2007-05-28 41 1 9 REPS 0 0 2007-05-28 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 Committees 1 1 1 12:31:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the report of the committee entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —On 9 May 2005 the Attorney-General referred to the committee the task of convening a seminar to inquire into recent developments in the Northern Territory on the question of statehood, including any proposals to advance statehood, and emerging issues which may have implications for federal arrangements. Honourable members would be aware that the people of the Northern Territory narrowly rejected a model of statehood at a referendum in 1998. However, many Territorians appear to be in favour of the idea. Statehood is now back on the agenda in the Northern Territory following the announcement of a community focused campaign by the Northern Territory Chief Minister in 2003. The prospect of creating a new state raises a host of unresolved constitutional, policy and administrative issues that may impact on current federal arrangements. These issues include Aboriginal land rights, representation and legislative arrangements, mining and uranium resource issues and national parks and marine protected areas. Unlike the original states, the Northern Territory is subject to the legislative power of the Commonwealth under section 122 of the Australian Constitution. The Territory is represented by two senators in the federal parliament in contrast to 12 senators from each original state. The votes of Territorians in national referenda are counted only once in the overall tally, but not counted towards a state tally, which is the second criteria for a successful referendum. The Northern Territory is also without certain state-like responsibilities in the areas of uranium mining, land and some national parks. From 14 to 16 November 2006, the committee held a statehood seminar in Alice Springs and Darwin. The committee had the privilege of hearing from over 60 speakers representing a range of stakeholders in the Territory, including Aboriginal service providers and land councils, Territory and Australian government and opposition parliamentarians, Supreme Court justices, and union and business representatives. I have to say that the committee was quite grateful for their enthusiastic participation in the seminar. The most contentious issues raised at the seminar centred on the representation of the new state in the Australian parliament, the future treatment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the role of the Commonwealth government in assisting the Territory to achieve statehood. Territorians were uncertain of the current position of the Australian government on Northern Territory statehood. Historically, the Commonwealth position on statehood has been that it would consider the matter only at the request of the Territory. It was considered that statehood was a domestic matter to be resolved by Territorians alone, with the in-principle support of the Australian government. However, without Commonwealth involvement, the Territory government would not be able to put before its people a model of statehood that contained specific proposals on crucial issues such as the level of representation of the new state in the Australian parliament. Any vague model of statehood would be doomed to fail at a referendum. People want details. Without discussions with the Australian government over the nature of the details, there is a strong risk that the issue of statehood will remain unresolved. That is why the committee has recommended that the Australian government update and refine its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommence work on unresolved federal issues. By refreshing its position on statehood, the Commonwealth would assist the Northern Territory in developing further its own position on statehood and allow the Territory government to consult its citizens with more concrete proposals. I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked so conscientiously during the course of the inquiry. Our report is unanimous. On behalf of the committee I would also like to express my great appreciation for the contribution and assistance of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee and the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and, in particular, Ms Barbara McCarthy MLA, who chairs both committees. I would also like to convey my thanks to the staff of the committee secretariat. The report demonstrates the complexity of creating a new state in the Australian Federation and makes one recommendation. I anticipate that this inquiry will assist Territorians in their discussions on statehood and help open up a dialogue between the Territory and Commonwealth governments in discussing the possible way forward on the road to statehood. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 2 12:36:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 0 Mr TOLLNER —I welcome the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory and sincerely hope it does progress statehood for the Northern Territory. As the report points out, it seems an anomaly that the Territory does not have the status of statehood. The Northern Territory is, after all, the historic national stage of the Aboriginal land rights movement, home to some of the key mineral resource regions in the country, a gateway to Asia and a World Heritage environment with a growing and diverse population. The NT faces a lot of state-like issues, but it will surely be a long and winding road to statehood, with no end in sight, unless the representational and legislative arrangements of statehood are dealt with comprehensively, ensuring that the Northern Territory has full and equal rights with the states on all matters. I fully endorse the recommendation of the committee that the Commonwealth needs to take a greater role in assisting the progress of statehood and in resolving federal issues. These issues are many, and include: repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act; industrial relations; mining resources, particularly uranium royalties; environment and national parks, including marine protected areas; financial relations; representation; and, legislative arrangements. Equally, I must castigate the Northern Territory Labor government for their lack of action on removing obstacles to statehood and any meaningful consultation with the federal government. They have not progressed the statehood issue since announcing a five-year timetable back in 2003. They have also done little to build a coalition of support for statehood; there are certainly no new approaches to statehood. While the level of bipartisan support for statehood is encouraging—and I congratulate the Minister for Statehood, Syd Stirling, and the shadow minister for statehood, Terry Mills, on their cooperation—its impact has been muted in the wider community. Future arrangements for the land rights act still require clarification from the Territory Labor government, a crucial issue if the way is to be cleared for statehood. I have to express some disappointment, too, at the lack of enthusiasm by the Northern Territory public on the issue of statehood. In the words of the committee, Territorians ‘still have a long way to go before they come to a community decision on whether they want statehood and, if so, on what basis’. Views are diverse and divided. At the 1998 referendum, over 51.3 per cent of the Northern Territory’s citizens voted no to statehood. Non-Aboriginal groups supported the proposal, but an estimated 74 per cent of Aboriginals voted no to statehood, and they make up 30 per cent of the NT population. Until we get Aboriginal people onside, statehood is a dead duck. As mentioned, statehood is an issue not just for the Territory to decide; it will require Commonwealth action to prepare the way before statehood can be imposed or voted on in the Northern Territory. Firstly, how is the Commonwealth to accommodate full representational equality? Anything less than a state entitlement of 12 senators and the minimum five MHRs is not equality. I do not think it is acceptable that, if the Territory is to be the seventh state of Australia, we should have any less representation in this place. Secondly, how will the Commonwealth resolve future land rights legislation? Until these two issues are resolved, statehood will not come to pass. I will now deal briefly with the Aboriginal land rights act issue, because its removal from the statehood debate is essential, in my view, or else we will go nowhere. My view is that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 should be repatriated to the Northern Territory as soon as possible, basically in its current provisions, with the Commonwealth installing some safety clauses to guarantee its provisions if it sees fit. The removal of this issue from the statehood debate altogether is essential, or else we will get nowhere. Will land rights be repatriated to the Territory or will that remain under Commonwealth administration? Every Territorian, in particular, Aboriginal Territorians, needs to know the answer to that question before they are asked again whether they should become a state. Finally, I join with the chairman of the committee in thanking all the committee members for their support during this inquiry, and I thank all those people and organisations who gave evidence at our hearings in Canberra, Alice Springs and Darwin. This is a very important issue for the Northern Territory, indeed for all Australians, and those people who participated in the inquiry and seminars have done a great service to Australia. I thank them for their support. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fisher wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) 12:41:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 4 Miscellaneous 4 4 Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) 12:41:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 4 Bills R2798 4 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. 4 12:42:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —This Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2007 has previously been presented in the House—most recently, almost a year ago to the day, by the member for Grayndler. It comes on a day when a statement released by university economists on climate change, signed by some 75 professors and 271 university economists, says: The Kyoto Protocol represents the first step towards a major international effort to deal with climate change in the long term. The refusal by Australia and the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is undermining global efforts to tackle climate change. The government has in the past not allowed this bill to be debated, notwithstanding that the Kyoto protocol represents the single most significant international instrument concerning dangerous climate change and that, to date, some 173 countries have ratified the protocol. I urge the government to consider this bill. Let us hear the arguments against ratification. Let the Australian public know exactly why the government refuses to contemplate Kyoto. Since this private member’s bill was introduced last time, the arguments for ratification have grown stronger not only because more nations have ratified or because the discussions about the next phase of Kyoto have intensified and Australia cannot be a party to the important discussions but also because the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and in Australia continues to rise. The impacts of climate change are better understood, and for Australia the prospects are dire: drier and hotter summers in the southern and south-western parts of Australia; sea level rises affecting south-east Queensland and Tasmania; salt water incursion into Kakadu; and a range of hazardous and damaging climate change induced impacts across our tourism, agricultural and regional economies. The prospects of up to a quarter of a million climate change refugees worldwide, with wide-ranging effects from the Amazon to the Arctic, make clear the need for concerted international action and cooperation on climate change, of which Kyoto in this phase and post-2012 in the next phase is absolutely central. If passed, this bill requires the Australian government, first, to ratify the protocol within 60 days of commencement of the act and, second, to ensure that Australia meets its greenhouse gas emission targets set out in the protocol. Third, the minister for environment and heritage is required to develop a national climate change action plan setting out a national strategy for meeting our greenhouse emissions targets. Fourth, the minister must establish an annual greenhouse gas inventory and publish the results. Fifth, the minister must additionally develop a framework for participation in the international trading of carbon. This would include emissions trading but also clean development mechanism projects in developing countries. It would ensure that Australia and Australian companies are eligible to directly participate in joint implementation projects under the protocol. Given that the government assures us that Australia is on track to meet our emissions targets, there is no plausible reason for Australia not to ratify the Kyoto protocol today. Participation in other discussions and regional agreements is not inconsistent with ratification of Kyoto but, by remaining outside the protocol, Australia does not have a direct place at the negotiating table for the future of the protocol and neither do Australian companies have direct access to the trading schemes that are part of Kyoto. This is an extraordinary situation, all because of the ideological blinkers of the Howard government. I urge the government to take them off. There has never been any convincing argument offered by this government that Australia will suffer from ratification and the claim that Australia of itself can initiate a new Kyoto is fanciful. That task is being undertaken by nations like Japan and Germany, who are parties to the protocol, as are China, India and members of AP6 other than the US. It is possible to play a constructive role in a number of discussions and agreements in relation to climate change but, by signalling an intention to sign Kyoto, getting a good deal and then subsequently taking a constructive stance on the protocol, Australia’s reputation and businesses have been damaged. Companies like Global Renewables have taken their business offshore. Ratification of Kyoto would signal to the world that Australia is serious about addressing climate change. It is not the whole answer to addressing this critical issue but it is central to global deliberations on future action to address dangerous climate change. As long as this government maintains an illogical prejudice against the Kyoto protocol, we are lessening our efforts on climate change and reducing our capacity to influence others to that end. I note that Sir Nicolas Stern has said that Australia is ‘seriously damaging’ international efforts to fight global warming. He said: ‘Look at Australia. It won’t sign the Australia protocol.’ I commend this bill to House. (Time expired) Bill read a first time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 5 Private Members' Business 5 5 12.47 pm Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —I move: That the House: notes the contribution of small business to regional economies; acknowledges that small, micro businesses employ many people and are worthy of protection against predatory behaviour by conglomerates, including organised trade unions; acknowledges the role small, family‑owned businesses play in creating employment opportunities in smaller communities; recognises the disadvantages faced by small business operators in competing against major chains in regional areas; and calls on the Government to take all steps necessary to ensure that small business in Australia remains viable in the face of the many threats confronting small business operators. In New South Wales small business is doing it tough. By small business, I mean those micro businesses that are run and operated almost exclusively by family members. In regional and rural areas like the electorate of Gilmore these businesses provide a significant level of employment opportunities, whether they hire employees or people are self-employed—businesses like corner shops, plumbers, builders, service industries associated with tourism, cleaning contractors and a host of other activities that the big companies do not touch. They are there because the market catchment of rural and regional areas is far too small to attract the big operators but, when they do arrive, they have the capacity to devastate the small business sector simply through their sheer commercial power. The small businesses simply cannot compete and, over a long period of time, they eventually wither and die. I am very concerned at the concentration of market advantage that these large conglomerates exercise and their effect on local communities. Not only do they have a huge commercial advantage, but their capacity to purchase huge volumes of commodities at a significantly lower wholesale price means they can sell the products far cheaper. They have the advantage of sinking bucket loads of money into advertising and influencing consumer behaviour. On a volume-to-volume basis, small business is out of the race, and its profit margins reflect that. Small business is disadvantaged in the negotiation of fair rents and basically has to accept what is on offer—again, a cost that comes straight off the bottom line. These businesses deserve protection against unfair, unequal, predatory practices and I do not believe sufficient is being done in that regard. The ACCC needs to be given more power to act and expose these big businesses that are colluding at the expense of small businesses. I include the oil companies in that statement. The Trade Practices Act prevents any business from gaining an advantage over its competitors by engaging in unconscionable conduct or through anticompetitive practices. The government’s recent strengthening of the TPA allows small businesses to compete more effectively with large business. The amendments to section 46 will allow the courts clearer scope to determine misuse of market power, including predatory pricing by large business. But I do not believe that the New South Wales government is doing enough to stimulate rural and regional economies, preferring, it seems, to focus on Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong—the primary political base of the ALP. New South Wales barely avoided sliding into a technical recession in the December quarter. In the December quarter just gone the growth rate of New South Wales was half that of the national average. The headline of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 18 May 2007 about the New South Wales government said it all: ‘After fifty days, still stuck in first gear’. The article states: The overwhelming feeling in the business sector is that there is a lack of urgency to address many problems facing the state at a time of the electoral cycle when it is possible to make decisions. The greatest urgency for the New South Wales government is to stimulate a bleeding economy, but very little is being done. They just do not care, and the evidence for that is a collapse of the building industry, which takes all those businesses that rely on it downstream. I am reliably informed that an indicator of retail health is radio advertising which, according to the Financial Review, has plummeted in New South Wales. That is because business cannot afford the cost of advertising in the light of falling profit margins. Who feels that the most? It is the mum and dad businesses that are the backbone of our communities, like those in my electorate of Gilmore. It is the role of government to stimulate business activity through fiscal and monetary policy. There is no doubt that the federal government has played its role because we have a buoyant national economy and things could not be better overall. But bring the magnifying glass down to places like Nowra, Ulladulla and Bateman’s Bay, which are regional centres in Gilmore, and an entirely different picture emerges. The ALP have been vigorous in protecting union jobs, but they do not care about the major creator of jobs in rural and regional areas and those who employ themselves. We in government need to recognise the significance of the small business sector and their role in the community. We need to take urgent and responsible steps to protect small business from intimidation by big business, big union and big government. Without due protection, they are the real underdogs. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr Cadman —I second the motion. 7 12:52:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Gilmore. This is an important motion and I agree with many of the comments made by the member for Gilmore, particularly with respect to her concerns that larger conglomerates have a greater concentration of market power and therefore place many small businesses in a vulnerable position, and that should not be tolerated. There is an inherent contradiction in some of the comments made, intentionally or otherwise, by the member for Gilmore. On one hand, she would argue that the federal government has done all it can and refers to the buoyant economy; on the other hand, she says that little has been done to protect small businesses from larger businesses.  