australia. You only need to look at how long it took to get trade practices reform through the gritted teeth of corporate Australia because those opposite would not do anything about it. But, whenever they get a chance to bag out unions or their members, they are there with a straight spine. They are there, first off, taking any chance they can to bag out unions and to ignore working Australians, unless of course they are able to be used as a media opportunity. The Liberal Party never meaningfully engage with the union movement. They never, ever engages with them. It is simply tick-a-box, stakeholder consultation where they are telling you what they are going to do and not really trying to involve the union movement on issues that affect their members. They will never seek the unions' ideas out and they will never work to sort out differences.
Let me contrast it this way. If we on this side of the House were to ever treat corporate Australia in the way that those opposite treat the union movement, they would be the first to feign outrage and to have a national wailing movement with confected outrage about the mistreatment of corporate Australia. How is it that those opposite can continually malign, bag out and criticise the union movement and never meaningfully engage with it or see them as people who have an inherent stake in the future of the economy, in the communities they operate in and in this country? Why do they never ever see them as a group that should be consulted and worked with? The Liberal Party are only ever there to bag them out or to see if they can score a political point out of them. The people who had the Work Choices cape are now telling us they are the greatest offenders of the low paid whereas, as the member for Throsby pointed out, they are never there supporting any submission to increase the salaries, the incomes or the wages of the lowest paid in our society.
To the matter at hand, I have spoken on the record encouraging unions to embrace accountability and to champion transparency, not just because it builds a greater affinity and a greater commitment to unions as a whole, but because it is simply the right thing to do. But, with respect, we do not need this resolution to do that, because as a government we are already acting. The government has already been clear, through the introduction of legislation in parliament which is specifically designed to increase transparency and accountability of registered organisations—not just unions, but also industry associations—that would require, for example, remuneration and board fees to be disclosed to members; require transactions with related parties, including family members, and transactions where an officer has a material personal interest, to be disclosed; require officers to undertake training in financial accountability; require organisations to develop policies in relation to accountability and management; and recognise the important role played by unions and employer organisations in our federal workplace relations system. These things are being introduced by us as a result, I emphasise, of widespread consultation not just with one group or one section of the community—industry associations—but also with unions. It has been open; it has been transparent. It has not been conducted behind closed doors; it has not been foisted on the parliament as an ambush. The legislation that was specifically designed to hurt one group in society, Work Choices, contrasts with what we are doing, which is talking with people and trying to introduce reform.
The other thing I have to say to those opposite is: just bear in mind the unintended consequences of what you are saying. There are a number of people who are affected by this—not just unions, but industry associations as well. I would be interested in getting from them a sense of where they are going to get people to go onto their boards of management if the opposition enforce the types of provisions they are trying to suggest should be enforced through what is being proposed here today.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to support my friend and colleague the member for Wright in the motion that he puts, as well as the member for Moncrieff, who seconded the motion. Today a leader of the Australian union movement could well be found admitting in private 'Now is the winter of our discontent.' Tarnished by the rolling scandals of the Health Services Union, plagued by factional warfare among its leadership and struggling to maintain a declining membership, which is now at only 12 per cent of the private sector workforce: these are the realities of the current union landscape.
Yet, despite these seismic developments, many on the other side of the House continue to maintain, as if nothing has happened, that it is business as usual. They continue to roll up to the ACTU conferences chanting Soviet era songs and pledging their allegiance. But they are in denial, for the HSU scandal is something more than a passing event. It goes to the core of good governance and the standards of transparency and accountability that we expect from our organisations and our community leaders. It goes to the heart of what we consider to be criminal behaviour and subject to significant punishment. This is what the motion put forward by my friend and colleague the member for Wright is about. It is about saying that we expect the government to hold unions and their leaders to the same standards that we would expect of our companies and their directors. It is not enough for AWU secretary Paul Howes to simply say:
... the alleged actions of a small minority in a relatively small sector have stained the reputations of the majority ...
and to use that as an excuse for not supporting wide-scale reform. Nor is it sufficient for Jeff Lawrence to say 'union members have a right to be confident that their money is being well spent' but then not put in place real changes that will prevent a repeat of what happened at the HSU. The opposition has a plan that the government should support, a plan to pass legislation that will see registered organisations subject to the same rules and the same penalties set out in the Corporations Act 2001. Currently trade unions, like employer groups, work as registered organisations with obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Such obligations include not using their position for personal gain, ensuring the appropriate use of members' money and acting at all times in the best interests of the members. However, the penalties are not nearly as significant as those found in the Corporations Act. For example, under section 287 and 288 of the Fair Work Act, civil penalties for using information to the detriment of the organisation or for personal advantage could involve fines of up to only $2,200 for an individual, and no criminal provisions apply. In contrast, under section 184 of the Corporations Act, criminal offences could lead to a fine of up to $200,000 for an individual and/or imprisonment for up to five years. This is what now is required.
What is more, the coalition is not prepared to leave Julia Gillard's creation Fair Work Australia and its general manager to police to enforce or to investigate these new obligations on registered organisations. We need to separate the watchdog role of Fair Work Australia from its day-to-day role solving disputes and making agreements. This is why it took nearly three years or more for Fair Work to produce a report into the HSU, highlighting its institutional 'go slow' tactics as well as disconcerting levels of incompetence. Tony Abbott has said that in government we will establish a new body, the Registered Organisations Commission, which will enforce these new compliance organisations, educate members of registered organisations about their rights, and also act as a repository for complaints from its members.
This motion is not an attack on unions. In fact, there are many good people who are members of unions. They make a significant contribution to the betterment of our country. But what this is about is an attack on corruption and building levels of responsibility, accountability and transparency. With more than 150 findings by Fair Work against HSU, and 70,000 low-paid workers being short-changed by thousands of dollars wasted and misused something needs to be done. This motion goes some way towards that end.
While I did not have a chance to hear all of the contribution from the previous speakers, I am sure it would have been considered. Nevertheless, I rise to oppose the member for Wright's motion. Whilst I have a lot of time for the member for Wright—I am sure I will see him down at the Senate rugby field tomorrow morning, where we might be on the same side or on opposing sides—nevertheless I do oppose his motion. I respect his intentions and respect that commitment of everybody in the House to accountability. However, I do reassure the member for Wright that in the last few months the Gillard Labor government has taken an unprecedented number of actions to improve the regulation of trade unions and employer organisations as well—something that I look forward to reading the transcript of his speech to see that he has mentioned.
Given the findings by Fair Work Australia in its reports regarding the HSU national office and the HSU No. 1 branch, the federal government has repeatedly stated on the public record that the conduct outlined in Fair Work Australia's reports is not acceptable at all. We believe, and I believe in my discussions with the union movement, that the problems with the HSU are not representative of the broader trade union movement at all. We recognise and understand that unions and employer associations play a critical role in facilitating the operation of the workplace relations system. I say that from my experience in the union movement both when I was a teacher—when I worked unpaid as a teacher as part of enterprise bargaining negotiations—and then as a member of the Queensland Independent Education Union as a union organiser, when I sat down and worked on behalf of my members.
I should say that I do not know the HSU very well. We do not have an HSU in Queensland. United Voice, the AWU and a few others would basically cover that calling that the HSU covers. But I can say that I do know the three unions that I am a member of: the Independent Education Union, which looks after private schools' union members; United Voice; and the ASU's clerical and administrative branch. I have had a lot to do with them, particularly the Independent Education Union, whose annual reports I see every year. A respectable auditor goes through their accounts with a fine toothcomb. Having had a union credit card, I can say that I seemed to spend every month laboriously going through to justify anything and everything that I put on that union credit card—which is the right thing and the appropriate thing to do. Obviously things did go a little bit astray in the HSU No. 1 branch, where they were able to put such things on the union credit card.
I take my role as a Labor representative very seriously, as I am sure the member for Wright will acknowledge, but I also took my role as a union representative very seriously and would not ever spend a union member's dollar unless it was in pursuit of the best interests of that union member. I took that role very, very seriously indeed, and most of the trade union members I have ever met are similarly inclined. They are passionate people trying to do the right thing by working members of Australia.
Obviously, we have had a long and free independent union movement. If we trace our days back to Barcaldine, the shearers' strike and the formation of the Labor Party out of the union movement, we can see that the union movement and the Labor Party have always had that strong connection. In fact, I have always seen the Labor Party as the political arm of the trade union movement. Members of trade unions, like members of employee organisations or other organisations must be respected and their interests must be respected. Obviously, they have every right to expect that their money is used only for the benefit of members. Financial transparency is a good thing. I have nothing to hide, nothing at all, and no problems with disclosure by registered organisations to their members. The bills introduced by the Gillard government will improve the way that investigations into breaches of registered organisations provisions are conducted by the general manager of Fair Work Australia. We have overseen the tripling of civil penalties where people have contravened the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and I look forward to that further supervision continuing.
I am very pleased to rise to speak on this extremely important motion, which goes to a central question: what is it that the leaders of unions in Australia are doing with their members' money? Is there a reason to be concerned or should we be satisfied that everything is fine and that there is no need for further action on this front? I am sorry to say that the evidence suggests that we need to be very concerned about the governance occurring in unions around Australia. There has been, quite properly, very detailed focus on what has been happening in the Health Services Union, but the problem appears to be significantly more widespread.
What is it that union leaders are doing with their members' money? The first thing they are evidently doing is paying themselves very generous salaries. Michael Williamson of the Health Services Union is reported to earn a salary of $330,000 a year. Mr Bernie Riordan was until recently the head of the Electrical Trades Union in New South Wales and, according to the Sunday Telegraph, last year he earned nearly $400,000 from a combination of his union job and directorships of three superannuation funds and businesses. Kathy Jackson has admitted to earning $270,000 in her role at the Health Services Union. This exchange occurred on 7.30 on 21 May:
CHRIS UHLMANN: Doesn't that seem a little excessive...
KATHY JACKSON: Yes, it does.
CHRIS UHLMANN: ... for someone who represents some. Poorest workers in Australia?
KATHY JACKSON: I agree with you but let's look at the history of this. As I said previously this was rammed through the council, by Michael Williamson and his people. We objected to it.
The role of union members and union officials in relation to their members in enriching themselves is seen not only in the basic salaries that union officials are earning but also in the way they have used the industrial arrangements to direct a stream of payments into superannuation funds which are associated with those unions. It appears that union officials regard those superannuation funds with which the union is associated as offering them nice little earners for positions on the boards of those superannuation funds. As I have already mentioned, both Michael Williamson and Bernie Riordan top up their union salaries with additional director's fees from the boards of the superannuation funds on which they sit and to which they were appointed by the unions of which they are officials. Let us remind ourselves what the current member for Dobell has had to say about the appointment of Kathy Jackson as a director of HESTA, one of the big industry superannuation funds. In the parliament recently he said:
She sat on the board of HESTA, collecting board fees for many years, rarely attending meetings. But when the union decided the board fee should go to the union, she left the board.
I do not know whether that precise allegation is correct, but it is an interesting insight into the mindset of one particular former union official, the current member for Dobell, who is himself a former union-appointed director of an industry superannuation fund.
Alternatively, we could look at the Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund, in which Mr Wally Curran, who was recently described in the Australian as 'a legendary unionist, former long-time secretary of the Meatworkers Union and a long-serving trustee director of the Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund', was a major figure. The Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund invested some $30 million in a property company called Austcorp before the company collapsed losing almost all of the $30 million.
These extravagant salaries and some of the other arrangements operate to put these union leaders in a very different class to the often poorly paid workers they represent. I note that Mr Kevin Morgan in a recent article in the Australian argues that this stems from the Hawke government's amalgamations of the union movement and that a new breed of careerist union officials has emerged. This is an important motion before the House. Union governance needs clear scrutiny and action.
I rise to speak against this motion even though I have a lot of time for the member for Wright—unlike some of his other colleagues here tonight who have ranted and raved and made allegations they would never have the guts to make outside this place. They stand in here and make all these allegations about people, but clearly the simple facts show that those opposite have absolutely no idea how unions work and how they go. The previous speaker is a prime example. He wants to make an across-the-board claim about union officials living on larger-than-life salaries, but that is just painfully untrue. It is incorrect, and it is a slight on the hardworking people who are out there protecting workers whose wages and conditions this lot want to savage.