Notwithstanding the rhetoric, it is the case that this government has not been a protector of small businesses. Despite the mantra from many ministers and indeed from government members, there has not been sufficient protection for small businesses to enter the market, to allow them to conduct their business in a way that provides them an opportunity to succeed. Therefore, while I agree with much of what was said by the member for Gilmore, there has to be some blame directed towards a government that has been in power for 11 years. I would understand if this were the first term of the Howard government and a government member wanted to draw to the attention of the executive the failings of a government policy, but this is the fourth term and the 12th year of the government and there is no excuse for the failings—which I am sure the shadow minister for small business will articulate fully soon after I have spoken. It is symptomatic of a tired, out of touch and arrogant government that presumes support of a particular group of people or a particular sector and then really does not do much to attend to their needs. It is as foolish for the coalition to think it can presume overwhelming support from small business proprietors as it would be for Labor to assume that union members would vote for them. That is not the case. The fact is that significant numbers of those two groups, for example, do not vote for one party; they vote for both and it should never be assumed that there is a particular constituency which will, without fail, vote for a particular political party. I believe the government has begun to believe its own rhetoric with respect to the support it has among the small business community. This has been pointed out by the member for Rankin and others in a number of debates in recent times. When you look at it, you see that small businesses are looking for assistance, but what was the first thing government chose to do with small business when it was elected to power? It was of course to force them to be tax collectors for the goods and services tax. And what did the government do after that? After that it made the business activity statement so complex so as to make businesses very difficult to run. If you own a very small business—the businesses to which the member for Gilmore referred, the mum and dad businesses—the last thing you need is to spend your time weighed down by and buried in red tape having to deal with departments requesting more and more information of you when you are just trying to go about your core business. That is a failing which has not been attended to sufficiently by this government, largely due to the fact that it presumes small businesses vote for it and will continue to vote for it. That is why it was quite interesting to see the results of a recent survey by MYOB software company which showed that no, there was not an overwhelming groundswell of support by small business for the Work Choices legislation. In fact, more people believed they would not employ people as a result of Work Choices than those who said that they would employ people as a result of Work Choices. Indeed, 44 per cent were dissatisfied with the Howard government. This is after 11 years in power. A government member quite rightly puts a number of things to the parliament but the government have failed to attend to those matters. In the fourth term it is all too late. It is symptomatic of government that assumes people will vote for them, that they will have to vote for them. In the end, small businesses, like any other cohort, will make their decisions as individuals and they will not be voting for the Howard government. (Time expired) 8 12:57:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —Nowhere is small business more important than in regional and rural Australia, where small businesses comprise the majority of businesses. As it is in Australia, 96 per cent of all businesses are small businesses. It is estimated that 39 per cent of Australia’s economic production is generated by the small business sector. Small businesses are vital to Australia’s economy. In the 2005-06 financial year, there was a net growth of 25,753 small businesses. This sector is very large, important and significant. The current government has made substantial changes, for instance to the Trade Practices Act, to allow small businesses to compete more fairly against large businesses. The Trade Practices Act amendments are very significant and must be continually monitored because small business can come under threat of large business acting in an unconscionable manner. Some of the amendments to the Trade Practices Act deal with strengthening the operation to allow small business to compete more effectively. The proposed amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act will give courts a clear escape to determine the misuse of power, including predatory pricing by large businesses. Also, we have allowed small businesses—whether they be trucking businesses or farmers—to group together to make a claim against or to negotiate with large businesses for the terms and conditions under which they will sell or supply goods. For instance, recent changes in the budget to capital gains tax giving concessions to small businesses to grow and prosper have been welcomed by small business—that is, a capacity to pass on the benefits of the work and the goodwill of a business to realise it in a fair way. In addition, there have been changes to and standardisation of the definitions of small business. Put simply, a small business is a business with a turnover of less than $2 million per annum. That applies to the capital gains tax and a whole range of other concessions—the goods and services tax, the filling out of the business activity statement and the fringe benefits tax. Unlike what the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, said, the workplace reforms have been welcomed by small business. Where has the growth, represented by over 200,000 additional jobs, and touching on another 300,000 jobs, come from, if not from the small business sector? Small business is now living without fear of reprisal and of having to pay $10,000 a head for employees who make claims for go-away money. That was the situation in the past. Time and again, a claim for payment of go-away money was nothing but a try-on. The protection of basic employee rights is still there in small business. Whether it is in the area of discrimination, long service leave or a range of other factors, those protections are still in place, by law, and universally—including with respect to the payment of superannuation. The principles that ensure safety in employment are there, but the unfair dismissal aspect for small businesses has been removed. This has been welcomed by employers and employees alike. There has been a change to simplification processes. The threshold for cash accounting processes that businesses can use has been lifted from $50,000 to $75,000, and there is a simpler and fairer workplace relations process. The government has moved to provide skilled workers. In June 2005, approximately 391,000 people were engaged in apprenticeships. When this government came to office, there were fewer than half that number. We have doubled the number of effective apprenticeships and traineeships by applying funds and care to that area. Mr Beazley admitted in 2000 that the Labor Party had never intended to be a small business party, and Mr Rudd made similar statements in 2001. The weekend announcement by the Prime Minister that the Bells Line of Road would be investigated as the site of a new expressway across the Blue Mountains has been welcomed by small business communities in places such as Bathurst, Lithgow and beyond, because they know they will benefit from such a change. Unlike the federal government, there is no vision on the part of the New South Wales government, which has rejected a proposal for a study to establish such a freeway, which would provide access and new opportunities for the people of central western New South Wales. Eric Roozendaal has rejected the proposal. (Time expired) 9 13:02:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —The inspiration for this private member’s motion appears to be an adjournment debate contribution made by the member for Gilmore, who is also the mover of this motion. There has been a degree of controversy in the last few days about the naming of businesses. I note, for example, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been criticised for doing so, yet she made it clear in her statement that ‘it is not really about one place’. She went on to say, ‘I certainly don’t blame small business.’ While we are on that subject, I refer to an adjournment debate contribution by the member for Gilmore in which she did far more than name a particular business. She said: I have been given certain information that suggests that the principals of the franchisors of Bakers Delight engaged in practices that I can only describe as not only dishonest but possibly criminal. She went on to say that ‘there may have been breaches of criminal law’. She spoke of the ‘orchestrated robbery’ of a person’s business by the franchisors of Bakers Delight. Further, she went on to say: It is totally unacceptable that any small business can be subjected to intimidation, commercial or criminal, without recourse to some form of effective protection. It is totally unacceptable that an organisation that engages in practices such as these is allowed to continue trading. She went on to say that ‘this government must intervene on behalf of all small businesses’. I do not think you can get a more blatant example of a government member naming businesses and, in fact, accusing them of possible criminal behaviour. The member who moved this motion has called on the government to intervene. The government has been in office for 11 years, and we learn in the media that the government is finally going to bring forward some amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. We will have a look at those amendments, but if the member for Gilmore is making criticisms, surely it is the case that she is making criticisms of her own government, after 11 years. And those criticisms are valid. Let us understand what this motion is all about. It is about criticising the Howard government for its sloth in not dealing properly with pro-competitive legislation to ensure that there is proper competition amongst big businesses and small businesses and between big and small businesses. So let us not hear anything more about how terrible it is to name a business. Certainly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not accuse anyone of criminality, of orchestrated robbery or of intimidation. This is extraordinary. The fact is that this government has had a full 11 years in which to do the work that the member, here today in the parliament, is calling upon the government to do. I am very pleased to be able to support this motion. I support the small business community in our country. Almost two million people are small business owners and operators; 750,000 of them employ other people in their businesses and 1.1 million are non-employing small businesses, many of them independent contractors. Certainly, it is a relevant consideration that the Labor leader, Mr Rudd, has appointed a shadow minister for independent contractors, whereas no such government minister exists. Labor has put forward a range of measures that would make life for small business much easier, one of the most striking of which is BAS Easy. Again, it is extraordinary that the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, who has left the chamber, said in a recent debate that he would not support BAS Easy—a way of making the GST bookkeeping requirements for small business so much easier. It is an option; it is not obligatory. But if the government was fair dinkum about supporting small business, it would deal with the No. 1 small business paperwork burden—that is, the GST. I welcome the private member’s motion, but let us understand the inspiration behind it—the member’s discontent with the Howard’s government’s inaction on competition policy. We look forward to getting the detail of the legislation. But, in the meantime, if the member for Gilmore has a complaint to make, she is obviously making it about her own government. 10 13:07:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak on this motion in relation to small business. A clear contrast is shown between a member who is passionate about small business—who understands small business and realises what small business can do for the community—and the member for Rankin. The position taken by that member is nothing more than an ALP fraud. The ALP, the Australian Labor Party, do not care in the slightest about small business. When you look at the issue of small business, it is not about listening to what they say; it is about observing what they actually do. What is the Labor Party’s response to small business? They of course have the ability to create hot air and the obligatory rhetoric. But when you look at what they propose to do, you wonder: ‘How is that going to impact on small business?’ I have to say that when I question people in my electorate, they recall the time when Labor was last in power. They certainly recall the negative impact that 21 per cent, 22 per cent and 23 per cent interest rates had on their businesses. They do not look too fondly on Labor’s reign in charge of the economy. They remember what high inflation did to the economy. They remember what high unemployment did to their customer base. They are very aware of the contribution that the Australian Labor Party made to small business. When we move forward to 2007 and look at the suite of policies which are going to be embraced by members opposite in pursuit of improving the lot of small business, we see that one would have to go a long way before finding a better example of how out of touch they are than the proposal by the Australian Labor Party to repeal the unfair dismissal legislation. They should answer: ‘In what way does dragging a small business owner down to a tribunal to sit there all day and waste time affect small business? In what way does it improve small business for a small business owner to perhaps have to pay $5,000 go-away money to someone who is shonky or stealing from the business?’ That is what the Labor Party are about. The Labor Party are not about supporting the sorts of people who make an organisation strong and help small business to grow. They are about supporting the members or the employees of an organisation who have no interest in that organisation. They are interested in looking after the philanderers and the go-slows. People who are in small business know that it is a very competitive environment, and everybody involved in that small business has to work hard. There is no room for Labor’s proposal to wind back the unfair dismissal legislation. There is no room in small business for people who do not have the interests of that small business at heart. It is about time the Labor Party woke up to that fact. It just shows how out of touch they are and how out of touch the member for Rankin is in relation to this matter. When you look at the issue of the Lilac City Motor Inn, you see a family-run small business with hardworking people. They have worked very hard to build up the goodwill and the patronage that supports that business. My understanding from reports of the staff is that they are very happy working there. The staff of that institution are very supportive of their employers; it is a good place to work. So what does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do? She picks a name out of the phone book and decides to trash that business. I can imagine that small business owners must be living in fear that perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might open the phone book on swimming pool operators and pick one, saying: ‘Yes, X and Y swimming pools; it is time to trash them today. And when we’ve finished trashing the swimming pool industry, we will turn to another page of the yellow pages.’ 6K6 Elson, Kay, MP Mrs Elson —Pick on business day! 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —Make it pick on business day, as the member for Forde said, with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying: ‘Yes, we could pick another operation—perhaps motor vehicle repairers. Let’s pick any motor mechanic out of the phone book, make up some sort of absurd claim and trash and damage their business.’ They just do not understand small business. The Labor Party do not understand the fact that it can take a lifetime of work to build a business up, and it can take the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 15 seconds to drag it down again. It is an absolute disgrace. They are a disgrace. They are anti-business, and for them to claim anything else is absolute hypocrisy. The member for Gilmore understands small business and the way in which small business helps to employ people and build stronger communities. The Labor Party’s position is a disgrace. This government supports small business. This government gets the settings right to make small business prosper and grow, and I am absolutely supportive of the member for Gilmore and her efforts to get people in her electorate better employment outcomes and to assist businesses to grow. She is a passionate member with small business at heart. 12 13:12:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 0 Ms OWENS —My electorate of Parramatta is a special one. I am sure all members say that, but when it comes to business, it is. It has one of the largest CBDs in the country. But, within a few minutes from that, it also has suburban areas. So, in my electorate of Parramatta, some of the biggest businesses in the country and suburbia live side by side. It is necessary for both the biggest businesses in the country and the smallest ones to flourish in my electorate. We do have some extraordinarily large businesses. We have Coca-Cola, Unilever and Westfield Parramatta, all of which bring an incredible flow of people and business opportunities to the electorate, and they should be well and truly appreciated for that. But, down the road, just a few minutes away we have some very small shopping centres. It is easy to see over time that the power of those large businesses, with their buying power, their ability to cut prices, their marketing dollars and their capacity to seek opportunities elsewhere can slowly suck the life out of some of the smaller centres nearby. I am struck on a daily basis when I visit those centres at how fragile some of those businesses are. They are incredibly fragile. They are affected greatly by some of the smallest changes in economic fortunes, in availability of parking, in bus routes—you name it. The fragility of those businesses is stark, relative to that of the large businesses. I would like to say how incredibly important those small shopping centres are. Their value extends beyond just the transaction between the person buying the tomatoes and the person selling them. Those small shopping centres provide a place where people meet, where on a daily basis they see people who know them, where they can be recognised and where people who may perhaps have no other contact with people whom they know well can feel seen on a daily basis. They form an incredibly important part of community life. And, for many people, they also form part of their memories. The same person who sold them their papers when they were a kid, or the same person whom they perhaps worked for as a child, is still selling them their papers today. You cannot underestimate the value of the community function of those very small shopping centres. One of the speakers on the government side spent quite a bit of time today attacking the state governments on small business regulation. I would like to put on record that the plight of some of our incredibly important small shopping centres in both the cities and the regional areas is so serious that it really does require all three levels of government to take this issue seriously. But today I am in the federal parliament, and I am in the federal opposition, so I am going to talk about federal responsibility. The government has talked for some time about the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business. In March 2004, the Senate Economics References Committee brought down a report encouraging the government to amend the Trade Practices Act in favour of protecting small business, but the government is yet to act on that. We have had reports lately that there is a bill to be introduced into the parliament, and we welcome that action, finally; we really do. This is so overdue—it is at least four years overdue—and we really cannot wait any longer. It is sad that, with a government that has been in power for 11 years, all we see today is yet another backbencher calling on the government to do something about this, but it really is well and truly overdue. We on this side of the House welcome the report that the government will amend the market power and unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. We appreciate that the government is finally acting to strengthen competition laws to protect small businesses from large companies that are abusing their market power. But, as I said before, this is coming at least four years too late. It is of course an election year, and we have got very used to the government making a few extra promises every time an election comes around—and we are seeing it once again. But I say again that it is about time this happened, and we really look forward to debating the bill in this House. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The time allotted for the 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. 13 13 13:17:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —I move: That the House: notes that: 26 May marks the tenth anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report, which documented the systematic removal of up to 100,000 indigenous children from their families between 1910 and the 1970s, and its serious, and ongoing impact; the Howard Government’s decision not to apologise for this systematic removal has compounded the distress of survivors and held us all back from achieving genuine reconciliation; research subsequent to the report has shown that indigenous children who were removed: were more likely to have been victims of family violence (38 per cent compared to the figure of 23 per cent for the broader indigenous population); were 2.3 times more likely to experience clinical depression and behavioural difficulties; had double the rate of both alcohol and other drug use than other indigenous children; and were more likely to end up in jail; and a recent Urbis Keys Young report commissioned by the Government described the Government’s response to date as “poorly coordinated and insufficiently targeted” and also revealed that some Bring-ing Them Home and Link-Up counsellors are struggling to cope with up to more than 80 clients each, compared with the average caseload of 25 for a mental health worker in mainstream services; and calls on the Government to: apologise for past policies and practices that resulted in the systematic and forced removal of indigenous children from their families; and immediately implement measures to address the continuing adverse social, physical and mental health outcomes impacting on the Stolen Generation and subsequent generations. When I was growing up, it was almost impossible to find a family that had not been affected, either directly or indirectly, by World War II. Sons, fathers, husbands and brothers had been to war, and many of them did not come back. Many Indigenous children were forcibly removed—or stolen—from their families. Although there are fewer and fewer members of the stolen generations every day, the profound loss continues to be felt by Indigenous families everywhere across Australia. So much of our childhood is about learning to trust, to depend and to belong. If a child is separated from his or her parents, these fragile ties are shattered, and that can have lifelong consequences for that person’s wellbeing. Page upon page of the Bringing them home report tells of children being taken away and left unloved—children who grew up to be adults who themselves did not know how to love. The Bringing them home report was seminal, because it was our first proper attempt, as a nation, to acknowledge the loss felt by Indigenous people. It recognised that this nation needed more than the cold facts about the forced removal of thousands of Indigenous children and babies. We all needed healing. Today, I want to reiterate Labor’s commitment to a formal apology, in government, to the stolen generations. It is the just and decent thing to do. An apology is not an empty gesture; it can, I think, be a circuit breaker. If we acknowledge past wrongs and assess honestly and rigorously what needs to be done, we can all move forward—and move forward we must. Just last week Labor announced that, in government, we would make available to members of the stolen generations more than $15 million in funding for Link Up services. I am very pleased to table today a petition from nearly 40,000 Australians calling on the government to close the 17-year gap in Indigenous life expectancy. This petition, organised by Get Up!, demonstrates the enormous support around Australia for closing the gap. I seek leave to table this petition. Leave granted. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —Labor has committed to closing this life expectancy gap. From now on we want every single baby born to an Indigenous mother to have the same chance in life as every other Australian child. It is so warming to see that there are so many Australians who stand with us to close that gap. Just this weekend Labor announced a $260 million comprehensive child and maternal health program for Indigenous mothers and their babies—for early development, family support and literacy and numeracy programs in the early years of a child’s life—as our down-payment on meeting this target. We think that, if we are to turn this around, the place to start is with the children who are being born today. I hope that the Prime Minister will join with Labor in committing to closing this gap in life expectancy. In moving forward from the trauma of the stolen generations, I hope we can make our promise to Indigenous children a bipartisan one, because there is no question that support will need to come from both sides of politics if we are to close this gap within a generation. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms Annette Ellis —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 14 13:22:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter. The federal government is committed to addressing the traumatic legacy of past practices of Indigenous child separation. There is no doubt that these practices represent a tragic part of Australia’s history. Viewed from a present day perspective, the government has recognised that these practices were misguided and caused great suffering, and it has established programs to assist those affected to move forward. I quote there from the parliamentary secretary, who was then responding to the Bringing them home report and to the Senate report. As the member for Jagajaga has said, this is a tragic matter and the issues of trust, child separation and all the consequences are very difficult things for a nation to come to terms with, but come to terms with it we must. The government has expressed sincere regret and recognises that pain and hurt. The committee which responded to the Bringing them home report did not produce a consensus report. The majority report of the committee, which was signed by no government member, contained 10 recommendations, of which nine were relevant to the Commonwealth. The government supported either in full or in part five of the nine recommendations. We agree with the committee’s first majority recommendation that it is timely for all relevant parties to evaluate the original response to Bringing them home. This is a longstanding process. Over that time I believe we have come a significant distance—not all the distance but a significant distance. It is my sad duty to acknowledge in this place that, as I understand it, the removal of Indigenous children continues today. Statistics available some three or four years ago suggested that Indigenous children are six times more likely to be removed for child welfare reasons and 21 times more likely to be removed for juvenile detention reasons than non-Indigenous children. I am sure there are statistics that update those, but they still highlight the huge challenge that we in this country have, remembering of course that the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families made 54 recommendations. In the time available to me, I acknowledge the government support that has been given to this matter over the past decade. But, in saying that, I think we need to also address the jurisdictional issues which to this day predominantly remain with the states and territories of this Commonwealth. That is by no means attempting to divert the responsibility, but we need to understand that this is a cooperative effort if we are to make the genuine progress that we must. I conclude by acknowledging the symbolism of the 1967 referendum of 27 May, 40 years ago, and of the Bringing them home report of 10 years ago on the same date. With these issues still very much in front of us, the Weekend Australian stated: While Aboriginals were politically enfranchised, they have been economically disenfranchised. I challenge these ‘voices on the Left of politics,’ quoting from the Weekend Australian: … among them the Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, ALP president, Warren Mundine and former Labor minister Gary Johns, are promoting the cause of responsibility rather than welfare … These are the challenges of practical reconciliation and these are the challenges of where we as a country need to go. I thank the House for the opportunity to make those remarks. 15 13:27:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —Those of us who attended the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report—a gathering I was privileged to cohost with other House and Senate colleagues—could only have been impressed by the incredible forbearance of our Aboriginal peoples. Despite the shocking health statistics of life expectancy being no greater now than in the 1920s, despite the bitter disappointments of seeing structures of self-determination and self-governance dismantled, despite the lack of an apology for past practices that separated kids from families and set in train an intergenerational grief—despite all this and more—the Aboriginal peoples of this nation politely seek our understanding of their prior ownership of the land and ask us to support but not dictate their lives and to say sorry. Our health minister tells them to be patient. Tens of thousands of Australians took part in the first Sorry Day in 1998, a year after the Bringing them home report was tabled in this parliament. One million people signed the Sorry Book and marched for reconciliation. A year later the journey of healing was launched. There were great expectations. But a decade later there has been no formal apology and two-thirds of the recommendations of Bringing them home have been ignored. Last week the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Australian Medical Association reported a disturbing lack of access by Indigenous Australians to health programs, which many see as a result of institutionalised racism. It is a health system that still means an Aboriginal child in Australia is likely to die before his or her counterpart in Bangladesh dies. The difference in life span between an Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal person is around 20 years. Twenty years ago in Orange I saw how Aboriginal mothers were reluctant to take their kids, many with serious inner ear infections, to a baby health centre because of a deep suspicion, a reluctance to deal with a non-Indigenous health system, however committed the workers. It is still happening, as several reports in the past week show, which underlines the reality that mainstreaming services is not the answer. Specific training and services delivered by communities and a properly funded Aboriginal health service would seem the only way forward to address these terrible statistics. As this motion details, the impact of the removal of children in mental health care is still having enormous social and health impacts several generations down the track. The Urbis Keys Young report into stolen generation mental health services has revealed that many counsellors are struggling with more than 80 clients each, compared with the average case load of 25 for mental health workers in mainstream society. Why has it taken this report, stemming as it did from the stolen generations document a decade ago, to prompt the government into some action on these statistics just last week? The Urbis Keys Young report listed those continuing health and social consequences. The minister has promised 22 extra Link Up places. I learnt this morning that the New South Wales Link Up service has over 200 cases—counselling and family reunion cases—per worker. Has the government even begun to do an audit of the demand for these services? There are 8,000 Indigenous people in New South Wales waiting to go home—not only the victims of the stolen generation but a subsequent generation or more of children adopted or fostered out. Contrast this with Canada where $4.8 billion has been set aside to meet the aftermath of that country’s child removal policies. This includes a truth and reconciliation commission charged with uncovering the whole story of the native Canadian residential school legacy. There is half a billion dollars for a healing foundation to provide proper counselling and parenting programs. And, yes, there will be compensation for every surviving stolen generation child. On top of all that there is a commitment to a national apology after the findings of the truth and reconciliation commission are handed down. Importantly, some compensation has come before the apology. There was no fear that an apology would lead to claims. I apologise to our Indigenous peoples and call on all fair-minded Australians to insist that this vitally symbolic act of acknowledgement of pain and suffering is delivered now and that this nation sets in train a process no less comprehensive than the Canadians’ to address the long-term consequences of government policy now and past. 16 13:31:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 0 Mrs ELSON —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion today. Having travelled to many Aboriginal settlements in remote Australia and seen firsthand some of the serious issues these isolated communities face, I have a very strong personal interest in Aboriginal health and welfare. In the final sentences of this motion, the member for Jagajaga talks about ‘the continuing adverse social, physical and mental health outcomes’ of the so-called stolen generation. I am strongly of the opinion that the saddest and single worst ongoing outcome of the national obsession with the notion of a ‘stolen generation’ is the reluctance to remove today’s Indigenous children from living in situations that place them in extreme danger. There have been many reports about violence, sexual abuse and neglect in Aboriginal communities. We all know it exists. There have been a lot of well documented cases and much political discussion. I myself raised this issue during a grievance debate in 1988. Back then I quoted Courier-Mail journalist Laurie Kavanagh, who at the time had said:  ... the community compassion [about this issue] is exactly the same as that which drove past governments to save the lives of mixed-race children, the so-called ‘stolen generation’. I find that ironic and hope any action taken to stop the bashing of innocent Aboriginal women and children today will be seen by future generations for what it is ... community action to protect the innocent. Unfortunately, I do not believe enough action has been taken in the past nine years since to stop the violence and the abuse in Aboriginal communities. Motions like this one that we are debating continue to dwell on perceived past injustices rather than address the concerns of today’s Indigenous women and children. The fact is there has been much injustice meted out in the past—and not just in Indigenous communities. In the same time period that the stolen generation was alleged to have taken place, we had boatloads of young English children separated from the only life that they had ever known and sent to Australia. We had a society where the adopting out of babies was forced on unmarried women. These were very different times and society had a very different approach to a whole range of matters. Unfortunately what occurred in Aboriginal communities last century has been viewed this century through a moral prism that assumes the motives of those involved in it were racist. I believe that is plain wrong. Furthermore, the focus has been on the disadvantage that these people suffered by being separated from their families. But there has been little or no focus on the advantages they gained by being removed from what in many cases were very unhealthy and dangerous situations. It is certainly not the claimed members of the stolen generation whose children and grandchildren are the most disadvantaged Indigenous Australians at present; it is those living in remote settlements, not those in cities and regional areas. A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that in 2002-03 the rates of substantiated reports of child maltreatment in Indigenous communities were, on average, 4.3 times higher than those for non-Indigenous children. In the Northern Territory it was 5.5 times higher. In South Australia it was 6.6 times higher. These are only the substantiated reports. Studies show that, especially in Indigenous communities, the majority of incidences of violence go unreported. This is the issue we should be focusing on—that and the fact that the life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is about 17 years less than for the rest of us. That is an appalling figure, and one we have to collectively work together to address. I know how hard the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, is working to address Aboriginal disadvantage. I think he is doing a great job. The government largely had its hands tied in the past, with ATSIC being responsible for these matters. It was a strong decision and the right decision to abolish ATSIC three years ago, and the progress that has been made since is significant. I know the minister is devoting a huge amount of time and resources and taking a holistic approach to addressing issues like housing, health, employment opportunities and changing the culture of violence. He is doing it on a community-by-community basis because he knows that a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not work. He is working closely with the state and territory governments because issues like enforcing law and order and providing educational opportunities are largely the responsibility of the states and territories. This is a constructive approach that focuses on genuine assistance—not symbolic gestures or just throwing more money at the problem. Real reconciliation will not be found in saying sorry for something done long ago by well-meaning people. Real reconciliation will not come by providing more services, as this motion calls for, to feed a guilt industry that does not actually help the most disadvantaged Indigenous people. I respectfully suggest to the member for Jagajaga that there are more serious, more pressing and more important issues today when it comes to addressing Aboriginal disadvantage than dwelling on the past—as she does with this motion. Indeed, continuing to do so actually holds back real progress in the Aboriginal community. 18 13:36:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Page 48 of the Bringing them home report states: Because [my mother] wasn’t educated, the white people were allowed to come in and do whatever they wanted to do—all she did was sign papers. Quite possibly, she didn’t even know what she signed ... The biggest hurt, I think, was having my mum chase the welfare car—I’ll always remember it—we were looking out the window and mum was running behind us and singing out for us. They locked us in the police cell up here and mum was walking up and down outside the police station and crying and screaming out for us. There was 10 of us. It is with a mixture of both great sorrow and frustration that I rise to speak today on the motion moved by the member for Jagajaga commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report. I commend her for moving this motion. I would also like to commend the remarks made by the member for Calare earlier in this debate. My sorrow is caused by the fact that we as a nation had such dreadfully destructive policies, destroying the families and lives of Indigenous Australians, and impacting on the victims of forced removal. My frustration is at the lack of progress made in the decade since this report was completed. This report brought some promise to those stolen generations. They believed the heart-wrenching stories in this report would help us all to understand. Ten years is a long time and it is a very long time for Indigenous Australians who suffered terribly at the hands of successive Australian governments who sadly perpetuated the policies of forcible removal of children from those families. It is easy for us to forget that real people are living this horrible part of Australia’s history every day. For them it is not just an anniversary that comes around every year; for them it is every hour of every day that they live with the consequences of the past. The quote that I read out a moment ago in my view demonstrates the depth of the sorrow, the depth of the trauma. Ten years is also a long time to wait for an apology. The word ‘sorry’ costs nothing but is worth everything to those that have been wronged. A formal apology has been given by every other Australian government but not here in this place. I look forward to the not too distant future when a Labor Prime Minister will, hopefully, be in the position to deliver that long overdue apology—an apology we are dedicated to. I am very pleased that we have made that commitment. We need to draw that line in the sand to help those whose lives were ripped apart to move on and to begin healing. The victims of the stolen generation have been working very hard to overcome the problems that they inherited from this policy of forced removal. They are trying to get their lives in order to overcome additional levels of social disadvantage that the policy created. When I was first elected to this place some 11 years ago, the inquiry that formed the basis of this report was still conducting hearings and taking evidence. As the inquiry process rolled on, it became very clear that this inquiry was long overdue for our nation as a whole, not just for the victims. Australians of all ethnic backgrounds needed to know the truth about what had happened up until the 1970s. This report dispelled the myth that these were practices from only our early days as a nation. Forced separation of Indigenous Australians from their families had been happening with the full support of governments at the time. This report shone a spotlight on one of the darkest times in our nation’s history and it gave non-Indigenous Australians some understanding of this shameful part of our history. In my own experience, seven years ago this month, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, of which I was member, tabled a report into Indigenous health in this chamber. Seven years later we are still seeing the same atrocious problems mentioned in the same newspaper headlines and the same poor health outcomes driven by the same lack of services and funding for Indigenous health. We must move this debate forward. We must act to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians in health, education, employment and in their communities. We must address the generations of social disadvantage that the misguided policies of the past, including the forced removal of children, have created. We must stop the blame game. We must start providing solutions. As a parliament, we must break the cycle of our mistreatment of Indigenous Australians and work with them to move forward for the benefit of all Australians. 