I note that because the first point of the member for Wright's motion reads:
… serious allegations have been made surrounding the misappropriation of union members funds by union leaders …
They have broad-brushed this to blame every single union official and every single union leader. You want to claim in this motion that every single one of them is rorting their union funds. That is wrong—dead wrong.
Mr Buchholz interjecting—
You should have got your motion and read it properly, because you have made the claim that every union is in there. The fact of the matter is that there are many unions. I am a member of the Transport Workers Union and very proud of it, and I know that those blokes do not earn anywhere near the money that is being claimed. They get out there and work hard and deliver results that are in the interests of their members on, say, freights, which this lot opposed. They do not believe that the people who drive trucks deserve a fair rate of pay for themselves and their families.
Union officials right across this country are out there every day, in some cases slaving away in factories. I am thinking of officials of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, which operates in an industry where people are in low-paid work. These TCFU officials are not earning good money for being union officials, but they get out there and do the job because they care about people. They get out there and care about what happens to people and how they live, and they give them the opportunity to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If you go through what has been said previously in this debate, you have to laugh at the member for Moncrieff, who either had had too many Red Bulls or, seriously, there are a couple of cogs missing in his gearbox. The claims that he made were just outrageous. He said everyone in the Labor Party is the result of the union movement. That is a lie, plain and simple. I have never been an official of a union. I have been in many unions and continue to support unions.
This motion says that all union officials have been misappropriating funds. Let us have a look on the other side of the fence. We have the Fair Work Australia thing going on at the moment that is looking into one union—an issue with one union. At the same time that this is happening, Lend Lease, an Australian company, has been fined $54 million for overbilling its clients for a decade in America. If we used the member for Wright's terminology, then all business owners are crooks. That is the stupidity of the way this has been put. We know that all businesspeople are not. I do not think you were a crook when you were running your business, were you? It is the same thing.
It is about transparency.
The motion is about transparency, and you say they should be under the Corporations Act. But, if you actually know the difference between the Corporations Act and organisations like unions and the regulation of organisations, you would know they are not the same. You cannot treat everyone exactly the same.
Tell Paul Howes that.
'Tell Paul Howes that,' says the member over there, yapping away. This is a bloke who thinks that this government is run by the left-wing feminazis—that is the credibility of his argument. The Corporations Act and what is involved in the regulation of organisations are two different things. That is very basic—I am pretty sure you would have learnt it in year 10 if you had gone through it. The registration of organisations and directors of corporations are not similar. They are similar in the sense that they have got to exercise care and due diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for personal gain. But the differences in the entities are quite clear. Corporations are designed to generate wealth and protect financial interests for shareholders. Organisations like unions have rights under the Fair Work Act. And let us remember this is the Fair Work Act that your leader, Tony Abbott, put in place when he was industrial relations minister. So in its very first test it screwed up, and you want to blame us. The reality is you do not know how to make legislation, and that is the fault in it. (Time expired)
I rise to support the member for Wright's very sensible motion on union accountability and transparency. The motion obviously in point (a) refers to Fair Work Australia's report into the serious allegations that were levelled at the Health Services Union and in particular, it has to be said, with regard to the member for Dobell and his involvement in that union prior to what will no doubt be his short-lived parliamentary career. Fair Work actually found 181 contraventions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009—181 times that that single union breached the act.
To understand the extent of corruption in the HSU, you have to look at some of the findings about what was going on there. We have a breach where an official, whom I have already named, used a MasterCard to make cash withdrawals in circumstances where the national executive had not authorised policies or procedures in relation to credit card usage or cash withdrawals. We have the national secretary using his position to gain an advantage for himself—namely, the use of a credit card to pay for hotel accommodation the night after he had resigned from the position. Finding 39 talks about the purchase of incidental goods, chocolate and cigarettes, on the credit card—nothing to do with the running of the union. Finding 56 talks about expenditure relating to flights, accommodation and meals on an overseas holiday—a personal trip—and cash withdrawals, again on the MasterCard, while on that holiday. We go on to finding 64, where the national secretary is found to have failed in exercising their powers and discharging their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in relation to a whole heap of different spending on entertainment purposes. Finding 117 is of a breach of rules with the expenditure of $4,826 with regard to the establishment of the Long Jetty campaign office. We go on to finding 118, finding 124, finding 125, finding 154, finding 155 and finding 156, all relating to the misappropriation of funds on a federal election campaign—union members' money. I will talk about the three conclusions that Fair Work came to regarding the misappropriation of money on escort agencies. This went on in a union here in Australia. Afterwards when the report hit the deck, all the minister had to say in response was:
The dysfunction in some parts of the Health Services Union has shown that the actions of a few individuals, if left unchecked, can jeopardise the effective functioning of a union in the best interests of its members.
I have got to say that, with a statement like that, I am guessing that the real estate at 21B Baker Street will not be on the market anytime soon. But what, in terms of action, did the minister say? He said that they were going to introduce legislation to improve the accountability and transparency of unions via financial disclosure obligations, higher penalties and proactive compliance education. But what he did not say is more to the point. He was asked by journalists at the press conference if he accepted the proposition that unions should be treated similarly to executives of major companies and he did not say yes to that. Instead he said unions should not be scapegoated for the actions of the few.
This week the government is bringing in legislation that they say is going to ensure transparency and accountability. But I am told that, in fact, it imposes on union officials penalties that are one-tenth of what is imposed on company directors for exactly the same thing. One tenth. So the pain and suffering of victims of a white-collar crime when it comes to unions, that is workers, is worth only one tenth of the pain and suffering of the victims of white-collar crimes in the business sector or shareholders. This is from the so-called party of the workers. The member for Wright is spot-on with this motion. I do not often agree with Paul Howes, but he has called for union accountability and transparency to be brought into line with the Corporations Act, despite what the previous member said, and we are calling on the government right now to implement a plan that will expect the same standards of union leaders as is expected of company directors.
( I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. Needless to say, and it has been said by many people, the circumstances surrounding the HSU are very difficult circumstances. They are very unfortunate circumstances, and they certainly are not ones that any of us in this place want to see repeated. It needs to be said that they are, however, circumstances that are isolated and that do not affect the vast majority of unions—which go about their business of representing their members in a very steadfast and diligent way. I commend them for it.
At the outset I should say that it has been noted during the course of the debate this evening that, to quote one of the opposition members, 'All those contributing to this debate are union hacks'. I am very proud to support unions, but I have to say that I was formerly a corporate lawyer and acted for corporations. I find it extraordinary that this motion seeks to blur the distinction between organisations representing workers—traditionally not-for-profit organisations acting for workers, coming from a very different background and tradition—and corporations, which have, at their heart, the sole interests of shareholders in making a profit for shareholders. So, to begin with, there is a very different set of philosophical underpinnings to the regulation of registered organisations and the regulation of corporations, and I know that very well.
That said, it is important to note that there are some elements of the arrangements relating to registered organisations which have commonality with arrangements relating to corporations, and appropriately so. For instance, the general duties of officers of registered organisations and directors of corporations are similar. They must each exercise care and due diligence, act with good faith and not use their position improperly for personal advantage. I think it is the case in respect of most corporations, as it is the case in respect of most unions, that this is widely observed and rarely experienced in the breach. In relation to financial regulation, for example, there is commonality in relation to the regular reporting of financial accounts and auditors signing off on the books of those organisations, as is the case in relation to companies, in accordance with accounting standards. Similarly, the investigatory powers of regulatory bodies relating to corporations and relating to registered organisations are similar. So there are areas in which there is commonality, but it is important to bear in mind in this debate that there are very clear distinctions between the philosophical underpinnings of unions, registered organisations and corporations.
With all of that said, in the short time remaining to me I should note that this government has been very clear in the response it has made to ensure that trade unions continue to be democratic, professional, accountable and member focused organisations. I know that the minister has introduced into parliament legislation specifically designed to increase the transparency and accountability of registered organisations—both trade unions and employer organisations—to their members. It includes, for instance, requiring remuneration and board fees to be appropriately disclosed to members and requiring transactions with related parties and transactions where an officer has a material personal interest to be disclosed to members.
So there are a range of steps being taken by this government to scrutinise appropriately the activities and the reporting arrangements for registered bodies. These changes, and a range of other changes, would apply to all federally registered trade unions and all federally registered employer organisations. They represent very significant reforms to the regulation of employer and employee organisations.
Unlike the Liberals' approach to policy—and we are yet to find out what their arrangements will be in relation to regulation applying to workers and regulation applying to employment arrangements overall—these reforms developed by the minister have been made in consultation with peak employer bodies and with the ACTU through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. So in the context of those reforms, and having regard to the very distinct differences between unions and corporations, as mentioned earlier, I think it is appropriate that we reflect on the arrangements which are being put in place by the minister and see this motion for what it is: an attack on workers.
Debate adjourned.
I am very pleased to speak on this motion this evening. It is a matter of some considerable interest to me as a Victorian and as someone who is very interested in the development of clean energy industries. I know certainly that for this government the promotion of clean energy industries is something that we regard as critical in order to develop a sustainable, healthy and safe energy future for our country. It is for this reason that I was very pleased to speak in favour of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill last sitting week.
As part of the clean energy mix, wind farms have a very important role to play in achieving the government's target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. Increased renewable energy, along with energy efficiency and putting a price on carbon are each fundamental to our clean energy future. The renewable energy target is of course designed to ensure that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. It is an important means to change our energy generation mix and to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions.
Last Friday, 15 June, was Global Wind Day. It is an international event coordinated by the Global Wind Energy Council and is designed to raise awareness of the value of wind energy worldwide. On the same day here in Australia, it is important to note, the Clean Energy Council released the findings of a very significant new report undertaken by Sinclair Knight Merz, on its behalf, into the economic benefits of wind farms. The study found a great many things, and I commend it to members to read. It found, for example, that $4.25 billion has so far been invested in Australia in wind power projects and that there is a potential for a further $17.8 billion to be invested locally in wind power through a variety of proposed wind farms. Australian investment includes manufacturing of towers that support the wind turbine generators and blades; and the civil, electrical and other site works, amongst a range of other things. Importantly, the study found that the construction of a 50-megawatt wind farm would provide a gross value-add of around $50 million to a state and could contribute between 0.012 per cent and 0.21 per cent to gross state product, depending on the size of the state economy.
In terms of employment the study found that the same size wind farm could generate around 238 jobs nationally through direct employment in its construction and total employment of around 795 full-time equivalent jobs directly and indirectly during the course of construction. In addition to that, the report estimates that a wind farm of the same capacity could generate 16 full-time equivalent jobs directly and 44 jobs in total as a result of its ongoing operation—that is, a single wind farm.
The report estimates that the current direct employment in the industry could be as much as 2,300 full-time equivalents and total employment—that is, both direct and indirect employment—could reach around 6,900 full-time equivalents. It is an extraordinary number of people who are currently employed in the industry.
As I mentioned earlier, Australia has committed to having 20 per cent of its energy supply from renewable sources by 2020. It has also committed to a carbon reduction of between five per cent and 15 per cent—or 25 per cent below 2000 levels—by 2020. The five per cent target, as we all know, is unconditional. If we are to achieve this we need wind energy in our renewable energy mix.
The report I mentioned by Sinclair Knight Merz mentions the current status of wind farm investment, employment and carbon abatement. It found that the average abatement achieved by 100-megawatt wind farm developments across Australia is around 246,200 tonnes per annum. That is the equivalent of taking around 57,000 cars off our roads. No doubt, members will join with me in supporting wind farms and wind energy as a means to significantly reduce our carbon emissions and achieve the targets that we seemingly all have signed up for, even those sitting across the chamber from us.