19 13:41:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs when we got the reference for that inquiry, but I was no longer chairman by the time that inquiry reported to the parliament. I was concerned that for a very long period successive governments in Australia were endeavouring to redress the ongoing issue of Indigenous disadvantage by throwing money at the problem. There was far too much emphasis on process rather than on outcomes. I share the concern of the honourable member for Canberra, who has just spoken, that, despite the fact that all sides of politics appreciate that it is simply unacceptable that Indigenous people do not have the same health outcomes or, for that matter, economic outcomes as other Australians, we continue to have this problem in 2007. This government has focused on the issue of practical reconciliation. Our efforts on practical reconciliation have not always been greeted by support from members of the Indigenous community. In referring to the inappropriate process of removing Indigenous children from their homes, I think that we ought to recognise that many of those people who did what we now deem to be completely unacceptable did so for what they believed were the right reasons. We ought not to judge the actions of those people in those days by today’s standards. Having said that, what occurred was completely unacceptable. This government does have a proud record in the area of Indigenous affairs. In my view, we have been getting many of the policy fundamentals correct. The honourable member for Canberra is correct when she says that, even though there seems to be the best will in the world, the outcomes that we have seen and continue to see are not what we would always want to achieve. When I was on that inquiry and the member for Canberra was an active participant, I became worried that what was happening so often was that, while huge amounts of money were being spent, we were not achieving the positive outcomes that everyone would want to occur. I am particularly mindful of a visit to Kintore in the Northern Territory. I think the member for Canberra was present at that time. What we saw was enough to make one’s hair stand on end. We ought, however, to look at the positives and they are that there is an appreciation that we need more than money to redress Indigenous disadvantage. Indigenous disadvantage in 2007 is an unacceptable situation. But the government has been endeavouring, through the actions of the minister and the department, to improve the situation and I believe that there are some very bright spots on the horizon, some glimmers of hope. People like Noel Pearson, who has indicated great enthusiasm to work with governments generally, are people who have an important leadership role to play in the Indigenous community. I suspect my time is about to expire, but let me say that we must continue to do whatever we can— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member is correct. It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Fisher will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. 20 Statements by Members 20 20 13:45:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon to congratulate Club Fogolar Furlan of Thornbury, in my electorate of Batman, on its approaching 50th birthday. Melbourne’s Club Fogolar Furlan’s 50 year celebration is a significant milestone and represents its strong community presence and years of achievement. Not only is Melbourne’s Club Fogolar Furlan celebrating its 50th anniversary on 21 July; it is also the second-oldest Furlan club in Australia. Since becoming the federal member for Batman, I have enjoyed a good relationship with the Furlan Club and am pleased to say that it is accessible to all local residents. It currently holds daily lunches for senior citizens, local sporting teams use its facilities and it runs a range of cultural events and programs. It is the second-largest club of its kind in the world, with 420 members, primarily made up of local family members, and has two remaining foundation members, Gilbert Martin and Anna Fratta. The 50th anniversary is an achievement that displays the club’s dedication to maintaining its cultural heritage originating from the north-eastern Italian region of Friuli. The club formally introduced the oldest game, bocce, to Australia. In the 1980s it also hosted the world bocce championships and has since produced Australian and international bocce champions. I congratulate the club’s staff and committees, and the club members on making Melbourne’s Club Fogolar Furlan such a success story. I commend the club on its historically strong community involvement and on ensuring that the club is a family-friendly venue. (Time expired) 21 21 13:46:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —I wish to talk about millipedes—Portugese millipedes, an introduced species that has been encroaching on our borders since it was first spotted in WA in the 1980s, causing great distress to home and business owners who, at this time each year, are literally under siege. No-one knows for certain how they got here and until now there has been little chance of ridding them from our homes. Generally, they have been restricted to the Perth Hills areas, like Lesmurdie, Kalamunda and Roleystone, but now they can be found across the metropolitan area. According to Mark Widmer from the Department of Agriculture in South Australia, ‘the only way you can eradicate them is broadscale spraying, and you’re going to take out every other native invertebrate as well.’ That was until Kalamunda resident Joe Italiano from my electorate of Hasluck and his friend Jason Watkins found a very simple solution. They have invented an environmentally friendly solution to eradicate Portugese millipedes. After noticing that millipedes are attracted to light and that there were a lot of millipedes in Joe’s pool, especially during a full moon, they discovered the solution. They set about inventing a light source which would attract and trap millipedes. They developed a solar-powered trap which attracts the millipedes and kills them in the water-filled dish below. These traps double as garden lights and are made from recycled plastic. I wish them well with this innovative yet simple solution which above all is environmentally friendly and will assist in eradicating these dreadful pests from homes and businesses in the hills. (Time expired) 21 21 13:48:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —Last Saturday, as the patron for Wests Leagues Club Campbelltown, I had the privilege of attending the ninth annual Wests sports council awards. The presentation was not only a recognition of our many fine junior and amateur athletes, but also an opportunity to recognise the contribution of many of those volunteers—coaches, managers, administrators, canteen workers and club people generally—without whose help many of our young people would simply not have a sporting opportunity. I had the honour to present Australian sports achievement awards to four people who were outstanding in their contribution to their respective clubs. Stephen Stewart and Paul Belgre from the Magpies Cricket Club both have in excess of 20 years of service with their clubs and received life membership. Steve has also spent five years as the president of the Wests council. An award went to Narelle Cullen, who has had in excess of 15 years with the Campbelltown district’s softball club as well as the Campbelltown City Kangaroos Rugby League Football Club and is a prominent local personality. Another went to Julie Foster, a remarkable local sportswoman and noted triathlete from the Macarthur Triathlon Club, who not only successfully competed at regional and state levels and also at the national level but has represented this country on a number of occasions. It is only right that we acknowledge the contributions of people who make local sport and competition possible for the children and the youth of my area. (Time expired) 21 21 13:50:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 0 Mr BROADBENT —Last Friday we pulled together farmers and interested people looking at what more we could do after interim EC was declared in the area of south Gippsland and surrounds, particularly the shires of South Gippsland and Baw Baw. We found to our distress, out of that meeting, that many farms were suffering losses of between $150,000 and $250,000—some up to $300,000 for the year. The availability of water was difficult—in one area alone $16,000 a month was being spent to bring in 1½ megalitres of water. The pasture availability was at crisis point, and, if I am struggling, it was very difficult to actually sit at the meeting and talk to the farmers and those gathered around about the difficulties they are facing in what is normally one of the most precipitant areas in Victoria. Whilst the government has been generous—some $17 million a week on drought payments to farmers—I have today called on the government to look very closely at full EC for this area of South Gippsland and surrounds. These people are in distress. They are competing unfairly with those who have been declared. I am pleading with this House to consider those people who are under an enormous amount of stress in South Gippsland. 22 22 13:51:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The electorate of Gorton does not have a Medicare office. The population explosion in the west of Melbourne has not been matched with an increase in appropriate Commonwealth public services. Medicare is a basic health service and yet there is not one Medicare office in the entire electorate. With the single notable exception of the funding of the Deer Park bypass after a concerted community campaign, the federal government has neglected the needs of Melbourne’s expanding western corridor. Areas of my electorate, in particular suburbs like Deer Park and St Albans, have a disproportionate number of elderly residents. These elderly residents remember a time, not that long ago, when they did have access to a Medicare office in their own community at Deer Park. However, that office has been closed. The ideal location for such an office would be the rapidly expanding Watergardens Town Centre, which is quickly becoming the major shopping and transport hub for the outer western suburbs. It is also the centre for one of the fastest-growing corridors anywhere in Australia. Until the government announces plans for a Medicare office in my electorate, voters in the electorate will rightly see the absence of such a basic health facility in their community as a sign of the lack of regard the federal government has for their needs. I hereby table a petition of 3,831 petitioners demanding the government locate such an office in the electorate of Gorton. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the failure of the federal Government to establish a Medicare office in the federal electorate of Gordon. Recognising the rapid expansion in population in the western Melbourne corridor and the associated need for federal government services, your petitioners call on the House to support the establishment of a Medicare office in the federal electorate of Gordon. from 3,831 citizens. 22 22 13:52:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —Last Friday in Bathurst the Prime Minister announced a commitment of $10 million, conditional on a matching commitment from New South Wales, to commence planning for an expressway standard road across the Blue Mountains, probably approximating the Bells Line of Road. This project would be a massive boost for the central west, providing much quicker and safer access to Sydney and injecting a real boost into economic development in that part of the state. Sadly, the state Labor government is refusing to support this proposal, preferring to put party politics ahead of the interests of the central west. Just as disappointing is the deafening silence of federal Labor and its refusal to apply any pressure at all to its state counterpart. Clearly Labor is not interested in the benefits this project would bring to the central west of New South Wales. These benefits would be very substantial. I call on the New South Wales government to match the funding from the Australian government so that planning can commence. 23 23 13:53:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —The Australian Football League has begun an inquiry in Melbourne to investigate why the Melbourne based teams are not enjoying the success that the interstate terms are. It was against that background that I found most curious an article that appeared last week in the Herald Sun in Melbourne which was very critical of the AFL having arranged yesterday’s first-grade home and away match here in Canberra between the Western Bulldogs and the Sydney Swans. In fact, the facts really need to be explained clearly to this particular journalist. The Sydney Swans have made a decision to play matches in Canberra for the next three years—a full and total commitment to the code here. They were not paid to come to Canberra from Sydney; they are here for the exposure of the game and the promotion of their code and their brand of football as a means of extending the game. I have to say that the near record crowd yesterday saw a wonderful game—and I have to declare an interest inasmuch as I am a very strong Swans supporter. Having seen the game, I know that the crowd and the hundreds of young children participating beforehand in an Auskick superclinic, which was free to them, really showed a good and proper investment in the extension of the code as a national sport here in the national capital. ACT business and the local community are to be commended for getting behind the extension of AFL as they are doing here in the ACT. There will be another match in August and I am hopeful that this journalist can come to that game. (Time expired) 23 23 13:55:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 1 0 Mrs MAY —Last Friday evening I had the pleasure of attending the Burleigh Heads Rotary Workplace Excellence and Community Service Awards at Bond University. These awards have become an annual event that continues to grow every year. Bren Milsom, the president of Burleigh Heads Rotary Club, and his team are to be congratulated on developing the awards and encouraging local businesses to nominate their outstanding employees to be recognised for workplace excellence. The awards are also about recognising volunteers undertaking community service with not-for-profit organisations. The range of services provided to the community was outstanding and certainly demonstrated a high commitment by local people to give something back to their communities through volunteering. On the evening a special award was given to an employer—a man who is committed to training young people who are still at school with skills in the building industry. A former teacher himself, Ian Anderson has developed an unusual concept whereby young men and women finish their high school studies at his institute by learning skills in the building trade. It is a remarkable story and one I hope to bring to the attention of our Minister for Vocational and Further Education. The students are building a house—real on-the-job training. The evening was certainly a night to encourage workplace and service excellence in our Gold Coast community. The special guest speaker was Normie Rowe, a man who needed no introduction but who certainly inspired the audience with his speech on passion and love and service to one’s community. I hope the awards continue well into the future. They are a credit to the Burleigh Heads Rotary Club and the Rotarians who participate in putting the evening together. 24 24 13:56:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I would like to take this opportunity to raise my concerns with a Defence proposal to close a number of barracks in South Australia, including two in my electorate—the Keswick and Hampstead barracks. This has caused a lot of concern within the community, particularly for Lieutenant Colonel Murray Alexander of the Defence Reserves Association and Jock Statton, the president of the South Australian RSL. There are some very real concerns about the impact any such closure would have on recruitment and retention, particularly amongst reservists. Today I call on the Minister for Defence to conduct a formal study consulting with all of these stakeholders before any decision is made so that we can all be clear about what the consequences of any such cost-cutting measure would be. 24 24 13:57:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —I rise in favour of the major water recycling project in the Geelong region—the Barwon Water proposal for a water reclamation plant in northern Geelong. I have been supporting this proposition for the past 18 months. This is a Barwon Water proposal to help save water, recycle water and deliver increased water for home use by people of Geelong’s northern suburbs. The Shell company has supported this proposal and committed to support recycling water from the Shell refinery plant. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Turnbull, has been carefully analysing the proposal from Barwon Water to see if it meets the criteria for funding from the Australian water fund. Minister Turnbull was so interested in the proposal that he accepted my invitation in January to meet with Barwon Water and Shell officials on site in Corio. This project should go ahead and I strongly support it. I look forward to a final analysis by the government and Minister Turnbull. It is of concern that the federal Labor candidate for Corio has suggested that, under a future Labor government, any federal funding should be tied to Shell’s investment and employment arrangements. This is a water recycling initiative and should not be confused with ALP or trade union policies on employment or business investment. It is not clear whether federal Labor support Barwon Water recycling or not. Labor should act quickly to remove any uncertainty that they would put unreasonable caveats on the funding for this project. 24 24 13:59:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —In April the Leader of the Opposition and I announced our support for $20 million from the Australian water fund for the Shell water recycling project, in partnership with the Victorian state government, which would contribute the same amount, and Shell, which would contribute $24 million. We did that after representation from our candidates for Corio and Corangamite in Geelong. This is a very important project and Labor has been announcing support for practical water projects around the nation. Just last Friday we announced a $40 million commitment to build the pipeline to complete the missing link from the Mardi Dam through to Mangrove Creek Dam on the Central Coast—an $80 million project that will complete the water grid and provide water security for the people of the Central Coast. I call upon the Howard government not just to support rhetoric such as the speech from the member for Corangamite but to support this project. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for the members’ statements has concluded. 25 Ministerial Arrangements 25 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He will be in New Zealand on official business. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources will be absent from question time this week. He is hosting the APEC energy ministers meeting in Darwin. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will be absent from question time this week. He is in Alaska attending the international whaling conference. In his absence, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will answer questions on his behalf. Finally, I inform the House that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism will be absent from question time today. She is addressing the Australian Tourism Expo in Brisbane. In her absence, the Minister for Trade will answer questions on her behalf. 25 Motions 25 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, could I have the indulgence of the House to advise the House of some arrangements which impact on the sitting of the parliament in relation to the APEC meeting in September? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Prime Minister. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that, in partnership with the APEC meeting, there will be five bilateral visits of economic leaders. There will be bilateral visits from President Bush, President Hu Jintao of China and President Putin of the Russian Federation. Those three bilateral visits will all take place in Sydney, the visits from President Hu and President Putin taking place immediately before the APEC meeting and the visit from President Bush immediately afterwards. There will be two other visits of a bilateral kind: one from His Excellency Mr Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, and also a bilateral visit from the Rt Hon. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada. It is proposed that the sitting of the parliament now scheduled for Monday the 10th will not take place and that the parliament will sit the following day. I have invited the Prime Minister of Japan to address a joint sitting of this parliament. It will be the first time that a Japanese Prime Minister has addressed the parliament. I think it is entirely appropriate. I spoke to him on Thursday about this, and he is greatly honoured at the invitation that has been extended. It is also my intention—and I have already done so—to invite the Canadian Prime Minister to address the parliament the following day. This will reciprocate a courtesy extended to me in May of last year, when I had the privilege of being the first Australian Prime Minister since John Curtin in 1944 to address the Canadian parliament. I think those arrangements are entirely appropriate. So the intention is that the parliament will not meet on Monday the 10th, that the bilateral visits of the Prime Minister of Japan and the Prime Minister of Canada will take place here in Canberra on Tuesday the 11th and Wednesday the 12th respectively, with the three other bilateral visits all taking place in Sydney, in and around what will be the most significant gathering of economic leaders that this government—and indeed this nation, more importantly—has ever hosted. I know that all members of the House look forward to the APEC gathering. It is a significant opportunity for the great virtues of this country to be on display to our region, and I know it will be an enormous success. 26 14:04:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, by way of indulgence, can I add a few words to what the Prime Minister has just said? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On a bipartisan basis, to extend also our support for the Prime Minister’s invitation to Shinzo Abe, it is a very important initiative given the history of our two countries over a long period of time. It is a great gesture, one which we support on this side of the House. Also the suggestion that the Canadian Prime Minister will do likewise is welcomed by the Australian Labor Party, as we welcome APEC and the visit to this country by so many foreign heads of government. 26 14:05:00 Questions Without Notice 26 14:05:00 26 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 4 May, in which he said in relation to his changes to Work Choices: The economic circumstances of the firm can be taken into account, the employment opportunities and experience of the individual employee can be taken into account ... Prime Minister, were the changes to Work Choices as explained with those words intended to go into operation on 7 May? Was a different policy announced this morning in media reports on this matter which referred to the fact that in the government’s legislation only companies facing a short-term crisis that might send them broke would get a limited exemption? What are the specific circumstances that relate to your exemption under changes to Work Choices? Has the legal definition of those circumstances changed in the last three weeks? 26 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The legislation will be introduced this afternoon and there will be an explanatory memorandum provided. 26 26 14:06:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the appropriate procedure to be followed with regard to allegations that companies may have unfairly treated their employees? Is the Prime Minister aware of cases where that procedure has not been followed? 26 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Cowper for his question. There is a procedure that should be followed, and that procedure is that, before conclusions are reached and serious allegations made, concerns about alleged mistreatment of workers by businesses should be referred to the Office of Workplace Services—soon to be known as the Workplace Ombudsman—so that those allegations can be investigated. I can certainly confirm that this procedure has been followed in relation to a company called WorkDirections and, hopefully, the investigation by the office will determine whether any mistakes of a dishonest or honest kind have been made. I notice that, in relation to that company, the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday sought to provide an explanation, although that explanation has in recent days been significantly disputed by the previous owner of one of the businesses taken over. These matters will be dealt with in the course of the investigation. Although any conflict between what the Leader of the Opposition said last Thursday and the reality is a matter he has to deal with, I do not seek to add anything other than to make the observation that this issue should be dealt with by the Office of Workplace Services. Can I say that the treatment of this case is in very stark contrast to the treatment of other allegations that have arisen over recent months. I think the most notorious example of a different treatment occurred last week in relation to the Lilac City Motor Inn, owned by two struggling and courageous people, a small business man and woman, Mr and Mrs Doolan. In that case a newspaper reported a story making allegations about the AWA at the Lilac City Motor Inn in Goulburn. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition conducted a doorstop interview and then rang into the John Laws program and said, ‘John, I was ringing about this situation with the Lilac City Motor Inn and the Australian workplace agreement.’ Then, over the weekend, we were treated to a denial of the undeniable, with the claim being made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she never attacked the Lilac City Motor Inn. The truth is that she did. The Leader of the Opposition does not escape censure on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition also conducted a doorstop, and he said: I read the report in the Telegraph about the AWA which is being introduced by the HMAA and I think that example, in itself, points to the continuing problems of Mr Howard’s unfair industrial relations laws. Through you, Mr Speaker, I make the observation to the Leader of the Opposition that there was no allowance made here for an honest mistake. There was no allowance made here for the fact that there might be a decent explanation for this. We can get an idea of the reaction of the owners of the motel. Bear  in mind that this is a couple who started the business only a couple of years ago. They started a small business in a drought affected city and, as a result of the publicity given, fanned and exaggerated by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they have received emails from as far away as Norway. One of the owners of the motel, Don Doolan, said on the Friday night Channel 9 news when he was confronted with the claim by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she was not personally attacking him: By her— meaning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— saying she wasn’t personally attacking me, well, what was she doing? She’s using my motel as an example to get political leverage. Given those words, I say to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there has been a lot of anguish around the kitchen table in the Doolan household over the last few days. This is a couple who started with nothing, who have toiled to build up a small business. They have won the esteem and the affection of their employees and they should not be subject to disgraceful attacks by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We have heard a lot over the past few days about a lot of things, but this issue has nothing to do with modern marriages and it has nothing whatever to do with conflict of interest; it has everything to do with the hypocrisy and the double standards of the Australian Labor Party. 27 27 14:13:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that a mother working in a retail shop under the Victorian Shops Award would currently receive at least 14 days notice of a change in her roster? Prime Minister, if that hardworking mother were today offered an Australian workplace agreement, couldn’t that award condition be stripped away from her, despite your changes to Work Choices? Prime Minister, is it fair for a mother who needs to arrange child care to be subject to sudden roster changes? 28 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I say in reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have grown accustomed to checking the facts of anything put to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and in this case I will do the same thing. I would invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to extend her concern about those mothers to the mothers who are involved in running small businesses like motels. The opposition might also extend it to any mothers who might have been caught up in the attack that was made on 9 October last year on Martin Donnelly Electrical Services, a local small business electrical outfit in Queanbeyan, when the Leader of the Opposition and her predecessor as spokesman on industrial relations matters conducted a press conference at the site of the new Prime Minister and Cabinet office building, at which they alleged that the workers were being forced onto AWAs which slashed wages. They did not ask any questions. They did not go to the Office of Workplace Services. They did not allow for some kind of honest mistake. The then Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth asked questions on this matter in question time. In particular, the member for Perth alleged that the AWAs removed a range of allowances for overtime and bonuses and all sorts of other things. On that occasion I said I would examine the matter and on the following day I was able to report to the House that every single allegation made by the member for Perth was completely false—every single allegation, not even an honest mistake. Every single allegation was completely false. I borrow a phrase used by the Treasurer on many occasions. On this issue I say to the Australian Labor Party: thy name is hypocrisy. 28 28 14:16:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 Mr CIOBO —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the results of the latest OECD Economic Outlook. What is the importance of taxation policy to ongoing economic management? 28 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Moncrieff for his question. Again, I pay tribute to the work that he does on the coalition finance and treasury committee. He would be aware that the OECD has released its Economic Outlook, providing an assessment of all its member countries, including Australia, over the weekend. The OECD forecasts that growth will pick up in Australia, particularly as climatic conditions emerge from the drought—we hope—and we see the agricultural sector, which has been detracting so much from growth in Australia recently, come back to production again. In addition, the OECD noted that the recent budget included personal income tax cuts, substantial investment in education and increases in childcare subsidies, which the OECD said will enhance the economy’s supply potential in the longer term. Certainly, the budget was directed towards improving the supply capacity of the Australian economy in the longer term. One of the things we are finding now, with unemployment at lows which we have not seen for 32 years, is that, rather than having a shortage of jobs for workers, we now have a shortage of workers for jobs. As far as problems go, that is a good problem, but in order to do something about it, we have to increase supply measures. Our most recent tax cuts have dramatically cut tax for people in the range of middle incomes. For example, three years ago if you were on an income of $30,000 you paid tax of $5,172. On 1 July you will pay tax of $2,850—a cut in tax of 45 per cent on that same wage over a period of three years. Who will that attract back into the workforce? It will be people who are earning in the range of $30,000—a lot of part-time workers. They might be married women who have a couple of children at home and want to do a day, two days or three days a week. They are typically the people who are earning around $30,000 and the tax on an income of $30,000 over the last three budgets will have been reduced by 45 per cent. That is what good tax policy does. We will be very interested to see if the Labor Party has a tax policy at the next election because there seems to be a marked reticence from the Labor Party these days on tax matters. Tax is just one of the areas where this government has improved work incentives. It has been a coordinated, concerted effort of balancing the budget, repaying debt, having an independent monetary policy, introducing the GST, cutting company tax, cutting capital gains tax, reforming the waterfront and improving industrial relations. All of those measures have put more people in work than ever before in Australia. It has been a good period also to be in the job recruitment business, under all of these reforms. It has been a very good period to be in the job recruitment business. We wish well to those companies that have prospered under coalition economic management. In fact, if it were not for this government, there would not even be a Job Network. It was this government which introduced the Job Network. If it had been for the Labor Party, there would be no Job Network; it would all still be run by the CES. The Labor Party opposed that reform. The Labor Party have opposed all of the substantive reforms, including the establishment of the Job Network, including— 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —Where’s the workplace management— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Member for Swan! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —On cue, the member for Brian Burke comes in. On cue, he comes in to claim credit for the Job Network. When we go back through all of the economic reforms that this government has introduced, including the Job Network, including Work for the Dole, including monetary policy, including industrial relations, including tax reform, including tax cuts, including company tax, the Australian Labor Party voted against all of them. There is no trick in politics in being wise in hindsight, seeing in hindsight what needed to be done. The trick in Australian politics is knowing what has to be done prospectively. That is where the coalition has led all the way, and that is where the Labor Party has lagged all the way. 29 29 14:22:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an Audit Office report into the Volunteer Small Equipment Grants program which found that the department’s grants recommendations were overruled by the then minister, Larry Anthony. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Audit Office found: The only factor that had a statistically significant and independent influence on the minister’s decision to increase the number of VSEG 2004 Round One grants provided to an electorate was whether the electorate was held by the National Party. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Audit Office’s conclusion? 29 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do agree with the Audit Office’s conclusions because it found that ministers accepted 99 per cent of departmental recommendations and varied the decision in only one per cent of cases—in other words, the minister changed 120 out of 6,818 recommendations. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —120 rorts! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The ANAO found that overall for these programs the political party holding an electorate did not have a statistically significant independent impact on either average grant size or the success rate of applications in electorates. Indeed, the Local Answers program funding actually favoured ALP electorates. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —Just ignore the National Party. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —So I am very happy to accept the conclusions of the report and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. 30 30 14:24:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 Mr HENRY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the levels of industrial disputation in the building and construction industry? How does this compare to previous levels of industrial disputation? Is the Prime Minister aware of reasons for the reduction? Are there any alternative policies? 30 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Hasluck, a Western Australian member who knows the importance of peace on the building sites of Perth, as other members know the importance of peace on the building sites of other major capitals. I can tell the House that there has been a dramatic reduction in industrial disputes in building and construction. The September quarter of 2006 showed that 1.6 working days were lost per 1,000 employees, compared to the June quarter of 1996 where a staggering 534 working days were lost per 1,000 employees. This change is a direct result of two things: the general industrial relations law changes the government has made and the specific changes which led to the introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which flowed from the first royal commission conducted by the Hon. Terry Cole QC. On Tuesday, 15 May, the Master Builders Association suggested that the removal of the building commission—bear in mind, the dismantling of this commission is declared ALP policy and if the Labor Party is elected it will take away this watchdog, which has brought peace, prosperity, hope and optimism to the building and construction industry all around Australia—if those laws were repealed, would potentially result in higher building costs all around Australia. Today the Financial Review reports: Australia’s biggest builder, led by Leighton Holdings chief executive Wal King, have warned Labor leader Kevin Rudd that the ALP’s industrial relations policies would be ‘very risky and damaging’ to the $50 billion construction industry. To get an idea of who is licking their lips at the prospect of a Labor victory, I need go no further than my copy of the Weekend Australian where you see a photograph of Kevin Reynolds on a sparkling Perth morning having his breakfast reading his Australian—I think the West Australian is banned by the Labor Party over there, given current disputes between the state government and the editor of that newspaper—as he looks over all that he hopes one day in future to survey. As the paper says: He can look across the Swan River to the cranes that pepper Perth’s exploding CBD, knowing that should Labor win the next federal electorate, his nemesis—the only authority in 20 years to rein in his hardline and volatile union—will be destroyed. In other words, Kevin Reynolds is counting the days to the arrival of that great moment when, according to Greg Combet, the unions will run Australia all over again. Greg Combet gave us a glimpse—perhaps an understated glimpse but a glimpse nonetheless—of the world that would be inherited by people like Kevin Reynolds. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Blair is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Let us understand that the princes who would hold the power if Labor were to win at the end of the year would not be people like Mr and Mrs Doolan of the Lilac City Motor Inn in drought ravaged Goulburn, two struggling small business operators; it would be the likes of Kevin Reynolds. Kevin Reynolds does not muck about. He is very blunt, he is very open, he is very transparent and he cannot wait until Rudd gets there. He is desperate for a change of government and on Saturday he had this to say:  “I live for the day when (the ABCC staff) are all working at Hungry Jack’s or Fast Eddy’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken.” McDonald told The Australian recently. That is Reynolds’s mate. He continued: “That is what’s waiting for them. They’re all ex-policemen and they can go and do whatever ex-coppers do. I’d suggest that John Lloyd and his mates— and Lloyd runs the ABCC— will be unemployed before I will be”. That is the mentality—the payback mentality; the mentality that says when Labor wins, the union bosses run the country again. Greg Combet gave us a glimpse, and people like Kevin Reynolds are starting to fill in the blank spaces. What Kevin Reynolds was saying to the construction industry on Saturday, as he looked at the vista from his luxury apartment overlooking the Swan River in Perth, as he took in the vista of all that once more he will survey, in plain language, was: ‘I can’t wait for Labor to be in power again, and once again the unions will be running Australia.’ 31 31 14:31:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his statement in the parliament last Thursday in relation to the proposed taxpayer funded advertising campaign on climate change, when the Prime Minister said: I repeat what I said yesterday: the government has not approved this campaign. I have not, my department has not and my office has not. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether one advertisement in this non-existent advertising campaign has an elderly lady in it talking about practical responses to climate change while boiling the kettle? 31 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I can only repeat what I said: no campaign has been approved. 31 31 14:32:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 Mr FAWCETT —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House how Australian families have benefited by changes to Australia’s tax system over the past decade. Treasurer, are you aware of any alternative policies? 31 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question. I can tell him that not only has the government reduced tax—and I gave an example a moment ago to the House of somebody on $30,000 who, over three years, has had a reduction in their tax bill of 45 per cent—but the government, in addition to that, has introduced family tax benefits. So if you happen to be a family with children, you have not only got the benefit of tax cuts but you have got the benefit of family tax payments as well. Let me give the House another example. A family on average weekly ordinary-time earnings, with the second partner working part time for one-third of that amount, in 1996-97 would have had a disposable income of $52,052, in today’s dollars. As a result of both tax cuts and family tax benefits, that family will have a real disposable income of $67,151, an increase of 29 per cent in real disposable income. That is your classic family in Australia: one partner, usually the father, is on average weekly ordinary-time earnings; mum has gone back into the workforce for a couple of days a week and is on one-third of average weekly ordinary-time earnings; they have two children, because they have not yet taken up the invitation to have one for the country; and their real disposable income in 2007-08 dollars has increased from $52,052 to $67,151—a 29 per cent increase in real disposable income. As we all know, on 30 June this year, we will be celebrating ‘fundamental injustice day’—the day which the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed as the day which will be written as the fundamental day of injustice of the 20th century, when this government reformed the tax system. As we move down—and I am going to move down to ‘fundamental injustice day’ over the next 33 days—we are going to look at how ‘fundamental injustice day’ has affected Australian families. Well, there is a classic Australian family that, in 2007-08 dollars, will have had an increase in their real disposable income of 29 per cent. I am asked: are there any other policies? It seems to be an open question as to whether the Labor Party can find anything wrong with the tax system, because if they can, they are not saying it, and they are certainly not putting forward a policy for the next election to address it. If Labor will not put their policy out before the election, we are entitled to conclude that it is no vote winner. In fact, if they will not put their policy out before the election, we are entitled to conclude that it can only be moving one way—and that is to the detriment of Australian families. We have evidence of this, because the Labor Party has form. The last tax policy that it put out, for the last election, was going to make families worse off. It was going to make them worse off by taking away the $600 per annum per child family payment. I have previously read to the House one of Australia’s great literary works on this subject, The Latham Diaries, which explains who the author was of taking away the $600 payment and what the rationale was. I was a little surprised to read in the Australian on Saturday that The Latham Diaries are contested on this point. I was a little surprised to read the member for Lilley saying of the tax policy in the 2004 election: We did a fantastic job ... The problem was the design flaw that was inserted at the insistence of our previous leader. It did not have anything to do with the member for Lilley! Here he is, dumping on one of Australia’s stay-at-home fathers, suggesting that it was all the work of Mark Latham and it had nothing to do with him. He even got up in parliament last Thursday after I raised this in the House—and, by the way, I again tender the names on the front of the tax and better family payment plan: Latham, Crean and Swan—and claimed that he had never said that this was not a real payment. So I went back through my file of cuttings and I found in the Australian on 9 September 2004 a clipping titled ‘$600 will disappear, ALP insists’. It states: ... Mr Swan said the $600-a-child payment was a “fool’s gold”. It’s not real - it disappears. Oh really? He never claimed it was not real! This is a quote in the Australian on 9 September 2004. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Not only did he try and mislead all Australians by taking away a payment and then saying it was not real, now he tries to mislead this House— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —by saying that he never said it. There it is in the Australian of 9 September 2004; it is in black and white: It’s not real - it disappears. You will not get away, the member for Swan, by trying to blame Mark Latham. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley has been warned. He has continued to interject. He will excuse himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Lilley then left the chamber. Government members interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —No, that was real, that little incident there. He was the author of that policy. He is now trying to deny it. He tried to mislead the Australian public. He tried to mislead this House. He cannot blame Mr Latham. It was all his own work. It was a bad decision. It was a decision that would have made Australian families worse off. It is no surprise that he is walking away from that tax policy because the people of Australia know that Labor’s last tax policy would have left them worse off when it is the coalition that is looking after the families of Australia. 33 33 14:39:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I again refer to the Prime Minister’s statement in the parliament last Thursday that neither he nor the government had decided on any taxpayer funded advertising campaign relating to climate change. Prime Minister, if the government had not decided on any climate change campaign last Thursday, can the Prime Minister confirm whether these non-existent government advertisements were in production in the first part of last week? 33 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I direct the Leader of the Opposition to exactly what I said last Wednesday or Thursday, and I stand by it. 33 33 14:40:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 1 Mr SCHULTZ —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the importance of public and political support for small businesses struggling with the worst drought on record? 33 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Hume for his question and recognise his very strong representation not just of those struggling farming families in his electorate of Hume who have sought assistance from the government during this severe drought but all farming families across Australia. It is timely that we remember that the drought still exists and there are still many people, both from farming families on the land and working families in our regional communities, who are suffering from the worst drought that this country has ever seen. Since 2002-03, we have been very open-handed with our assistance on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia. With the prosperity that this country is enjoying we have been able to ensure that we have given rural communities across Australia the sort of assistance they have needed during the severity of this drought. There has been about $1.6 billion worth of assistance since 2002-03. Despite some recent welcome rains in some parts of Australia, which certainly lifted spirits and lifted opportunities, we need to recognise that this drought still exists and is still having a profound impact on communities across many parts of regional Australia. We should recognise that as a government we have helped not only the farming families and operations in those rural areas but also the businesses that operate in those rural communities. We took a decision in November of last year to extend support to small businesses which could demonstrate that they depend on the farm sector for their existence. We saw it as being a very important measure to assist those businesses that were almost entirely reliant on the farm sector for their business. We should also remember other businesses in regional communities that rely very heavily on the economic strength of their local communities in terms of their viability and their ability to ensure the sustainability of the jobs that they provide in their community. It is very important that politicians, as part of their leadership positions, understand just how hard some of these people in small businesses across regional Australia are battling in drought affected local economies to continue to provide those jobs. The member for Hume, who represents the regional centre of Goulburn, would well recognise how hard those businesses are battling away in the face of a very severe drought and the circumstances of a lack of water in the city of Goulburn, and how hard that plays on the minds of those people in that community. When thinking about businesses battling in communities suffering from drought, I was drawn to an article in the Australian newspaper last week. It was headed ‘Hotelier’s hell after Gillard’s attack’ and, of course, it is about the Doolans, who run a motel in Goulburn and are trying to sustain jobs in that small business in the community. They were very unfairly attacked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and have been severely vilified in trying to manage their business and trying to grow the level of employment in their small business in a community that is severely affected by drought. That was very evident from the comments in that article from Nerida Corby, who works for the Doolans. She said: “I am happy to be working here, they are great, they are very nice people. They are just a young family trying to run a business.” They are just a young family trying to run a business and employ people and maintain job opportunities for young people in that community. Ms Corby also said—and this is her most important comment: “If they don’t get the business we don’t get the jobs.” And they need those jobs, because jobs are scarce in regional communities that are suffering from drought. Whilst the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are in the mood to forgive and forget, first off they should apologise to the small businesses they have unfairly vilified in this debate, who are just trying to generate and provide jobs for young people in those regional communities that are suffering from drought. 34 34 14:45:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister, and it refers to his previous answer, in which he denied that he had approved this taxpayer funded climate change advertising campaign. Did the government sign a contract with a government relations firm to conduct this taxpayer funded climate change advertising campaign back in April, in addition to commissioning Blue Moon Pty Ltd to conduct the market research for that campaign? 34 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I simply refer the Leader of the Opposition again to my earlier answers. 34 34 14:46:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 Mr JOHNSON —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of any changes to the workplace relations system that protects the conditions and entitlements of working Australians? What types of agreements will be covered by any changes, and are there any alternative policies? 35 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr HOCKEY —I thank the member for Ryan for the question, and I note that the unemployment rate in the Ryan electorate is 1.8 per cent. The Australian government will today introduce reforms to the Workplace Relations Act that will provide a stronger safety net for over 7½ million Australian workers on collective agreements and Australian workplace agreements. The new fairness test will be applied to workers with a base salary of less than $75,000, and therefore it is going to cover more than 90 per cent of workers. The fairness test will ensure that workers who trade off benefits like penalty rates, allowances and loadings will receive fair compensation. The starting point for fair compensation is more money. If non-monetary compensation is agreed between the employer and the employees, it must be of equivalent monetary value or of significant value to the employee. So it is a high hurdle. The fairness test is very similar to the old no disadvantage test. However, it is technically different in one significant way: under our laws, annual leave and sick leave are not tradable, as they were under the old laws. This fairness test put in place a higher level of protection for workers than the common law agreements which the Labor Party believe are the cornerstone of their industrial relations policy. Under the fairness test, Australian workplace agreements will be individually and independently assessed for fairness to ensure that people are properly compensated for losing penalty rates, leave loadings and so on. Under the Labor Party’s common law contracts, it is left to the employers to undertake the test. When employers undertake such tests, such benchmarks, of course they make mistakes. It is far less likely that you are going to have those sorts of mistakes under an Australian workplace agreement, because we have put in place the mechanism that ensures that the Workplace Authority will test every agreement. We do not know how the Labor Party are going to vote on this bill. The Labor Party are awaiting the instructions of the trade union bosses. On 2 May this year, on The 7.30 Report, Greg Combet said: That is within John Howard’s power now. If he is concerned about people losing take-home pay and their penalty rates and their public holiday pay and the like, he controls both houses of Parliament. He could fix that now. So Greg Combet, who has been notably absent in the last few days, has already instructed the Labor Party to support the fairness test. This fairness test increases and improves the safety net for Australian workers. I would expect that the Labor Party would support that. But, given their history on this, they are hypocrites. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition pretends she did not criticise the Lilac City Motor Inn when she was on the John Laws program. In fact, she rang John Laws to expressly criticise that hardworking family business. The Labor Party are hypocrites when it comes to industrial relations, because all of their policy, all of their work and all of their deeds are written by the trade union bosses. 35 35 14:50:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. If the government has not approved a taxpayer funded television advertising campaign, can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr Richard Davies, the senior communications adviser from the Prime Minister’s own department, is the confirmed contact for that advertising campaign? 36 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —What I can confirm is the letter, the substance, the spirit and the totality of the answer I gave last week. 36 36 14:51:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 Mr SLIPPER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Would the minister advise the House on how Australian companies are using 457 visas to continue to build their businesses to the benefit of the Australian economy? Are there any alternative policies? 36 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr ANDREWS —I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I can report to him that, with a national unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent, there have been resultant shortages, particularly of temporary skilled workers, in some industries. That is why the 457 temporary skilled visa program is important. This program provides for skills assessment requirements. It also provides for a minimum salary requirement of $41,850, or the relevant industrial standard, whichever is the higher. In today’s Australian I read that there was support by one of the leading Job Network providers in Australia for this program. This leading Job Network provider was quoted in today’s Australian as saying: What Australian employers are telling us, particularly out of the coal industry, is they are screaming for skilled people—highly skilled people—and the coal industry in Germany is winding down. So there are many people in Germany who are very skilled, who use the same kind of equipment that the Australian coal industry uses, who are out of work or about to be out of work and ‘there is demand here that cannot be met, despite repeated advertising.’ This leading Job Network provider went on to say: So we’re trying to meet a need and our conditions are that people are paid well. She is right. People on 457 visas are paid well. Indeed, the average annual salary paid to 457 visa holders last year was $70,000. In the mining sector—and reference was made to the coal industry—the average salary last year was $87,000. I ask: who are some of the biggest users of 457 visa programs in Australia? Indeed, the state Labor governments in Queensland and Western Australia have recently entered into 457 labour agreements to sponsor workers in industry sectors which are experiencing workforce shortages. But the greatest user of 457 visas in Australia is none other than the state Department of Health in the Labor state of New South Wales. This is an important visa program for Australia. The government has committed an additional $85.3 million over the next four years to maintain the integrity of this temporary skilled migration program. Employer compliance will be targeted under this program to ensure that if any employers misuse the program then they will be investigated and indeed will face significant additional new penalties. We in government are committed to maintaining a migration program that meets the needs and the interests of the Australian economy. That is, in effect, what the director of this Job Network agency was saying. This is someone, who is very close to the Leader of the Opposition, saying that 457 visas are very important for the future of the Australian economy and, as a consequence of that, also to the jobs of many Australians. It is a great pity that, hypocritically, we have the Australian Labor Party running around seeking to undermine this program. 36 36 14:55:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not the theme of his non-existent taxpayer funded television advertising campaign on climate change is entitled ‘Climate Clever’? Given that the Prime Minister and his government are self-confessed climate change sceptics, isn’t this campaign just a little too clever by half? 37 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that it will not be called ‘double standards’ out of hypocrisy. I can certainly inform him that, beyond that, I do not have anything to add to the previous answers that I have given. 37 37 14:57:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 Mr TICEHURST —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House how the Howard government’s Medicare safety net is helping people with the cost of medical treatment, especially in my electorate of Dobell? Is the minister aware of any policies to cut Medicare expenditure and what is the government’s response? 