The expansion of Australia's wind energy industry is of critical importance in promoting Australia's energy security while decreasing pollution. It is in that context that I am extremely disappointed with the planning arrangements that have been put in place arbitrarily, without consultation and without regard to the future generation of wind energy in Australia by the Victorian government. The damage that can be done to the future growth of wind farms in Australia through unreasonable planning restrictions has been demonstrated by the actions of the Victorian government. Since coming to office in 2011 this government has sent a clear message to the wind farm sector, and that is that it is not welcome. They have done this by introducing excessive planning restrictions on wind farm development through the Victorian government's new planning amendment VC82. The major change of this amendment is that wind farms cannot be built within two kilometres of an existing dwelling without the written consent of the owner. That means that a single objector has been given a veto on all wind farm developments within two kilometres of their dwelling. This is referred to as the two-kilometre setback. There are also five-kilometre dead zones—areas where wind farms are prohibited, even if everyone in that community supports a wind farm. It is quite extraordinary.
They have also listed an extensive maze of wind farm buffers and bans which specifically exclude whole sections of the state of Victoria. When you add these restrictions together you can see that the state government is trying to strangle the wind farm renewable sector in Victoria. These are extreme and have gone much too far. They have been rightly reported to be Australia's most restrictive planning laws for wind farms.
The devastating effect of this policy has been estimated by industry consultants Carbon Market Economics, who have concluded that this policy could mean that between 50 per cent to 70 per cent of proposed wind farms would not be developed in the state of Victoria. And much of that investment is in regional Victoria, so it is extraordinary to me that members of the National Party, of all parties in this place, should be supporting these sorts of measures. Global wind farm developer, Windlab, has closed down its Melbourne office, moving its operations to Canberra, blaming the restrictive new Victorian planning laws. Windlab's general manager, Mr Nathan Steggel, said that the Victorian government's planning laws had gone too far and made it 'difficult to develop projects in Victoria'. Pacific Hydro's general manager, Mr Lane Crockett, is on the record as stating, 'Unfortunately, these new wind farm laws will hold Victoria back while other states power ahead.' The ridiculous nature of these restrictions is further emphasised by the comments of the head of the world's largest wind energy company, Vestas, Mr Ditlev Engel, who is reported as saying that he has no idea where the government's new restrictions come from or what they are based on.
The impact on clean energy generation from this action will be to freeze output. The Victorian government's own Department of Primary Industries forecasts that, over the term of the current Victorian government, there will not be any additional wind-generated power put into the grid. So not only is this likely to threaten jobs and future investment but also it obviously puts under pressure the renewable energy targets that Australia has set and the emissions abatement targets that it continues to set.
The Victorian government has also imposed additional administrative and specialist costs on local government as part of its new approval regime for wind farms in Victoria. These are new costs for noise and engineering experts, lawyers and accountants, and no doubt they will flow on to ratepayers through their rates. I know that many regional councils have already voiced their opposition to this considerable cost-shifting and the imposition of red tape on industry and job development. We hear regularly from those opposite about the damaging effects of introducing red tape in industry development, yet extraordinarily we have people here this evening who no doubt will be supporting the Baillieu government's attempts to restrict the wind farm industry. It is really a drastic restriction on industry, and it needs to be said that it was done with minimal public scrutiny. It was done originally without legislation—just a decision by the Liberal Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, supported by his government.
I have mentioned this evening the very significant effects on industry development and jobs creation of the wind farm industry. It is extraordinary to me that, in a state which is struggling at the moment, we are not making better use of our opportunities to generate new industry, to generate clean energy industry and to support the regions, as those opposite would have us believe they do. It is extraordinary to me that we are putting in jeopardy jobs and revenue streams for farmers. There is much more that I could say on this, but for this evening I am afraid that that will suffice. I support the motion and I encourage other members to do likewise.
I welcome this motion moved by the member for La Trobe, for this motion gives the House an opportunity to take a reality check and to examine the effects and the costs of diverting our nation's scarce and precious resources into subsidising industrial wind farms. Firstly, far from state planning regulations being unreasonably restrictive on wind farm developments, as this motion claims, the states have so far abjectly failed to protect our rural communities, by having planning regulations and noise guidelines so lax as to be perfectly biased in favour of inappropriately sited wind farms. This motion displays a complete contempt for the rural people of Australia, many of whom are unlucky enough to be situated in areas where wind turbines could potentially be located.
Back in 2005, the United Nations Environment Program, with one of those 'the science is settled' predictions, asserted that global warming would create millions of climate change refugees. By 2010, it was said, these people would be forced to flee their homes because of rising sea levels from melting ice caps. Well, 2010 has come and gone and there has not been a single person made a climate refugee because of rising sea levels. However, here in Australia we now have some of the world's first climate refugees, forced to flee their homes not by rising sea levels but by government policies subsidising industrial wind turbines. Dr Sarah Laurie has documented over 20 Australian families who have been forced to flee their homes in Victoria alone because of wind turbine noise and infrasound. Dr Laurie states:
… current noise guidelines are completely inadequate to protect people's health because they do not involve measurement of infrasound and low frequency noise.
Today I received a letter from Mrs Pamela Connelly, an Australian climate change refugee forced to flee her home because of inadequate planning regulations which have allowed wind farms to be built too close to her home. I would like to read her letter:
I am writing to share with you our personal experience of living for three years alongside (1.2 km away) a Pacific Hydro wind turbine and more importantly the contrast after having lived away from them for 18 months.
The first time the turbines started to turn … imagine our shock of hearing a constant sort of jet engine/sonic boom whooshing sound and more annoyingly feeling a vibration sometimes in our chest bone every second or so.
When the turbines were at their worst, this noise continued day and night even through closed double glazed windows. I recall sitting on the couch on one of those earlier nights and amazed that not only could I clearly hear the turbines, but also feel the wave of vibrations every second or so through my whole body.
Another thing that increased very gradually was headaches, and in the last year or so I was taking Nurofen migraine tablets regularly … The headaches were sometimes so bad that unarmed with Nurofen, the migraines were completely debilitating … These headaches stopped straight away after moving away and in the past 18 months I have only taken two Nurofen tablets.
Mrs Connelly continues:
We asked at a meeting Pacific Hydro for written proof that it was safe for the health of us and more importantly our children but this could not be supplied.
On further questioning to Pacific Hydro at a meeting at our house we were told no further testing was needed—
and nothing could be done. She continues:
It is not until you move away from the turbines that you realise the profound effect that they had on you. You don't particularly connect the symptoms to the wind turbines because they very gradually build up over time and you put it down to co-incidence or anything as you really don't want to believe that staying where you love is making you unwell, it really only becomes clear in a short time after you leave the vicinity of the turbines how much of an effect they were having on you when the symptoms disappear.
So to the member who bought this motion I say, 'Shame,' for your motion seeks to inflict the type of pain and suffering experienced by Mrs Connelly on hundreds if not thousands of rural Australians and strip away their property rights and force them out of their homes.
This motion also farcically talks about considerable opportunities for increased employment in connection with the construction of wind turbines. This is a complete fallacy. Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants. Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege.
Seventeen billion.
That is right. But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies.
So what this motion actually seeks to do is to promote the interest of wind farm developers—either the union-controlled Pacific Hydro or foreign multinationals—at the expense of Australian families and businesses. The evidence from overseas is clear. While the member for La Trobe may talk about the wonderful jobs that they create, we also have to look at the jobs they destroy. The evidence, as I said, from overseas is clear: policies to subsidise wind and solar power have proven an absolute disaster in Germany, Denmark and Spain, where it has been calculated that, for every 'green' job that is created, in the real economy it has destroyed 2.2 jobs. A recent Verso study in the UK has found these types of subsidies destroy 3.7 jobs for every green job created. It is clear—for every wind turbine constructed in our country, jobs are lost, our nation's prosperity is reduced, we become less competitive and costs of living become higher. As Henry Ergas pointed out today:
NEXT year, each man, woman and child in this country will pay $450 in electricity charges for "green schemes"…
That totals, across the economy, $10 billion. For a mother raising three young kids, that is $1,800 it will cost them in the next year alone in electricity prices.
We need to consider the opportunity costs of subsidising hopelessly inefficient wind turbines. We live in a world where billions go to bed hungry at night. We live in a world where millions will die this year from particulate and water pollution. We in this parliament have to try and find $8 billion a year to fund our National Disability Insurance Scheme. No-one will ever know what new products, what new processes or what medical breakthroughs will have failed to come into existence, killed before they were born, because of the diversion of our nation's precious, valuable resources into wind turbines. No-one will ever be able to compute the price that we all will pay for this public policy failure, keeping our standard of living lower than it would otherwise have been.
And for what? What is this for; what is the entire point? Well, members on the other side often regurgitate that delusional phrase: 'We are taking action on climate change.' Firstly, we need to be clear how little power wind turbines actually produce. You would need 3,500 giant steel windmills to produce the equivalent output of one single, medium-sized conventional coal or gas fired power station. Secondly, even if we built these 3,500 steel windmills, we would still need a gas fired power station as a backup—for when the wind doesn't blow, the power doesn't flow. It is that simple. And of course any gas fired backup power station needs to be ramped up and down to compensate for the intermittency of the wind. A gas fired plant runs inefficiently, burning more gas and having a shorter life span than a plant which is just working normally. It is like a car battling through heavy traffic—less fuel efficiency and more wear and tear. Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently.
We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health. That is what this motion seeks to do. By any analysis, this motion is to support a public policy disaster. (Time expired)
I rise to express my support for the motion moved by the member for La Trobe reaffirming the parliament's commitment to the promotion of clean energy industries and the importance of wind energy as a renewable energy source. I refer the member for Hughes to the Wind turbine health impact study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, whose epidemiological studies suggest no association between wind turbine noise and psychological or other distress. As for this question of needing backup sources of power, I do not know whether the member for Hughes is aware of it or not, but there is such a thing as a national electricity grid which serves to ensure that renewable energy sources are used to maximum effect. Wind power is a significant component of any effective response to climate change. Building more wind farms will help facilitate the structural change we need to become a low-carbon economy.
It is with great concern, then, that I note that the Victorian Baillieu government is imposing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. Its changes extend considerably the areas to be excluded from wind farm development in Victoria. In effect, they create wind farm no-go zones. Wind energy facilities are to be excluded from such areas due to various concerns that they raise. Quite remarkably, proposed wind farm developments now need to obtain the written consent of any owner of a dwelling within two kilometres of any turbine. While the Baillieu government says that such amendments provide certainty, the amendments effectively create a presumption against wind farm development over a large part of Victoria. There will be negative consequences for investments in wind farm facilities. By creating many no-go zones for wind farm development in Victoria, the amendments will re-entrench existing patterns for energy transmission and generation and impact on Victoria's commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The amendments are also tarnished by the revelation that a Victorian Liberal MP, Simon Ramsay, lobbied against the wind farm if its developer, Acciona, did not meet a series of requests, including buying his family's Western District farm. He sought a string of concessions, including that the company pay him $66,000 to grow trees as a noise and visual screen, scrap all turbines within two kilometres of his home and pay for works, including the sealing of the local gravel road. Mr Ramsay represents western Victoria in the state upper house and made the demands in a letter to Acciona over its plan to erect to 63 turbines at Birregurra, near Colac. In the past, he had been a champion of wind farms and had in fact obtained permits for turbines on a parcel of land that he has since sold. His lobbying triggered allegations that he sought to use his political access for personal gain and that he may have failed to adequately notify parliament of his interest during key debates on new wind farm rules last year.
A new report by the accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers for Acciona finds that the Waubra wind farm has boosted the economy of its region, near Ballarat, by $346 million and has created nearly 1,700 jobs for the area. The modelling by PricewaterhouseCoopers finds that investment in the Waubra farm of $226 million has increased Victorian industry output by $685 million and created over 1,800 new full-time jobs. In New South Wales, investment of over $50 million in the construction and operation of the Gunning wind farm created over 350 full-time jobs in its region, reduced regional unemployment and added over $69 million to gross domestic product for the area.
Renewable energy infrastructure, construction and maintenance create more jobs per dollar invested than conventional power generation. The Baillieu government needs to rethink its new laws for wind farms, which will cost jobs and investment in regional Victoria, stunt the growth of the wind farm industry and damage the environment. It is a remarkable double standard that the Victorian government is giving landowners within two kilometres of wind farms an effective right of veto when in every other circumstances you can think of it is eroding local residents' rights to object to planning proposals. Not only do my constituents in Brunswick not have a power of veto over the planned expansion of the Brunswick electricity terminal station; the state government expressly moved in to override the decision of the Moreland City Council to reject the expansion.
I challenge the Victorian government to nominate any other piece of infrastructure—power stations, coalmines, freeways, airports—where every resident within two kilometres is required to agree before the project can proceed. There is none and it is a dead giveaway of the Victorian government's unreasoning and inexplicable hostility to wind power that it should be singled out for such treatment.
It is important for Australia to establish a sustainable, healthy and safe energy future, but we must ensure we do it without putting environmental measures before people and livelihoods. Support for wind power generation has been driven by a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a diversification of energy sources. A study by University of Edinburgh economics professor Gordon Hughes for the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that using wind turbines to cut emissions costs 10 times the price of a gas fired power station. Professor Hughes concluded that wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing carbon emissions compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible combined cycle gas plants.
Reg Brownell, of Australian Landscape Guardians in Victoria, a body committed to achieving better outcomes for natural and cultural landscape through the planning process, has stated that electricity from wind is four times as expensive as coal. He says that the cost of carbon saved is $500 a tonne compared with $15 a tonne by switching from coal to gas. Why then are those who portray themselves as being for the environment so eager to push the wind energy agenda?
Is it because these massive structures look like something is being done? Is it because they will not be erected in their own electorates? The green voters of Melbourne will not be seeing a wind turbine erected in the central city anytime soon, but they are more than happy to tell those in the country that wind turbines should be placed on their properties. I say, 'Shame on them.'
The placement of wind turbines on properties has an impact not only on a specific property, but also on surrounding properties and those people who live on them. It drives those properties' values down and if those living on them wish to move it is almost impossible to sell because no-one wishes to live on a property next to a wind farm. I am sure the member for La Trobe would not want that.
There are also serious concerns from people about the adverse health effects of wind turbine operation and these cases are starting to attract attention from medical professionals. A peer-reviewed study from Danish University researchers into wind turbine noise has found that newer, larger turbines are emitting lower frequency noise than older turbines. It is this low-frequency noise which has been the basis of many claims of adverse health effects for rural residents. Executive Director of the Australian Environment Foundation, Max Rheece, said this study has confirmed his anecdotal accounts of the effects of hundreds of 150-metre-tall wind turbines on rural communities and the health of residents. A number of Australian medical professionals including Ballarat's sleep physician, Dr Wayne Spring, and Dr Andja Mitric-Andjic, a rural general practitioner practising in Daylesford, have publicly highlighted their concerns about the health problems experienced by patients who live in the vicinity of wind turbine developments. They join Dr David Iser, the first Australian clinician to voice his concerns about wind turbines in 2004 based on a small study he conducted on patients living near the Toora wind development in South Gippsland, Victoria.
There have also been concerns raised about the increased fire risk wind turbines present through an inability to extinguish wind turbine fires. This is an unwelcome burden to many rural communities whose firefighters are nearly always solely volunteers.
It is important that strict planning restrictions are put in place regarding wind farms to ensure that they have a very minimal impact on people who will have to live near them, especially as studies prove that wind power is not the miracle answer to greenhouse gas emissions which it has been touted to be. I just wonder whether this government, because it is so beholden to the Greens, is pushing this agenda because it has been cobbled together by the Greens and that is what keeps them in power. The member for Hughes has highlighted how hopelessly inefficient and expensive wind turbines are and, as he said, when the wind does not blow the power does not flow.
There is a better way. The National Party room heard only tonight from the Buckwaroon Catchment Landcare Group which has got a wonderful Cobar regeneration model involving property vegetation plans. They get the litter from the ground and put it into a heat furnace and convert it into energy, and that is providing better grassland and energy prospects for the mining operations that they have near Cobar. There is a better way and it is certainly not wind turbines. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Marriage is a cultural institution of long standing, and the prospect of change is unsettling to many people. But we should remember that society is always changing, that it has undergone great change even in a nation as relatively young as ours, and that the changes we have made over the last 100 years or so in addressing discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexual orientation, though in almost every instance slow, difficult and hard-won, have been profoundly beneficial.
In 1902 Australia became the first country in which women could both vote in federal elections and contest those elections as candidates. But it was not until 1962, only 50 years ago, that the Commonwealth Electoral Act extended the franchise to all Indigenous people. In the early part of the 20th century there were Commonwealth ordinances that restricted the marriage of Indigenous Australians, and in places like WA the permission of the Chief Protector was required before an Aboriginal person could marry a non-Aboriginal person. It was not until 1966 that we scrapped the rule that had forbidden the permanent employment of a married woman in the Commonwealth Public Service. It was not until the 1970s that the efforts of organisations like the Women's Electoral Lobby and the work of people like Jocelynne Scutt began to bring about legislative reform to address the common-law immunity for a man charged with the rape of his wife. Less than 50 years ago, a woman, by virtue of marriage, could not be a permanent employee of the Public Service and could be legally raped by her husband.
I cannot imagine anyone looking back at those circumstances and wanting to return to them today. But nor should we imagine that reform occurred easily. Some of these changes were fiercely resisted, and all of them took a long time to achieve, even after the terrible discrimination that they represented had been identified, and even though removing that discrimination now seems a matter of plainest common sense. The restrictions on who could marry whom and the abrogation of certain rights or protections within marriage did not stand alone as discrete instances of discrimination but rather stood as manifestations of a widespread discriminatory malaise that applied to Australian women and Indigenous Australians.
Within a marriage—as within society as a whole and its laws, institutions and culture—Australian women had fewer rights and lesser standing than men, and Indigenous people had fewer rights and lesser standing than non-Indigenous Australians. Despite the progress over the past 50 or 60 years, that broad inequality has not yet been fully erased. The same is true of gay men and women today. Same-sex couples being excluded from the opportunity to choose the category of relationship that we generally regard as representing the greatest degree of love and commitment is a form of pure discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For that reason, it is illogical, unfair, intolerant and intolerable. Just as the discriminatory aspects of marriage as it applied to women and Indigenous Australians bespoke a larger and connected set of inequities, so does marriage discrimination against same-sex couples.
The journey we have made over the last 100 years, on the road to being a more tolerant, more cohesive and more egalitarian nation with each passing decade, has delivered benefits in which we have all shared. As part of that, the reforms introduced by this government in 2009 represented a huge leap in the legal and administrative recognition of same-sex couples, with all the rights, security and peace of mind that attend those changes. Those reforms built on the wider cultural shift that has occurred. While gay men and women have made their contributions to Australian life from the outset, for much of our history gay Australians, ordinary and extraordinary alike, have been personally, socially and economically constrained through intolerance and discrimination.
Once upon a time it would have been unusual if not practically impossible for a new senator, like Dean Smith, or for the leader of a political party, like Bob Brown, to be openly gay. It would have been unusual for a High Court justice, like Michael Kirby, to be openly gay or for a CEO, like Alan Joyce, or for a sportsperson, like Matthew Mitcham or Ian Roberts or Natalie Cook. It would have been just as unlikely and in many ways even more difficult for a bricklayer in Donnybrook, a school teacher in Hamilton Hill or a GP in Port Hedland, let alone a year 9 student or the captain of a school footy team. Those difficulties continue to be very real, because discrimination against gay Australians is very real and often very cruel. The consequences of that discrimination, especially for young people, include bullying, severe alienation, violence and mental illness.
Families and households come in all shapes and sizes and yet the most important things remain the same: the sense of belonging, love, happiness and wellbeing. Happiness shared is not happiness diluted. I support this bill and the change it represents because there is no reason or evidence to believe that sharing the benefits of marital commitment more widely heralds anything other than greater tolerance and stability and love in our community.
I rise to speak about the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and an issue I am very passionate about, marriage equality. I realise that this issue is highly contentious and affects all communities. The electorate of Wright, which I serve, is no different. I am a firm believer that, if a fellow politician wants to be brave, they should stand up before an election and use this issue as a platform in order to try and win government. I do not agree with the wider view that marriage in Australia has changed since the 2010 federal election. I wholeheartedly support the coalition in believing that the definition of marriage contained in the existing provisions of the Marriage Act of 1974 appropriately affects the common understanding of marriage in the Australian community: 'The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.' I am not persuaded that this definition should be changed. It is not a piece of legislation that can or should be considered lightly. The effect of making any changes to the Marriage Act as it currently stands will have many psychological and social implications, which at this point in time are not well researched and understood. I am not just talking about the welfare of children.
Firstly, I must highlight to this parliament that I was brought up in a family with strong Christian values. While I am no saint, I stand by these values because they have been and continue to be a fundamental moral compass for my life. In a speech on 13 February 2012, the member for Melbourne spoke about love, stating that it has no boundaries and no limits. However, I say that love is a feeling, just the same as anger, frustration, confusion and hate. I certainly do not feel it necessary to try and convince the parliament that I should be allowed to act upon it with anyone I meet. The same Christian values that I was brought up on have helped me to understand that. Can you imagine the consequences for society if we were to legislate acts of violence, for example, due to the feelings of hate? It would be a disaster.
Secondly, I made a commitment to the preselectors of Wright before the last election that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and that I intend to honour that commitment—a concept sometimes foreign to the people on the other side of this House. Thirdly, I question the long-term effects the amendments to the Marriage Act will have on children who will become the innocent victims should we fail to ensure that we accurately know and understand the psychological and social effects of growing up with same-sex parents. This is not an area where we should be allowing experimentation. In a speech for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 on Friday, 4 May 2012, Professor Tom Frame highlighted that same-sex marriage cements an alienation of one children from one or both biological parents.
My last point is in relation to the perception that some of the arguments against the bill are discriminatory. My decision to not support this bill is not aimed to discriminate or separate those who choose to have a same-sex relationship, because I am convinced that the changes to the Marriage Act as it currently stands will do far greater harm to our society. The Prime Minister pointed out on ABC's Q&A on Monday, 11 June, that there is no practical discrimination against same-sex couples in Australia. In 2008, 85 laws were changed in favour of those same-sex relationships and was supported unanimously by Labor and the coalition removing all discrimination in Commonwealth law. State law was genuinely ahead of the Commonwealth on this but relationship registers or their equivalents in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT ensure that there is no discrimination at state or territory level.
I also bring to the attention of parliament the speech of 13 February. The member for Melbourne made an inaccurate statement when he said that a change in the Marriage Act will make it clear to those same-sex relationships that the parliament believes that their love is equal. The parliament has never, to my knowledge, stopped everyone from falling in love. However, marriage is not an automatic action just because I or someone else had fallen in love. If that was the case, I am sure that the majority of society would be married several times over to many people, and think what would happen to those people who love their pets.
In a submission to the Senate inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson said that in Australia functional equality has already been achieved. He said:
I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions, other than the right to call the relationship a marriage. Certainly that is so in federal law. For example, there is complete equality in terms of rights in relation to the division of property and the payment of maintenance on relationship breakdown.
In conclusion I say that, on issues as significant as this, we want to take it to a federal election. Let the people have their turn. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I speak in support of the member for Throsby's motion because the time for marriage equality in Australia has come. This is a recognition of the basic equality of all Australians, regardless of sexuality or sexual identity. All Australians should have the right to legal recognition of their relationships and the advantages and responsibilities that such legal recognition brings with it. All Australians deserve the full social acceptance that removing discrimination symbolises.
I am proud of the reforms that this Labor government has made in removing those 85 pieces of discriminatory legislation, removing every piece of discriminatory Commonwealth legislation bar one. It is time to remove this last piece of discriminatory legislation. Some have said that this change is a threat to marriage, but I believe that the opposite is true. This change reinforces that marriage is a legal and social bond that many Australians aspire to in order to demonstrate their commitment to their partner. Even for those gay men and lesbians who do not want to get married, the message that this change sends is a powerful one. The message is: you are equal before Australian law and you are equal in the Australian community. No young man or young woman should feel that their same-sex attraction marks them out as a second-class citizen.