37 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Dobell for his question. Isn’t it interesting that the Labor Party never mention bulk-billing anymore. They never mention it anymore because overall bulk-billing figures are at all-time record highs. I know that the member for Dobell will be pleased to know that the GP bulk-billing rate in his electorate has gone up by 19 percentage points since 2003, in part, because there are now 10 more doctors on a full-time equivalent basis than there were in 1996. When bulk-billing figures come out these days, Labor ignore them and instead talk about gap payments. I suppose that is fair enough, because no-one likes high out-of-pocket medical expenses. It is just that this government has a policy to deal with them. It is called the extended Medicare safety net, which Labor want to abolish. We have more hypocrisy, more double standards from the Labor Party. They complain about something and want to abolish the very program that is designed to do something about it. Last year the extended Medicare safety net stood to benefit about 1½ million Australians. Last year Medicare spent $258 million on higher rebates to people who had high health costs. In Dobell, for instance, almost 11,000 people were eligible for higher Medicare payments, thanks to the safety net. In Gellibrand, the seat of the shadow health minister, almost 8,000 people qualified last year for higher medical benefits, thanks to the safety net. In Griffith, the seat of the Leader of the Opposition, more than 15,000 people qualified for higher medical benefits under the safety net. All of those people will have higher Medicare benefits ripped off them if Labor ever gets into government. I want to know why the member for Gellibrand thinks that people in her electorate should lose nearly $2 million in higher Medicare benefits. I want to know why the Leader of the Opposition thinks that people in his electorate should lose nearly $3 million in higher Medicare benefits. I think at least in his case there is an explanation—it is because the Leader of the Opposition is probably one of the few people in this House, certainly there is no-one on this side, who thinks that Medicare spending should be cut. He thinks that Medicare spending should be cut, as he has said before. He will be reminded of this quote day in, day out until he explains himself. He told Jon Faine:  ... Well when you look at the amount of money which is wasted in duplication overlap in the health and hospital system ... I believe there is great scope to extract significant savings. He needs to explain himself. When I asked him to explain himself last Thursday, he had a press conference. Good on him for having a press conference. I think he should have another press conference this afternoon. I suspect that questions on health this afternoon would be a welcome distraction from some of the other things he has on his mind. 37 37 15:01:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer to my previous question where he confirmed that a taxpayer funded television advertising campaign does exist. How, Prime Minister, does that statement confirm— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is verballing the Prime Minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has begun to ask a question. I will hear the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to my previous question when he confirmed that a taxpayer funded advertising campaign on climate change does exist. Prime Minister, how does that square with your assurance to this parliament only last Thursday that neither you, your department, your office or anyone else had authorised such a television advertising campaign on climate change? Prime Minister, have you not now confirmed out of your own mouth that you have misled the parliament? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he should not use the words ‘you’ or ‘your’. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition, in that question, said that the Prime Minister misled the House. He may only do that by way of substantive motion and the question is out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have said to the Leader of the Opposition that he should not use the words ‘you’ or ‘your’ in his question. He did not use any words like ‘deliberate’. The question is in order. 38 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —If I can prolong the horseracing language, I think the Leader of the Opposition is pulling up a bit lame on this issue. I again direct the Leader of the Opposition to the answers I have given—the answer I gave last week and the answers I have given today. I do not have anything to add. 38 38 15:03:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 Mr BROADBENT —My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What financial benefits have older Australians gained under the federal government? Are there any threats to the financial wellbeing of older Australians? 38 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr BROUGH —I thank the member for his question. Since this government came to power we have focused very much on families and older Australians, who have contributed to the wellbeing and the financial strength of this country. Even though many are now in their retirement years, they still deserve to share in the wealth and the bounty that this country continues to enjoy under a Howard-Costello government. It was one of the earliest commitments that the Treasurer made, back in 1996 I think it was, when he linked the pension to 25 per cent of MATWE, male average total weekly earnings. In practical terms what that now means is that, as a result of that decision, a single aged pensioner today has $66.20 per fortnight more in their pension pay packet than they would have had otherwise had the Labor Party policy continued. For a pensioner couple it is $111.40. That is a tremendous bonus for those families and those couples in their older years. From 20 September this year they can expect a further down payment on what the Commonwealth government has been able to achieve through good economic management. As a result of the halving of the pension taper rates, from 20 September this year a single retiree homeowner could have an additional $177,000 of assets before losing the age pension. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello —A very good reform. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr BROUGH —A very good reform, as the Treasurer points out. A couple could have $294,000 of additional assets. These are very practical measures which help our older Australians. Let us just have a look at how much they could earn today before they pay tax. As a result of the senior Australians tax offset these Australians pay no tax up to an annual income for a single person of $25,867 and $43,360 for a pensioner couple. That is as a result of the initiatives of the Howard government and good economic management. That is not unlike the average Australian family. The average Australian family with two children pays no net tax today before $50,800 of income. That is an unbelievable achievement when you consider that, just a short 11 years ago, for every dollar earned over $50,000 they were paying 48½c in the dollar. I am asked if there are any risks to this and if this is under threat. The reality is that you cannot provide the bounty of this nation to our older Australians if you run deficits. The opposition ran deficits on nine out of the 13 occasions they had the opportunity to sit here on the Treasury benches. They continued to run up debt. They did not reward older Australians in this country for the contribution they had made in tougher times to this nation’s wellbeing. I guess you do not think too much about older Australians on those incomes if you really genuinely believe that someone on over $200,000 is a struggler, as the Courier Mail reported on 30 April. The article says: Households earning more than $200,000 a year have been identified as Kevin Rudd’s “strugglers” and will carry him to electoral victory. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: what about the pensioners? What about the self-funded retirees? What about the bonus the Howard government has just been able to deliver them so they can also benefit from these measures? I remind the member for Melbourne and all of our senior Australians, as we have not had a clarification at this point, of what he said in this place when last in government: We should have an inheritance tax or some tax of that nature. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello —Lindsay was big on that. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr BROUGH —Yes, he was big on that. He continued: We are one of the few major countries that does not have some form of taxation for these circumstances— get this— where tax is the most equitable, the most efficient to collect and the least painful for individual taxpayer. That is what you are going to get from a finance minister in a Labor Rudd government. Those are the sorts of beliefs that they hold dearly, not the struggling pensioners who are being rewarded by the good economic management of the Howard-Costello government. 39 39 15:08:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that after a decade of denial on climate change, he has also sought now to deny the existence of his taxpayer funded advertising campaign on climate change? Prime Minister, is there any chance that Australians will have the existence of this taxpayer funded campaign on climate change confirmed when they receive the Prime Minister’s letter and pamphlet in their mailbox and when they start seeing the TV ads? 39 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking me a question about climate change. I think that it is rather good that he should ask a question about climate change this week, because I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that I expect to receive this week a report of the taskforce— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga has been warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He has been engaging in chatting across the table. Heads come up. No longer are we furiously scribbling notes! Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He will do anything to keep the deputy leader under wraps today, anything to keep the deputy leader out of the firing line. He has turned his back now.  We will receive the report on climate change this week. Unlike the Labor Party the government does not intend to set targets when we do not know the implications. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 104. This went to the Prime Minister’s— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat immediately. The Prime Minister was asked a question about climate change. He is in order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Unlike the Labor Party—those who sit opposite—we have no intention of embracing a target when we do not know the economic consequences of it. We have no intention of embracing a target that is going to do damage to the business community. We have no intention of embracing a target that is going to do damage to the great coal industry of Australia. I can imagine the impact that the devastation of the coal industry would have on hundreds of thousands of small businesses, including many thousands of motels dotted around the country, that would be adversely affected. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that when we receive this report it will be made available to the Australian public and it will represent this government approaching the issue of climate change in a methodical and systematic fashion. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: are you ruling that he can talk about anything to do with climate change whatsoever? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Grayndler wishes to reflect on the chair, I will deal with him. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —No, I am asking you for your ruling. Standing order 104— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a question on climate change. He is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I think what will become apparent when this report comes out is that the decisions that will need to be taken on climate change will represent the most significant and difficult economic decisions that this country will take in 10 or 20 years, because although climate change is seen generally as an environmental issue, its true character is economic. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Oh, we have now got the professor! 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —I raise a point of order. The standing orders do require answers to at least be relevant to the question. The question was about this secret climate change campaign about which he is in denial. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fraser will remember that there was quite a lengthy question which included a preamble. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The whole basis was our commitment to climate change. I simply say again that this report will make it very clear that decisions to be taken on climate change issues will represent the most significant economic decisions this country will take in a decade. It follows from that that it will be— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a specific question about climate change advertising campaigns. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kingsford Smith will come straight to his point of order. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —Can you direct him to stick to the point. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —It will be very clear when this report comes out that these decisions will be amongst the most significant that will need to be taken by this country economically over the next decade. Although climate change is seen generally as an environmental issue, the character of those decisions will be overwhelmingly economic. It is therefore essential that those decisions be taken by people who have a long-term commitment to the continuing strength and competitiveness of the Australian economy, by a group of people who have a long-term commitment to a flexible industrial relations system, by people who have a long-term commitment to the important role of small business in the Australia community, by a group of people who believe that one of the best things you can do in life is to— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the member for Kingsford Smith that I have already ruled on the relevance of this point. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —I would ask you to direct the Prime Minister to the context of the question that was put to him. We are now getting a lecture on industrial relations. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kingsford Smith will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked a lengthy question and he is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I conclude my answer by saying that, if the economic decisions on climate change are not right— IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —there will be long-term consequences for the economy and, most importantly, for Australian jobs. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 41 Personal Explanations 41 15:15:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —This morning’s AM program claimed I faced questions about my judgement based on a letter I wrote on behalf of a constituent who lost his job on the waterfront at the start of this year. What the reporter, Josephine Cafagna, failed to mention was that the constituent was the subject of an Australian Federal Police criminal history check, conducted with his consent, which concluded that he did not have an adverse criminal record or an adverse security assessment. In fact, the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services gave the constituent his job back in February this year, but Ms Cafagna failed to make any reflections on their judgement in doing so. It is reports like this which give journalists a bad name. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! The member for Wills has the call. He will be heard. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Transport and Regional Services which makes these matters clear. Leave granted. 42 03:16:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As usual, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —In question time today, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations all alleged that I had criticised the Lilac City Motor Inn— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 0L6 Draper, Trish, MP Mrs Draper interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Makin is warned. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I know they do not like the truth, but I refer to— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to her point. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I refer to and I repeat my personal explanation from Thursday. I suggest they read it. 42 Petitions 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers: 4K6 DYH 83N 00AMM 83O 4T4 A8W 0J4 83Q 00APG SJ4 E0F Mr Causley Mr Michael Ferguson Ms Hall Mr Hartsuyker Mrs Hull Mr Melham Mr Pearce Mr Ruddock Mr Schultz Mr Anthony Smith Mr Tuckey Mr Wood 279 42 The humble Petition of the Citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we re affirm our support for the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia which states “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth…” (Constitution Act 9th July 1900) and the affirmation of 69% of our Australian population that they are Christians, and the statement of one of our founders that “this Commonwealth of Australia from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth” (Sir John Downer 1898), and the Opening Prayer of the Parliaments “Almighty God we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory” and recognises the importance of these beliefs in ensuring the ongoing stability and unity of our Christian nation. Your petitioners therefore pray the Parliament of Australia will: Review our Commonwealth Immigration Policy to ensure the priority for Christians from all races and colours, especially from persecuted nations, as both immigrants and refugees. Adopt a ten year moratorium on Muslim immigration, so an assessment can be made on the social and political disharmony currently occurring in the Netherlands, France and the UK, so as to ensure We avoid making the same mistakes; and allow a decade for the Muslim leadership and community in Australia to reassess their situation so as to reject any attempt to establish an Islamic nation within our Australian nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. 9 4K6 Mr Causley Mr Causley (from 9 citizens) 12 DYH Mr Michael Ferguson Mr Michael Ferguson (from 12 citizens) 38 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 38 citizens) 63 00AMM Mr Hartsuyker Mr Hartsuyker (from 63 citizens) 31 83O Mrs Hull Mrs Hull (from 31 citizens) 24 4T4 Mr Melham Mr Melham (from 24 citizens) 76 A8W Mr Pearce Mr Pearce (from 76 citizens) 2 0J4 Mr Ruddock Mr Ruddock (from 2 citizens) 9 83Q Mr Schultz Mr Schultz (from 9 citizens) 2 00APG Mr Anthony Smith Mr Anthony Smith (from 2 citizens) 12 SJ4 Mr Tuckey Mr Tuckey (from 12 citizens) 1 E0F Mr Wood Mr Wood (from 1 citizens) DYW Mr Burke 145 43 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the Town of Port Hedland draws to the attention of the House, the current severe accommodation shortage in our town. This shortage has come about as a direct result of the very strong resources boom across the Pilbara and the North West. Your petitioners therefore urgently request the House to draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration and in turn to the Federal government to the need to use the currently mothballed Port Hedland Detention Centre as residential accommodation. 145 DYW Mr Burke Mr Burke (from 145 citizens) 83R Mr Edwards 60 43 To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament of Australia assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, are totally-opposed to any Australian involvement in the development, testing or operation of the United States’ Ballistic Missile Defence system. This includes use of facilities in Australian territory for any of these purposes. We request that the Australian government disengages from planned involvement in this system and ensures that the Pine Gap joint communications facility will not be used in the Ballistic Missile Defence System. If this means closing this base, so be it. And your petitioners will in duty bound will ever pray. 60 83R Mr Edwards Mr Edwards (from 60 citizens) DZW Mrs Elliot 75 43 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to send water from the Northern Rivers of the State of New South Wales to Queensland. The petitioners therefore request the House to reject any plans to send water from the Northern Rivers of the State of New South Wales to Queensland. 