It is also about time that someone said marriage is about more than sex. This debate has focused so much on the agenda of the couple and, by implication, on the sex act itself that I think we have lost the real meaning of marriage. Marriage is about a lot more than the sex act or the gender of the couple. It is about bringing two families together and creating a third family. It is about stability, commitment, mutual love and support. It is about friendship and companionship. For many people, of course, it is a religious sacrament; for others it is a secular, social and legal commitment to their partner; and for others it is the ultimate romantic gesture.
The member for Wright spoke about the innocent victims of same-sex marriage being the children of such relationships. I find it disturbing that there are so very many children who are already the children of same-sex relationships. When they hear things like, 'They are the victims of their parents' relationship,' what do they think? Those children should not be brought up thinking that the loving, committed relationships of their parents are worth less than the loving, committed relationships of their friends' parents.
If marriage were just about sex and procreation, we would not let people who cannot or will not have children marry. But, of course, we welcome and celebrate marriage for all of the reasons I have described. I understand that many, though not all, church leaders are concerned about this change. This bill makes it clear that churches will not be forced to solemnise same-sex relationships.
I have been overwhelmed with support from my constituents for this change—not just my gay and lesbian constituents but many, many straight constituents who are opposed to discrimination. Of course I have heard from opponents as well. But, when I ask myself whether I should be on the side of change or on the side of discrimination, there is only one answer that I can reasonably give: I have to be on the side of change and equality.
I hope that in years to come, when all Australians are able to formally recognise their love without discrimination, we will look back on this debate with the same wonder we now feel that there was ever a time when couples of mixed race were prevented from marrying or when couples of mixed religion were discouraged by their families from marrying. As I have said before, it is not good enough to say to one group in our community: 'You're almost equal; you should be content with that.' We do not say to women: 'You're almost equal; you should give up the fight for equal pay.' We do not say to people living with a disability: 'You're almost equal; you should stop campaigning for greater access and support.' And we should never say to gay and lesbian Australians: 'You're almost equal; that is good enough.' Almost equal is not good enough.
I rise to speak against the current bill before the House and to inform the House that the coalition will not be voting for the bill. The coalition will honour the policy it took to the 2010 election to maintain the Marriage Act as relating to marriage between a male and a female. We took that to the election and people voted for us on the basis of that platform. We will honour that commitment and we will vote on policy, en bloc, as one, as a coalition against this and a similar bill that I spoke on this morning introduced by the Greens deputy leader, the member for Melbourne.
Can I just get rid of some shibboleths that exist out there, the first being that this is an issue of discrimination—that we need to remove the discrimination that exists within the Marriage Act. Having been here in 2008 and having voted for the legislation that removed 85 pieces of discrimination from 85 bits of legislation, I can say with some authority that there is zero discrimination right now in the law with respect to same-sex couples. The Prime Minister pointed this out on ABC's Q&A on Monday, 11 June, when she made this same point. Family law expert, Professor Patrick Parkinson, in his submission to the Senate inquiry, said: 'In Australia, functional equality has already been achieved. I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions.' The so-called marriage equality campaign that some people have entered into and engaged with with the best of intentions, to their credit, unfortunately has been deceptively hijacked by an aggressive Left-Greens agenda.
The other way that this is unfortunately being hijacked is that it is now being aggressively pushed as an anti-freedom of speech issue. The campaign has depended on first driving alternative voices out of the debate by public demonisation and then filling it with a range of disinformation. The terms 'extremist', 'hater', 'bigot' and 'propagators of hate' are some of the labels used in the media recently against the Australian Christian Lobby and against other supporters of marriage. How is it that the debate has degenerated to such standards of speech? Victoria's deputy chief psychiatrist, Professor Kuruvilla George, was forced to resign as commissioner on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because he participated in a submission to the Senate's inquiry which supported retaining the definition of marriage. There were calls by numerous gay activists for tennis great Margaret Court's name to be removed from an arena at the Melbourne tennis centre because of her disagreement over same-sex marriage. The ACL submission to the Senate inquiry documents numerous other cases around the world of freedom of speech on this debate being infringed.
In every jurisdiction where marriage or something able to be described in law as the same as marriage has been given this situation has only worsened. Proponents of marriage equality have tried to assure that the church will not be forced to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples. Yet, Denmark, the first country in the world to recognise civil partnerships for same-sex couples, this month legislated to force the church to provide same-sex weddings. The rights of parents to determine what their children are taught in the area of sexuality has been dramatically curtailed in places like Massachusetts in the United States, where gay marriage has been legislated because it must be presented as equal once given the same status as marriage. Parents have been fined by the state for objecting to socialising even their preschoolers. This is almost certain to follow such legislation here in this country when the Australian Education Union already has in its 2006 policy on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people on page 3 that it is determined to teach that heterosexism is discriminatory.
With those sorts of radical forces at play in our community, this is not a debate about whether loving couples can marry. This has nothing to do with that. There are many genuine people who are seeking that debate but this debate has been radicalised. This is about reshaping the national conscience and the law in the image of some people who want to see a radical agenda in place. The coalition will have no bar of it. We went to an election promising that marriage will be between a male and a female. We actually honour and hold our election policies. We do not change them on a whim and we will not change this one.
This is the fourth occasion on which I find myself speaking on same-sex marriage. I spoke in favour of same-sex marriage in this place on 13 February of this year, the day before Valentine's Day; on 24 August last year I reported back to parliament on the views of my constituents; and on 30 July last year I spoke to the ALP ACT national conference on the issue. So I wanted to use the opportunity today to read into Hansard some of the stories of my constituents which I have received over recent months. Daniel Edmonds wrote to me:
When I was young, I asked my grandmother what her view would be on having a gay grandchild. Her response was steadfast: "I could not support it," she said. "It would be against God, and against everything I believe in." Years later, I came out to my family before leaving home to move to university (an economics degree!). My grandmother was unsteady in the knowledge that she now had a gay grandchild, something that was seen as uncommon in North Queensland at the time. It was years before she was able to bring it up in conversation with me. However, when she finally did, it really moved me. "I want you to know that I will always support you, and love you, no matter who you love." Ever since, she has met my partners, opened her arms to them as part of the family, and consoled me when those relationships didn't last. I am very lucky to still have my grandmother, but I only regret that in all likelihood my grandmother will not be able to attend my wedding day. I appreciate you fighting for the right of future grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters to be able to attend the wedding days of their beloved family members.
Ian Brown wrote to me:
My partner, Roger, and I have been together for (gulp) 40 years and were 'civilly united' in 2006 under UK law, as he holds a UK passport.
We had our ceremony in the British consulate in Sydney—they said we could have a maximum of six guests so naturally we invited 30!
It was one of the most exciting days of my life and I will always remember my late mother's tears of joy on our finally being 'married' after a 34 year 'engagement'!
Another constituent, Bill, from Ainslie, wrote to tell me of his experience watching an interview with Bishop Pat Power on 7.30last Friday. In that interview Bishop Power said:
... where two people have that definite commitment to each other and if they make the decision before God well I would say that their blessed in that life that they're living and they do that with honour and respect for one another ... I would want those people to feel at home within the life of the church.
Bill had written to me previously to say that he did not support same-sex marriage. He wrote to me after seeing that interview and said:
Good Morning Andrew,
For what it's worth and just to let you know, after hearing Bishop Power speak and having met and spoken to several Gay people myself I have now changed my mind and support Gay marriage.
I felt that you treated my position then with respect and I appreciated that. I'm sure there are many others in the community who are wrestling with this issue and who will, with time and reflection, come to see the justice of the homosexual case.
There are many people of faith who have taken the view that we should support same-sex marriage. Writing in the National Times, the Reverend Harry Herbert, the Executive Director of UnitingCare NSW/ACT, refers to the fact that in the latter part of the 19th century there was a campaign to remove from marriage acts the restriction that a man could not marry a sister of his deceased wife. When it was proposed by colonial governments in Australia to remove the restriction, churches led the charge against it. Reverend Herbert quotes the Reverend Adam Cairns, who at the time described the proposed change as a 'deliberate treachery to the cause of truth' and said, 'By the unchangeable word of God such marriage is incestuous.' Reverend Herbert points out that this seems to be a selective reading of the Bible because the Book of Deuteronomy in fact enjoins a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. But the broader point that the Reverend Herbert makes is that churches should not impose on nonbelievers a vision based on faith.
In his I have a dream speech, Reverend Martin Luther King spoke of the promissory note that African-Americans were bringing to be cashed. In that speech he said that America had defaulted on her promissory note as far as her citizens of colour were concerned but that they did not believe that the 'bank of justice is bankrupt'. The same principles bring gay and lesbian Australians to this House to call for us to support same-sex marriage laws. I do so with a respect for those who disagree but with a passionate belief in the justice of this cause.
Debate adjourned.
I rise tonight to speak about the escalating electricity prices in South Australia with the recent announcement of an 18 per cent increase and the effect that government policies in the renewable energy area are having on our electricity grid. Retail electricity rates are set to rise by 18 per cent. The Energy Users Association of Australia has said that after 1 July—that is, carbon tax day—the retail price of South Australian electricity is set to become the dearest in the world, with an average retail price in excess of 31c a kilowatt hour.
South Australia is home to more than 50 per cent of Australia's installed wind generation capacity, more than 1,200 megawatts. The photovoltaic rooftop solar subsidies and state based feed-in tariffs have been spectacularly successful in South Australia, with one in seven houses having PV cells installed and an installed capacity of 120 megawatts in total. That is, six in seven households that do not have rooftop solar are in effect subsidising these systems through feed-in tariffs. The theoretical total generation available to the grid, including the interconnectors, is about 3,400 megawatts.
Historically, the Playford power station of 240 megawatts and the Northern power station of 540 megawatts—these are brown coal power stations, I might add—operated by Alinta Energy at Port Augusta have provided around 40 per cent of the state's electricity. In recent years this has been supplemented by two interconnectors to Victoria—Murraylink, 220 megawatts, and Heywood, 460 megawatts. On average, the Alinta power stations still produce more than 30 per cent of the state's demand. On 1 July both power stations will be taken off line by Alinta.
South Australia's electricity demand fluctuates from less than 1,000 megawatts to about 3,500 megawatts. Prices fluctuate from minus $500 up to $12,000 a megawatt hour. Normally, this electricity retails at around $250 to $300 a megawatt hour. The Essential Services Commission informs us that 194,000 South Australian householders are seeking assistance with their power bills. A further issue—it is a side issue but I must bring it up, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott; I know you will understand about this community—is that the Coober Pedy Council, which operates an off-grid generator, is being forced to raise electricity prices for commercial customers by more than 30 per cent from 1 July.
Those are the facts. I believe that the South Australian electricity grid is, at best, in an uncertain state and its problems are almost all caused by a mishmash of government policy overlapping and double-dipping on the back of the push to reduce our CO2 emissions. The RECs, the solar PV subsidies, the solar PV feed-in tariffs and now the off-budget Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the carbon tax are effectively a double triple whammy on the industry. If Labor should win the next election—I certainly hope they do not—and keep the carbon tax in place they should wind back the other expensive renewable schemes and provide a far simpler signal to the marketplace.
Let us just for a start have a look at Alinta Energy's coal fired power stations at Port Augusta. Since 1954, 58 years ago, first Playford A then Playford B and later the Northern power station have provided a substantial part of the state's electricity. As at the end of this month that will cease. Playford will be permanently closed, so 248 megawatts off the system, and the Northern power station will be operated for only six months of the year—the winter months—so 540 megawatts off this system. Many will cheer this in Australia as evidence that we are moving away from fossil fuels. However, the questions are: what kind of future do we move to, is it sustainable and what is the price? The closures are being forced on Alinta by the depressed prices brought about by the very high levels of wind generation in South Australia.
I have spoken about the wind generation in this place before, but I want to go back over some of the facts. More than 50 per cent of Australia's installed capacity in wind generation is in South Australia. Even more importantly, about 35 per cent of the state's installed capacity on the electricity grid is wind. For those who do not fully understand 'installed capacity', before we had such things as renewable energy and intermittent power supplies we just talked about the capacity of a power station. Now we talk about installed capacity because it may or may not be available, depending on the weather conditions. With a solar cell, for instance, it is not available at night but it is available during the day, and then it depends on the intensity of the sunlight. So it is with the wind—it may blow, it may not.
With more than 1,200 megawatts of installed capacity being provided by wind, that means that it is capable of providing more than 100 per cent of the demand on a windy day in winter. So when we have low demand it can provide over 100 per cent of the demand—and as little as two per cent on a still day in the middle of summer. So the grid has become unpredictable and difficult to market and to operate in for baseload generators, who are by their very nature incapable of load chasing. There are plans in South Australia to build another 1,000 megawatts of wind energy. Renewable energy always sells first on the grid, because of the RECs, which add around $38 or $39 a megawatt hour or 38c or 39c a kilowatt hour in returns to the generator, on top of what they can sell their electricity for. Of course, the industry is being forced by the regulations and the laws of this parliament to move towards a 20 per cent renewable target. So I am seeking more information at the moment from the Australian electricity market authority as to the sustainability of the grid and what the 760 megawatts coming offline at Port Augusta as of 1 July is likely to mean to the operation and supply of electricity in South Australia.
Even more important than the price is the question: when workers get home after a hard day, at whatever the coalface might be for that particular person, and flick the switch will the light come on? Or will that industry be rationed because the grid is not able to supply the power? So the real question is: to what extent is the concentration of renewable energy in South Australia leading to what will be, according to the Energy Users Association of Australia, the world's highest price for retail electricity by 1 July. It is difficult to see that South Australians are not making a larger contribution to reaching the MRET targets than the rest of the nation. Even further, what are the risks of brownouts in the middle of winter if we get a cold, frosty string of days? One of the things not everybody understands is that the other baseload generator in South Australia is gas fired. Gas power stations do not have big containers of storage; they use their pipelines. So, if we get a cold snap of weather, the pipelines actually depressurise over a period of days, because that is the holding tank. The generators crank up the power station at Torrens Island, people come home and turn on their gas fired heating and will run down that supply. Should the weather continue, that is where we are likely to face shortages. And AEMO, the Australian Electricity Market Operator, have the ability to command Alinta to turn the generators back on. That sounds all right, except it takes two weeks to fire them up. I have read the legislation closely, and I have talked to the industry, and there is absolutely no understanding in the industry as to who would pay Alinta to restart these generators.
That is why we have peakers.
We have people to make good—
No, peakers—
The member for Moreton will cease interjecting. The member for Grey has the call.
I will have a talk with the member for Moreton afterwards. In closing—I did raise the issue before and I will seek some more time in the House to speak on Coober Pedy—with a 30 per cent increase in electricity, it is appalling. South Australia is the only state in the nation that does not provide subsidies to remote communities to have electricity at grid prices. The South Australian government have withdrawn support and yet the support they do give to the Coober Pedy council is contingent on them supplying household power within 10 per cent of the grid. So it is being passed on.
Australia's parliament has listed 17 groups as terror organisations since 2003. Hamas has been listed and re-listed by parliament as such an organisation on several occasions. Founded in 1987, the purpose of Hamas and its Ezzedine brigades as enshrined in Hamas's charter is to create an Islamic state in all of geographic Palestine. At the recommendations of the relevant Australian government committees, it has been considered a threat to Australian interests and a potential risk to Australian businesspeople, tourists and government officials. Let us be clear: the threat that Hamas poses to Australia is clear and present. That is why I was surprised by a report on the ABC on 12 December 2011 which concerned the guilty plea in an Israeli court by an Australian citizen, Eyad Rashid Abuarga, on the charge of espionage on behalf of that organisation, Hamas. Mr Abuarga was sentenced to 30 months jail along with an 18-month suspended sentence for providing services to an illegal organisation. He was detained on 24 March 2011 at Ben Gurion Airport, attempting to enter the country on his Australian passport. According to the indictment, Abuarga provided what the intelligence services call 'scoping' for the Hamas organisation of various industries and places there. The indictment said that this Australian citizen had worked for Hamas for four years and stressed, 'The seriousness of his being recruited to help the terrorist activities of Hamas,' for which he was ultimately convicted and jailed. Yet in the report by ABC's 7 pm Victorian metropolitan TV news service by Middle East correspondent, Michael Vincent, Abuarga was introduced with the following words, 'Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organisation'.
Naturally, I wrote to the ABC on 19 December objecting to this sin of omission. My objection was, and is, straightforward and self-evident: ABC TV viewers' prospective concerns were minimised by saying that it was only Israel that considered Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. Absent was context: any reference pointing back to Australia's position, which in fact accords with that of Israel, and specifically designates the Ezzedine Brigades of Hamas as a terrorist group. The clear inference of the story's introduction was that only another country regarded Hamas as a terrorist organisation, materially different to the Australian government, the US government and the Canadian government which also regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation. The ABC's distorted frame of reference was the prism the viewer was conditioned with when the report was broadcast.
Following the ABC's procedure for complaining about relevant programs, I wrote to the Victorian news editor, Shane Castleman. His response, which was dismissive and full of obfuscations, failed to address the matters I raised. Castleman seemed to imply that the Abuarga case is being heard in Israel and therefore it is Israel's view of Hamas that is fundamental to the man's predicament. The conclusion from Mr Castleman's response is that it is the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation by Australia that is irrelevant. This is completely untrue of course, and is sadly the conclusion that reasonable viewers would take from this material omission. Without this context, and absent the common knowledge of the average viewer, there is no context with which to characterise the activities of Hamas in our society.
The ABC creates a clear insinuation that an Australian citizen is subject to a domestic Israeli law that may not constitute a crime in our country, or perhaps has domestic political significance in Israel is prejudicial to the rights of Australians under the norms of Australian law. This could not be further from the truth.
My objection to this tepid ABC response elicited a further answer from another ABC executive, Mark Maley, which failed to advance the matter. He merely reiterated, 'As the Australian government was not involved and made no representations to the court or to the Israeli government it was not necessary to report its views on Hamas or on any other matter.' This is plainly ludicrous. The story was reported in Australia for an Australian audience. It was not a generic international news story. It was made by an Australian news organisation and reported by that organisation's resident correspondent. The fact that the Australian government was not involved or did not make representations is not in dispute, but it does not excuse the negligence or insouciance of the ABC towards the most serious issue of safety of Australians.
It is disappointing that after sending a copy of my letter to the managing director of the ABC, Mr Mark Scott, I have had to resend it as his office has still not responded six months later. Surely with the arrest and jailing of an Australian man for assisting a terrorist organisation it is fair to report that under Australian law Hamas is a terrorist organisation? Once his sentence has been served in Israel, Mr Abuarga may well return to Australia. Do Mr Scott, Mr Castleman, Mr Vincent and Mr Mark Maley really believe that Australians do not know that a crime committed there is also a crime committed here, and that a person who has committed such a crime might in some way be of interest to Australian citizens? Of course that person is, and the fact of his affiliations must be of interest to Australian citizens too. The ABC's response to date has been without substance and reflexively defensive. It is reflective of a self-serving and impenetrable complaints apparatus that protects the ABC from reasoned feedback. The process is arbitrary and subjective and raises significant concerns as to the means of any member of the public. If I, as a member of parliament, cannot navigate this bureaucratic stronghold, what hope does a member of the public have to handle this euphemistically and laughably labelled 'complaints procedure'?
Unfortunately, we have seen this trend in the ABC also in a recent interview on Four Corners. For some reason, Mr Kerry O'Brien of the ABC's flagship current affairs program, Four Corners, chose journalist Robert Fisk—who is a correspondence for the UK newspaper the Independentas his guest after a serious BBC program on Syria. Fisk is not an academic expert on Syria. The subject matter of the O'Brien interview was indeed Syria, but it was O'Brien's generous—indeed, obsequious—introduction of Mr Fisk as a journalist who covered the Middle East with distinction that drew my attention. As members will no doubt know, and as Mr O'Brien presumably knows, Mr Fisk's journalistic excesses have become a byword in misreporting, to the extent that a verb has been associated with the line-by-line analysis of misreporting that has entered into the lexicon of journalism—namely, the verb 'fisking'. This was explained in 2005 by the UK Observer as:
The practice of savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the internet (named after Robert Fisk of the Independent).
Mr O'Brien is entitled to interview anyone he chooses and to be as ignorant as he likes about the Middle East. However, given that Mr Fisk was interviewed alone to provide an overview of a terrible conflict where over 10,000 people have been killed without contrary views being offered, it would have been better journalistic practice to choose a less polarising commentator.
Fisk's failure of objectivity was borne out in the body of the interview, but it was Mr O'Brien's failure to ask him any serious questions about this that drew my attention again. Fisk took issue with O'Brien's calculation of the human cost of the conflict in Syria. This did not elicit from Mr O'Brien any request for clarification of attribution, nor any challenge of Fisk's blatant attempt to diminish the nature of the crisis in that benighted country. O'Brien allowed Fisk once again, as he would so predictably do with anyone who knows his record, to attack without foundation his bete noire, the state of Israel. Deplorably, O'Brien did not raise a murmur when Fisk insisted that Israel along with its existential enemy, Iran, seeks to support the Assad regime and benefits from the massacre of Syrian citizens. The outcry against Assad has been vociferous at all levels of the Israeli government, including in unequivocal statements from its Prime Minister, its foreign minister and its President, Shimon Peres—right across the political spectrum, at all levels of think tank. Peres said on radio last week:
The killings are growing more and more every day and it's scandalous.
Joining President Peres was Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, who called for international military intervention against Assad on 14 June. They have been very clear to make their attitudes towards the Syrian government known.
With regard to Fisk's ridiculous assertion of a shared agenda between Israel and Iran, Dan Meridor, the very famous lawyer there, stated that the fall of Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, would end the axis with Iran and its President Ahmadinejad. The same point was made by Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's secret service and, again, a man who has been very critical of the Israeli government. We see the spectrum of criticism of Syria right across the political spectrum. The ABC's attitude to complaints about having one-sided commentators on the Middle East shames the organisation and really needs to be addressed by the editor-in-chief, Mr Mark Scott.
On Friday, 15 June, I was lucky enough to be in the city heart of Townville to watch the Respect for Seniors March for World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The 1 RAR band led the way and was followed by a march of an army of the city's seniors, proudly marching behind the banners. They started at Flinders Street outside the Cowboys Leagues Club and marched down to Stanley Street, up to Walker Street and into the council forecourt. They were met there by Townsville mayor Jenny Hill, state MPs John Hathaway and Sam Cox and a healthy band of well wishers. They wore red shirts emblazoned with 'Seniors Creating Change'. For your benefit, Deputy Speaker Scott, I will show you a photograph of some of them. Mayor Jenny Hill spoke to the group and proclaimed 15 June as Townsville Elder Abuse Awareness Day and asked for everyone's commitment to build safer communities for our seniors. Jenny spoke on behalf of the city when she said, and I quote:
We are concerned about older residents who suffer from or are at risk of neglect, or who are the victims of financial, psychological, social, physical or sexual abuse.
Jenny summed up the mood pretty well when she stated:
Townsville's seniors are valued members of our society and are often the quiet achievers of our community. They take time out to volunteer in many organisations as well as caring for a new generation. It is our collective responsibility as a community to ensure that they live safely and with dignity.
Anna Cody, the senior legal and support services officer at the Townsville community legal service, TCLS, spoke and what she said was spine chilling. She said that they know that 27,000 seniors in Queensland will experience elder abuse each year and that a majority of this abuse will include financial abuse. Based on the statistics they have collected, they know that seniors in Townsville who have sought help from them in the last five years have lost an estimated $15 million as a result of financial abuse. The sad part was that Anna noted that they knew that this financial abuse did not occur in a vacuum and almost always they will also experience psychological or physical abuse—and even homelessness.
The 'Red Shirt Brigade', my friends, then struck up a song—and for the benefit of Hansard and most people here, I will not sing it. The tune was When theSaints Go Marching Inand the key lines were as follows: that the seniors could create change themselves; that seniors deserve respect; that we as a community and political leaders have to listen to our seniors and actually care about them; that all they want is to live with dignity and not just be part of the economy; that they want to be safe in their own homes; that they want to walk safely in the evening; and that those who have fallen on hard times are treated right and fair; that they want to live sustainably and not be belted by big business and cruel taxes. They also sang Glenn Campbell's Try a Little Kindness, and if there is any time left I will burst into that.
I spoke with a couple of the guys from the TCLS. They are feeling the pinch with reduced funding. They are a great service for our city and they understand the needs of their client base. Being a legal service, they are acutely aware of time. My solicitor charges me by the hour in six-minute lots and parts thereof. The issue when dealing with seniors is that there has to be a duty of care in meeting their needs. It cannot be done hard and fast. There are background issues which need to be sorted out first before they can discuss their main concern. There has to be a more pastoral role played by the people at TCLS to find out the real needs and deal with them. That costs time and they are time poor. But they do it because it matters. I want to take this opportunity to give my full support to the TCLS and all its ancillary services. They will lose a staff member on 1 July when the funding for their financial adviser is withdrawn. This person dealt with the serious debt issues and harsh consequences facing many people in Townsville now. I know that I have the support of the Shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, on this matter. Senator Brandis has made representations previously without success for the support of the TCLS.
Where to from here? Anna Cody referenced the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children from 2010-2022, the Respect for Seniors Campaign launched in 2009 in New South Wales and Queensland's own 'Act as one against elder abuse' campaign for most of her points. Point 1 was advocacy. Everyone everywhere can advocate on behalf of seniors by recognising their human rights, which include their right to respect, dignity, equality, support and in particular make their own decisions. Point 2 was social isolation. This issue increases the risk of elder abuse. Factors such as the lack of access to public transport, being culturally and linguistically different, ageism, discrimination and racism all contribute to social isolation. Programs such as Men's Sheds, older women's networks and the Seniors Creating Change group are all important, for they provide social participation, communication, information and stronger community support. Point 3 was screening. This assists with the detection of elder abuse. Screening relies on community members recognising the signs, symptoms, behaviours and attitudes of those who may be at risk so that that action can be taken. Point 4: active service and wellness approach. As I explained, in Australia there was a slow shift away from the traditional dependency type model of care for seniors, towards the provision of the active service model of care, which is centred on the individual. That means that the aged-care providers can assist seniors to remain in their homes and community, resulting in better quality of life, rather than moving into aged care where the majority of the decisions are made for them.
What seniors are most concerned about is a loss of independence, social isolation and their transition to aged care and as a society we must address these issues. The member for Mackellar, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, speaks of ageism as being as vile as racism and sexism. It is something that, until you are faced with it, you do not know it exists. But as soon as you are shown what actually happens, what it actually looks like, smells like and feels like, you become acutely aware of its consequences. That someone would abuse an elder, and most probably a family member, for money is abhorrent to all of sound mind. That it is so prevalent is mind-boggling. That it can happen in any family is a huge concern to me. My mum and dad still live in Brisbane in the family home. They are both in great shape. I am one of three boys in our family and we are still very scared of incurring my mother's wrath. I would never imagine being the person who abused her to get money. I could never imagine being the person who would physically and psychologically abuse my mum and dad in any way. That this is a modern phenomenon should not surprise.
The known demographer Bernard Salt spoke at a conference I attended. He said that the pension used to kick in, as it always kicked in, at 65 but the life expectancy of the Australian male was 62. So you were actually dead for three years before you even got the pension. He asked us to look at photos of our grandparents when they were 50. They were already old people. We now see more and more people turning 100 and celebrating diamond wedding anniversaries. We see our parents trying to cope with being in the new territory of self-funded retirees and the problems that brings with interest rates and inflation and new taxes. We see them trying to make their money last and have a quality of life for which they worked and richly deserve. It is not enough for any of us in this place or in our community to accept that there is elder abuse happening under our noses. In Queensland alone it is estimated that seniors lose over $100 million each and every year. The problem for our seniors is that legal remedies are often too expensive, stressful and time consuming and, when you couple that with not seeing the grandchildren ever again if they do speak, then you have that perfect storm.
Seniors sometimes say something like, 'You feel like people are pushing you. They think because you are old that they have to make the decisions for you as they know what is right for you.' Or 'People just don't listen to you; young people simply do not respect older people.' Or 'Young people think they can bully older people and discriminate against them.'
Sometimes I hear someone say, 'I'm too scared to go out after dark. I'm scared inside my own home. I'm too scared to even go for a walk.' For them to say these things is just wrong. I call on all of us in this place to do our bit and stop elder abuse. I call on every Australian to do the right thing by their elders and simply treat them with the respect they deserve. We as a community need to have this conversation. It is not just about seniors; it is about engaging everyone—families, mums, dads, kids, school students, principals, everyone in the community—to raise awareness of this serious issue and having the discussion about how we as a community can ensure that elder abuse does not continue. We must stamp it out now. We are a great country and my city of Townsville is a great city. We are an aspirational society. All I ask it that we as Australians, as Townsvillians and Queenslanders, act like it.
I rise tonight to state as a starting point how proud I am to represent the youth in my electorate of Holt and how much I value their contribution to our community, particularly in the city of Casey. The city of Casey has a large number of young people. The 2006 census had the total number of young people, aged between 10 and 25, at 59,953. I am sure that, given it is six years since the census was taken, that it is now many more than that. This is a significant cohort of young people. They are the future of our community and the future of our country. Their opinions actually matter. What has concerned me for some time in my electorate and the surrounding region is the way in which our young people have been categorised and the pressures they are under. For example, when a young man in my electorate threw a party some years ago, that was front and centre in the national media, but when it comes to the many constructive things that young people do, and the contribution they make, we very rarely read about it. What sort of message does that send to our young people? Basically, it says that if you do not do anything bad you do not get reported, but if you do, you will.
I have been fortunate over the past couple of months to engage with young people in our community, to talk about the challenges they face in their lives and how they are confronting them. It is easy, as I have said in the past, to overlook our youth, but they are the future of the community and the challenges they face need to be paid attention to. During the regular meetings with our young community leaders we discussed a number of challenging issues confronting young people at present, ranging from school bullying to the immense pressure that is being placed upon young people who are required to define who they are at as young as 16 or 17.
However, one issue that came out loud and clear, and which deeply disturbs me, is the increased rate of young people taking their lives in our local community. I am hearing, unfortunately, story after story of young people who know about young people who have taken their lives. Too many people have been touched by colleagues and friends committing suicide at a young age. What is this saying? In fact, I was contacted by a young student leader a couple of days ago about another suicide that happened. So what is happening in our community? We know that youth suicide is an incredibly important issue, and that governments pay attention to it, but young people are dying—they are dying in my area—and that is just not good enough. We have to do something about this. We have to do something to reduce the terrible toll this is taking on our young people in our community.
We have known for a long time that mental health issues have gone under the radar, but these issues need to be discussed. Experts advise that six or seven Australians die by suicide every day. For each person lost by suicide approximately 30 others have made a suicide attempt. In Australia, the rates of suicide and self-harm remain unacceptably high in the community, with the number of deaths at least 40 per cent greater than the number attributed to national road fatalities. According to Professor Patrick McGorry, the issue of youth suicide needs to be taken as seriously as the road toll as it is the biggest killer of young people under 35 years of age.
After speaking recently with Drew Gormley from Spirit Works I was incredibly disturbed to hear that one particular school in the area that I represent had about 11 suicides of past students in the past 18 months. According to Drew Gormley there is something serious that has happened; this goes outside of the norm; it is something that we need to pay attention to.
Interestingly, according to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing's July 2011 report Before it is too late, the groups of young people who may be at risk of suicide include in no particular order: victims of bullying, including cyberbullying, harassment and discrimination; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals; those who are socially isolated or homeless; individuals with mental illness, especially depression and anxiety; those in the juvenile justice system, those using drugs and alcohol; individuals who engage in self-harm who have previously attempted suicide; and individuals who have experienced trauma, particularly where there is unresolved, grief, loss and family breakdown.
One of the leading documents looking into the issue of youth suicide is the Suicide Prevention Australia submission to the Senate inquiry into suicide in Australia in November 2009. According to the Suicide Prevention Australia submission, suicide remains a complex phenomenon for which there is no single cause and no one solution:
Deaths of this kind bear profound individual, familial, social and economic costs – not all of which can be effectively measured.
The submission goes on to note:
Beyond the toll to a person’s mental and physical health and wellbeing, experiences with suicide can result in financial stress as a result of loss of employment, an inability to return to work, or the financial imperative to do so before an individual is ready. Estrangement from social networks, relationship breakdown, impediments to educational progress and study, family conflict … and changes to religious or spiritual beliefs … also feature strongly.
The submission also found that:
For every suicide, it is conservatively estimated that, on average, another six people will be severely affected by intense grief.
The submission goes on to note that significant and far-reaching loss by those left behind, particularly family, friends and colleagues, is therefore immeasurable.
The vicarious trauma and impact of suicide ... on first responders ... clinicians, general practitioners and other health professionals (including coronial staff), and also volunteers, work colleagues and whole communities, should not be underestimated.
Whilst the pain associated with each suicide and suicide attempt may be private, both remain major public concerns. Finding ways in which to reduce suicide rates and the incidence of suicidal behaviours is therefore everybody's business.
According to the submission, one of the key preventative measures that is needed is to create a national suicide awareness campaign that takes its lead from previously successful community health campaigns, such as tobacco, HIV-AIDS and road trauma to strongly promote messages of hope, help seeking, resilience, social inclusiveness and wellbeing amongst individuals and communities whilst at the same time tackling the stigma associated with suicide and self-harm. Such a campaign would need to engage with and from connections to other relevant social agenda issues, including homelessness, bullying and substance abuse—that includes drugs and alcohol—and the impacts of ongoing challenges such as the global financial crisis and climate change.
The submission also noted that within the school environment a student's attempted or suspected suicide is a similarly traumatic event. However, it can also contribute to an increased suicide risk in other vulnerable students and members of the student's family. The submission importantly notes that in these instances the roles of school and education providers to manage the potentially long-term impact of suicide on young people, including the tensions that inevitably arise from a duty of care to others, and the ways in which information is shared between students, parents and staff following the student's suicide becomes vitally important, requiring great compassion and mindfulness in respect of the needs and wishes of the bereaved or the affected family.
More action is needed in assisting schools and the broader community in dealing with the issue of youth suicide. There are a number of programs and organisations that exist to help young people deal with life pressures, but more resources, especially in rural and urban areas, are needed. The main programs run are basically by beyondblue; Suicide Helpline; Lifeline; and an initiative called 'Living is for everyone', which is an Australian based self-harm prevention resource website. Headspace centres are also run by the National Youth Mental Health Foundation, which helps young people who are going through a tough time. I will not go into all the services that headspace provides. It is a place that you can go to talk to someone about any issue, particularly young people. I highly recommend young people visit a headspace centre if they are finding life's challenges difficult.
One organisation that I know everyone would welcome here and it is worthy of mention is Professor Patrick McGorry's Orygen Youth Health centre, which is a world-leading youth mental health organisation based in Melbourne. This organisation has three components: a specialised youth mental health clinic service, an internationally renowned research centre, and an integrated training and communications program.
I also wish to praise the efforts of the youth in my community who have even started up a Facebook page called 'Coming together to prevent youth suicide'. In light of their initiative and the ongoing feedback that I have received from our young leaders in Casey, I wish to convene a summit in the electorate of Holt that brings together leading experts in Australia like Professor McGorry to address the issues that young people like Danny Rothwell, who is a constituent of mine and a great youth leader, continue to talk about, so we can discuss the plight of so many young people in my area who are affected by suicide.
In the coming weeks I will talk more about this particular initiative. It is time that young people's voices were heard. This ongoing situation of youth suicide in my area is unacceptable. One suicide is enough. One suicide is one suicide too many. We need to do something about that. Listening to the voices in our community through this Facebook group, through this Facebook page and other young community leaders we are going to make sure their voices are heard by convening the summit and making sure we have a regional, area-wide plan to stop another young person dying in my electorate.
I rise to not to talk about electricity prices, particularly in New South Wales and particularly on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. There has been a lot of discussion at a community level around concerns over the last five years of record increases in electricity prices—up around a 70 per cent increase in prices over the past five years. It is a genuine issue of concern within the community. In relation to last week's New South Wales budget, on page 5.18 of the 2012-13 budget statement there is something that is of no comfort for those who have continued to see increases in electricity prices. Under dividends received by government under distribution and transmission there is a 2011-12 dividend of $639 million which is increased to $901 million in the 2012-13 year in the New South Wales budget. That is over a $250-million increase in the one year. On our rough estimates that is a 41 per cent increase over that one-year period. This is from a government in its second year who went to the ballot box in March 2011 promising to cut the dividends to the government from the distribution and transmission network and promising to do something about electricity prices. Sadly, that has not and does not look like occurring any time soon. Instead, we see the issue of the emissions trading scheme being loaded up to blame for all the evils of the extraordinary electricity price rises over the past five years.
Last week in New South Wales the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, IPART, released figures showing that electricity prices, again, will rise by 18 per cent from 1 July. This is, as I have said before, an increase of 70 per cent over the past five to six years. IPART have confirmed that carbon pricing will account for only eight per cent of that 70 per cent increase and that the real culprit is poles and wires charges, which have gone up by more than 70 per cent over the last five years. IPART have made it crystal clear that network charges are up 70 per cent and that carbon adds just eight per cent. It is hard for all mid-North Coast residents and New South Wales residents as consumers to understand the intricacies of electricity prices. The various retail, network and green components make up the total price we pay, which makes it easy for some to blame a carbon price for electricity price rises, even when the regulator has shown that to be wrong.
There is one proven way to cut through all of this confusion and obfuscation. All we have to do is follow the money. If anyone doubts or denies that network charges are the real reason power prices are so high, then the New South Wales budget of last week has come to their rescue. We only have to look at that one line item at page 5.18 of the New South Wales budget statement for 2012-13 under dividends on distribution and transmission which shows that in its first year the O'Farrell government expected $579 million in dividends from its four state owned power network monopolies when it, in fact, received $639 million; $60 million more than it budgeted. This is in a climate when the election promises of the 2011 campaign to cap power network dividends was made and made strongly. That promise is in the document entitled, NSW Liberals & Nationals plan for an affordable & sustainable energy industry. On page 2 at point 4 it says, 'We will cap dividends at forecast levels.' That was the promise. That was the contract.
Honourable members interjecting—
Well, only $60 million above to begin with. The budget papers prove that they broke that promise by $60 million last year. That is nothing compared to what comes next year. The same budget papers at 5.18 reveal that state owned power network monopoly dividends will increase from $639 million last year to $901 million next year. That is an incredible 41 per cent increase in one single year. In fact, if the O'Farrell Liberal-National government had kept its promise to cap dividends last year—a promise that plenty of people, I acknowledge, voted for and welcomed—the increase in forecast dividends would have been an astounding 55 per cent. The O'Farrell government will skim from its power network monopolies $242 million more in cash next year than it did last year. That is roughly an extra $80 from each and every power consumer in New South Wales—higher for small businesses—and, unlike with the carbon price, there is little or no assistance or compensation or whatever you want to call it for most households and absolutely nothing for small business.
So they should do what they said they were going to do before an election?
Yes, they should do what they were going to do—based on the interjection—and stick by their election promise to cap the dividends.
You should tell the Prime Minister.
My election promise, not only at the 2010 election but also at the 2008 election, was to back an emissions trading scheme. Point 4 is a clear promise from the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals plan for affordable and sustainable electricity to introduce a dividend policy. They themselves last week broke this promise by nearly $300 million. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals promised to 'introduce a dividend policy that stops government treating electricity companies as cash cows', but the reality is that households and small businesses are paying dearly for ballooning power profits. You could say that they are paying for a bad dividend policy based on a lie.
It is no wonder that landholders affected by a new high-voltage transmission line promised in the electorate of Lyne question whether the project is designed to meet power demand or to make money. TransGrid is one of the four state-owned power monopolies that will pay much higher dividends next year than it has in the past, and its transmission line proposal has been met with extreme distrust by landholders of all political variations.
IPART has made it clear that wholesale electricity generation costs have not increased over the past five years. Let us be very clear about that: wholesale prices in New South Wales over the last decade have hardly moved. Added to that, demand in New South Wales over the last two years has fallen. Those who can think logically can add all that together—wholesale prices are holding, demand is falling and retail is going through the roof with 70 per cent increases over the last five years.
This is the greatest market failure in Australia today, and it needs to be corrected by state governments, which are currently skimming the super profits, setting their own rates of return and not dealing with appeals to rates of returns such as those that occurred in New South Wales, where they gave themselves a 10 per cent return over the last five years.
Caesar judging Caesar.
Caesar judging Caesar; thanks to the interjection. I am talking about the actions of a previous Labor government as well as those of the current Liberal-National Party government: I am talking about actions that have been made across party lines. This is a market failure of grand proportions which the Commonwealth, if the states are not going to deal with it themselves, needs to start to address.
Before us on page 518 is the story, which I have heard of a lot lately, of the cat being belled. There is nearly $300 million in dividend increases from the new New South Wales government, which largely ran on a platform of fixing the problem. They have not, and there is now a moment in time where the Commonwealth seriously needs to consider what it is going to do about the National Electricity Market and what it is going to do about the greatest market failure in Australia today, which is sending cost-of-living pressures through the roof and causing a whole range of debates around carbon pricing that deny the reality of what is really going on in the electricity market today.
Over the last decade we have heard the term 'job snobs' being applied as a pejorative to workers who are apparently able to take on a job but are unwilling to move to a region to take up that job or to take up an employment opportunity that may exist within the place where they live. It implies that somebody is unwilling to do a job that they are more than capable of doing. Today I rise to point to a significant risk for the mining sector: if mining companies are to escape the tag of being job snobs themselves then they must do everything within their power to ensure that Australians workers who are ready, who are willing, who are able to take up employment in the resources sector, in the booming mining developments in Western Australia and Queensland, are given first choice in taking up those jobs.
For the last four years the mining industry has well and truly dominated the political and economic landscape. It is the sector which is driving new investment, over $500 billion worth, in the development or expansion of mines. Employment in the sector is growing; while it still makes up only a relatively small proportion of the overall workforce, it is expanding rapidly. For example, in my own region, employment in the coalmining sector has increased at around 12.6 per cent over the same period when, I note, we were being told by the Leader of the Opposition that mines were all going to close down. Coal production has actually increased by 14 per cent in the last 12 months in my own region alone.
The debate over the return to taxpayers from the exploitation of those mineral resources has also gripped this place. I am very pleased to see that our proposal for the minerals resource rent tax has now passed into law and Australians will have the opportunity to ensure that for generations to come they will reap the benefits of the mining boom, long after the last bucket of dirt has been exported from our shores. The mining and resources boom is the single cause of our high Australian dollar, the force which has made our non-mine exports less competitive but, at the same time, our imports significantly cheaper. We are seeing a massive structural shift in our economy, in opportunities which exist in the north and the west, a long way away from where the population and the infrastructure exists, in the south and the east.
More recently, the mining industry has been in the foreground over the issue of the use of foreign employees to work in the massive mining developments that are occurring in Western Australia and Queensland. I have given qualified support to the notion of enterprise migration agreements, but this support, like the support of the Australian community for these agreements, could well founder on the willingness of the mining sector to do the right thing by Australia and the Australian people. The mining industry quite simply has an obligation to the Australian community to ensure that it is employing locals and, what is more, to ensure that it is training locals, whether they be locals that are employed or locals that may be able to be employed in those mining developments.
I am quite tired of being told on the one hand that there is work for anyone who is able, because I am sick of hearing people coming up to me in my electorate saying that this is simply not true because they have made numerous applications for jobs in the mining sector, only to have been either rejected or heard no response whatsoever. One of them is Antony Sprajk, a 21-year-old who has just completed a four-year apprenticeship at BlueScope and, because of the troubles in that business, is now looking for a job. He has made over 200 applications to mining companies. He is very well qualified, well thought of and has excellent referees, but he has either not heard back or, if he has heard back, has been looked over and told that he is not suitably qualified. A further example is John Wooley, a constituent of mine from Albion Park who has over 20 years experience in the building and construction industry at a supervisor level and a tradie level—he is a carpenter by trade. He has lost count of the number of jobs he has applied for and the number of times that he has been looked over and told that he is not suitable for the jobs that are on offer. Time after time we are meeting constituents in our electorates who have said that they have applied and that they are ready, willing and able to make the personal sacrifice and the great journey to either transfer to the west or the north or to engage in fly-in fly-out work—at a great cost to them and their families, quite often—but they are not being picked up by the mining companies. In response to that, I have written to the head of the Roy Hill company, to BHP, to Rio Tinto, to Fortescue, to Thiess and to all the other major mining companies and said: 'Before you come to government and ask for our agreement to another enterprise migration agreement, I suggest you come to my electorate in the Illawarra and I will help you set up and hire a hall. We can tour the supermarkets in the suburbs of my electorate because I know that there will be literally hundreds of men and women who have the skills, the willingness and the ability to take up jobs in these far-flung places.'
It is not that I want to see these people leave the electorate. That is far from the case. I would rather they stayed and made their livelihoods and their lives in my electorate. But what I do say is this: if I have people who are out of work or who are looking for work in my electorate and they are keen to have a go, to try their luck in one of these far-flung places and to do the work that is necessary, and if they have the skills—that is, they are ready, willing and able—then I should be doing everything in my power to give these people a go, and the mining companies, the proponents of these enormous developments, should also be giving them a go. If the only thing standing between these workers and a job on these sites is a site-specific licence or ticket, then the mining companies themselves should be assisting the workers to obtain that training and licence so they can take up that employment. A couple of thousand dollars is a small cost to a mining company, but it can make the world of difference to people who are currently out of work and looking for work.
There are things that the government is doing, and I congratulate the efforts of the minister and the Prime Minister, who have been responsible for setting up Job Board Australia. It has been in place for only 14 days, but well in excess of 60,000 people have visited the site and over 2,000 people have registered with the site, seeking employment. At the moment only 250 jobs are directly registered with the Job Board, and another 1,700 are available by indirect links. But it is a good start; it is a good sign. It is a little bit unfortunate. If we had been facing this situation a decade ago it would not have been an online site that people would be going to. It would have been something called the Commonwealth Employment Service, a body that once had both the expertise and the reach and capacity to deal with exactly this sort of situation—how you connect people who are out of work in one part of the country with job opportunities that exist in another. In the face of a commitment not to do so, the Howard government closed down the Commonwealth Employment Service—to its shame and to the great detriment of the many thousands of Australian employers and employees who rely on these sorts of services either to get jobs or to fill vacancies. In view of that, the Job Board is filling a gap, and I encourage Australians, including people in my electorate, who are after a job in the mining sector to apply.
There are things that we can be doing in our local electorates for fly-in fly-out workers. I am encouraging the local council, which owns a regional airport in my electorate, to do everything within its power to ensure that the airport and its infrastructure are available so that we can attract airlines to ferry workers to Queensland and Western Australia, making available those job opportunities. The key point here is this: we have workers who are ready, willing and able and a government that is willing to facilitate. It is incumbent upon the companies themselves not to be job snobs and to provide opportunities for employment for Australians. There are great opportunities available.
Order! In accordance with standing order 192(b) the debate is adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 2 2 : 00