75 DZW Mrs Elliot Mrs Elliot (from 75 citizens) 5K6 Ms Annette Ellis 3364 43 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding areas of the State of New South Wales. Draws to the attention of the House widespread opposition in the Canberra community to the NCA’s proposed Amendment 53 in relation to proposed development of the Albert Hall precinct due to: The failure of the NCA to properly consult with residents, local and national cultural groups, over fundamental changes to the Albert Hall Precinct (Amendment 53) in central Canberra The failure of the NCA to guarantee existing access by community and cultural groups from the ACT and surrounding areas to the Albert Hall which is Canberra’s “Town hall” The NCA proposal to surround the heritage-listed Albert Hall with inappropriate intensive commercial development The NCA proposal to encourage an eight-storey development in the precinct, on the lakeshore of “Lake Burley Griffin” The NCA’s failure to incorporate the results of a major traffic study into its considerations of the area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to Require the NCA to withdraw Amendment 53 Require the NCA to work with the ACT government to guarantee existing access for community and cultural groups to the Albert Hall Require the NCA to protect and maintain the heritage value of Albert Hall and its precinct and conduct a heritage study of the area. Require the NCA to consult directly with residents local and national cultural groups about options for any future development of the Albert Hall Precinct Require the NCA to wait for the traffic study before making changes to Flynn Drive and Commonwealth Avenue. 3364 5K6 Ms Annette Ellis Ms Annette Ellis (from 3,364 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 137 44 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The petition of residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to residents’ right to: want airports to impact less on their quality of life; complain against how airports affect their quality of life; have complaints heard fairly, independently and impartially; see that airport businesses are not above the law. The petitioners call upon the House to establish an Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman who will: investigate residents’ complaints fairly and impartially; communicate with residents promptly and honestly; and see that airport companies abide by the law. 137 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 137 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 865 44 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and under funding of our public dental scheme. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to: Re-introduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme and restore funding to public dental health; Reduce waiting times for public dental health services; and Train more public dentists 865 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 865 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 8 44 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the significance of IVF in our community, the opportunity that IVF offers to couples who would otherwise never have a family, and that 1 in every 35 babies born in Australia are as a result of IVF treatment. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives ensure no changes are made to current Medicare funding of IVF treatments as proposed by the Howard Government. 8 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 8 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 43 44 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We, citizens of the Shortland Electorate, call on the Federal Government: To put an end to the purchase and use of all uranium-containing weapons To allow scientists to freely investigate the human and environmental costs of the use of such weapons Immediately commence an independent study of all civilians in conflict zones and Australian combatants, to investigate the nature and extent of radiation and heavy metal sickness Grant immediate compensation for all combatants affected by radiation and heavy metal Commence an immediate clean up at the US, UK, and Australian Governments expense, of all areas contaminated with DU residue Provide information for the public on the sites where DU was used in Australia prior to 1990, and evidence of subsequent clean up efforts (if any) Immediately end negotiations over the use of Australian land for weapons testing Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the issue of Depleted Uranium is addressed as a matter of urgency 43 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 43 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 16 45 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we object to any sale of the remainder of Telstra as it belongs to the citizens of Australia, and we wish to retain it. That it is not in the best interests of Australians to dispose of an asset generating such a vast profit. That we do not wish to risk overseas ownership. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: Vote against any legislation allowing further sale/privatisation or Private/Public/Partnership (PPP) of Telstra. 16 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 16 citizens) RH4 Mr Kerr 319 45 The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. This petition of citizens draws to the attention of the House that the majority of the Australian population believe that the decision about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should be up to the woman concerned and her doctor. Furthermore, this majority is growing. The majority pro-choice public opinion should, in a democracy, be reflected in the law and government policy. That means: all criminal and other laws that codify/limit abortion access should be repealed, so that abortion is not subject to more restrictions than any other medical procedure; and abortion services should be made freely available through the public health system, with full Medicare coverage for terminations. Your petitioners, therefore, demand that the House reject any attempt to limit Medicare coverage of abortion. 319 RH4 Mr Kerr Mr Kerr (from 319 citizens) E4U Senator Hurley 1 45 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House Of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We, the undersigned, are residents of, and/or visitors to the township of Steiglitz, in Steiglitz Historic Park, which is part of the Brisbane Ranges National Park in Victoria. We deeply lament the closure in November 2005, of The Courthouse, which houses a unique Gold Mining Museum. We declare that this event has been to the detriment of this little settlement and a great disappointment to the many tourists who continually flow through the area. We hereby ask The House respectfully, to consider reversing this decision and to restore the associated funding for on-going tourist works here in this township. 533 VH4 Mr McArthur Mr McArthur (from 533 citizens) 1M6 Senator Allison 1 45 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the crippling effect that drought has on our nation, the sovereignty of God in matters over which we have no control, such as the provision of rain, and the fact that prayers are already said in this place at the beginning of each sitting of parliament. Your petitioners therefore request the House, during any time that there is a Commonwealth Exceptional Circumstances (EC) declaration of drought in place for any region within the Commonwealth, the following be added to the prayers said under Standing Order 38: “Lord God, we pray that during this period of exceptional circumstance and need, you would send rain on this land”. 58 0J4 Mr Ruddock Mr Ruddock (from 58 citizens) 009LP Mr Windsor 1080 46 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. Draws attention of the House of the inadequacy of Dental Health Care which can lead to life threatening diseases. Your petitioners therefore request the House that we, the undersigned, implore you to introduce a National Dental Health Scheme, as a matter of urgency, to be funded by a 1% levy of taxable income, this amount to be added on to the Medicare levy. 1080 009LP Mr Windsor Mr Windsor (from 1,080 citizens) Petitions received. 46 Private Members' Business 46 46 15:21:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I move: That the House: recognise the tragic loss of 1,605 lives on our roads in 2006, including 336 in Queensland; recognise that road crashes remain the biggest killer of young Australians aged 16 to 25 and that in any given year, people aged between 18 and 24 are twice as likely to die in road smashes than other drivers; also recognise that researchers at the University of Queensland have calculated that the death and injury from road accidents costs the national economy some $17 billion a year, or the equivalent of 2.3 per cent of Australia’s gross national income; and commend the Government for extending the AusLink Black Spot program, which has already eliminated some 700 dangerous crash sites in Queensland alone, for a further two years, from 2006‑07 to 2007‑08, at a cost of $90 million. I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on a very important issue. It essentially concerns the number of road fatalities in the state of Queensland and generally across Australia. Queensland’s road fatalities as of last Thursday, 24 May, stood at 144, and we are not even halfway through the 2007 calendar year. That figure represents 18 more than at the same time last year. If this trend continues, Queensland will record its worst annual road toll figures since 1997, when 360 people were tragically killed. We will be seeing death figures around the 400 mark if this trend continues. This is terribly sad and a shocking probability. University of Queensland research contends that, on average, every death and injury on our roads has an impact on at least 10 other people, including family members, friends and the wider community. In 2006, the state of Queensland suffered its worst road toll in 10 years, with 337 fatalities. For the benefit of the House, I will give the figures from the previous years. In 2005 there were 328 fatalities; in 2004, there were 311; in 2003, 310; in 2002, 322; in 2001, 324; and in 2000, 317 Australians were tragically killed on Queensland roads. The national figure in 2006 was well in excess of 1,000—1,605 Australians lost their lives on our roads. My own federal electorate of Ryan has experienced the trauma of its own residents being killed in road fatalities. Last December, the tragic deaths of two young Australians, Daniel and Toby East, two brothers from Pinjarra Hills in the beautiful western suburbs of Ryan, touched the electorate in a way that I have not seen during my time in the area and certainly not while I have been the federal member. These two young students had a full and rich life ahead of them—two lives that gave so much joy to their family, loved ones and friends. Every life is precious, but all of us will perhaps feel especially sad when we consider that road crashes remain the biggest killer of young Australians aged between 16 and 25. Each year in Australia about 300 young men and 80 young women aged under 25 die in car crashes, out of a national road toll of around 1,600. This means that in any given year Australians aged between 18 and 24 are twice as likely to die in road accidents as drivers in any other age group. Per kilometre driven, the death rate of drivers aged under 25 is more than four times that of drivers aged between 25 and 54. I do not believe there is one single solution but rather that we must implement a suite of measures to bring down the number of fatal road accidents. The Australian government’s AusLink Black Spot Program is an initiative that is certainly making a huge impact on keeping down road fatalities. The program is a great example of the practical way in which the federal government is working to reduce the road toll and is addressing the problem at the local level, on local streets and at local intersections. I understand a statewide online survey conducted by the RACQ in February last year of more than 10,000 Queensland drivers found that the most preferred options for cutting the road toll were identifying or fixing potential road and traffic hazards, with which 99 per cent of respondents agreed, and fixing black spots with known crash histories, with which 99 per cent of respondents also agreed. The AusLink Black Spot Program is now in its 11th year. Since 1996 it has eliminated some 750 dangerous crash sites in Queensland through more than $97.6 million of federal funding. The Black Spot Program has been extended by the Howard government for a further two years at a cost of $90 million. The Ryan electorate will share in these funds, with $287,000 allocated to fix the traffic signals at the intersection of Westminster Road and Clarence Road at Indooroopilly. Anyone who knows the local roads of Indooroopilly will realise that this intersection is in desperate need of upgrade. Ryan has benefited in the past and I hope that it will continue to benefit from this worthwhile program. Another initiative that I believe will have a long-term impact is the introduction of compulsory defensive driving courses for all new drivers. Last year I called for defensive driving courses to be made compulsory for new drivers during the licence application process. The incredible feedback I got from Ryan mums and dads was overwhelming. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 47 15:26:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon as the shadow minister for transport, roads and tourism to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Ryan. I note that, while there is a long-term trend in reducing the loss of lives on Australian roads, we are still a long way from achieving our 2010 target of 40 per cent below the 1999 benchmark. Most concerning is the fact that since the end of 2004 a substantial gap has opened between actual and required outcomes. In fact, in the 2006 reporting year road deaths were 2.5 per cent higher than in the previous year even though they were down almost 15 per cent compared with 1999. Sadly, in Tasmania we have achieved no gains since 1999. On an international basis, Australia ranks 11th out of 26 nations in terms of road deaths per 100,000 population. I think we would all agree that, while we perform better than the OECD median, this is not good enough. National improvements in the number of road fatalities since 1999 have been concentrated in three areas: vehicle occupants in multi-vehicle crashes, pedestrians and cyclists. Since 2002 there has been a marked decrease in the number of road deaths involving articulated trucks. Despite the fact that the number of kilometres travelled by articulated trucks increased by 13 per cent between 2000 and 2005, the number of fatalities and fatal crashes involving articulated trucks actually decreased by 19 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. These are very important achievements because, in coping with Australia’s rapidly growing freight task, heavy vehicle travel will be the major component of total growth in vehicle travel over the next decade. Consequently, we must continue to focus on ways to reduce heavy vehicle related road trauma, including reducing heavy vehicle aggressivity, exposure and crash risk, and improving light vehicle crashworthiness. As the member for Ryan noted in his motion, the AusLink Black Spot Program is a very important Australian government initiative aimed at reducing road trauma—and it has the federal Labor Party’s support. In government, the Labor Party would retain the Black Spot Program. I welcome its continuation with increased funding until 2014, the end of the AusLink 2 period. I note that the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics is currently evaluating the success of the program to date. I look forward to seeing that report in the near future because it is essential that the program be targeted to achieve the best possible national road safety outcomes. I say that because the Black Spot Program is too important to be abused in the same way that we have seen the Howard government’s abuse of the AusLink Strategic Regional Program in the lead-up to the last election and over the last few weeks. Ignoring departmental guidelines and eligibility criteria, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has over the last two weeks doled out $250 million, based on electoral map considerations of where road funding should go rather than on proper transport criteria, including road safety issues. Since the budget, the minister has showered largesse on safe and marginal coalition seats, spending $205 million or more than 80 per cent of the total fund on 72 projects in just 30 coalition seats. By contrast, 10 projects in six Labor electorates received only $27 million or about five per cent of the total fund. I am hopeful, given the seriousness of its objectives, that we can keep the Black Spot Program away from political considerations and guarantee it ongoing transparency and honesty in decision making. Based on the previous BTRE evaluation in 2001 of the first three years of the program, it is estimated that from 1996 to 1999 the program generated $1.3 billion NPV and a benefit-cost ratio of 14. The evaluation showed that greater benefits accrued in urban areas and that certain engineering treatments were more successful than others. Roundabouts were highly successful in improving safety in both capital cities and regional areas. It also showed that the use of traffic lights, medians, non-skid surfaces and traffic islands on approaches were successful. In regional areas, signs and new traffic lights had the most success. By contrast, despite its popularity as a treatment, there was no evidence that sealing road shoulders in cities had any significant impact on road safety. Hopefully, the lessons learned from the BTRE evaluation have been applied over the last few years to deliver even better results from the Black Spot Program. I commend the motion to the House. 49 15:31:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today and to congratulate my colleague the member for Ryan for raising this matter. He is a strong campaigner on road safety issues in his electorate. I know he has taken a very strong stand in the campaign against hooning, something that I think he really does deserve some credit for. It is good that he proceeds with that, because I know that there is a lot of concern in the community about people behaving badly on the roads and the risks that that creates for residents. My congratulations and support go to the member for Ryan on his steps in that regard. Today we are speaking about the Black Spot Program. In the electorate of Blair, we have had quite a lot of success in attracting road funding for black spot projects. The Commonwealth funding for these projects has been well received in our area and it has certainly been of assistance. I would like to speak about some of the projects that have been funded under the Black Spot Program, in particular a couple of recent announcements. One involves a project outside the Brassalls Shopping Centre at Albion Street and Workshops Street which is being funded to the tune of $113,000 by the Commonwealth. That was just announced late last week. I saw the local councillor at the weekend and she endorsed that project and said what a good thing it was that the Commonwealth has come to the party on it. I visited the SES at the weekend in the electorate of Blair where there is to be some work at the intersection of Thorn Street and South Street, in the vicinity of the SES—$35,000 is to be allocated there. These projects are allocated according to areas of need. So it is important that we get adequate assessment of the areas of need and the dangers as well as the remedies being proposed when we undertake these projects. There are some very good black spot projects being undertaken in country areas within the electorate of Blair. For example, up near Jimna on the Kilcoy to Murgon road, funding has been received for work on 17 kilometres of that road. It is a windy gravel road and that work is well received. In the area of Brassall, $40,000 is being spent on the Vogel Road and Haig Street intersection. However, I would like to turn to the behaviour of the Queensland Department of Main Roads in relation to one particular black spot project—that is, the ill-fated project to modify the signals and lanes at the intersection of East and Limestone Streets. That was a black spot project recommended by the gurus in the state main roads department for which the Commonwealth allocated $300,000. The money was paid in November 2006 and fully acquitted with the Department of Transport and Regional Services in December 2006. Then it was ripped up in March 2007 because it was a total waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The main roads department in Queensland and its minister have an appalling record in dealing with traffic difficulties in the Ipswich area. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll interjecting— 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —As we know, and the member for Oxley knows, the proposal for the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway is an absolute travesty, and he continues to cling to that, despite the opprobrium of everyone in his electorate. Here is another example of Main Roads making a total ass of themselves with a proposal. They took $300,000 of Commonwealth money and basically produced a project that did not work. It was condemned by everybody locally and laughed at by the city council, and was ripped out three months after it was completed. Now $300,000 would do a lot in black spot funding. It is a very important project and they completely stuffed it up, as they have done with their plans for the upgrade of Ipswich Motorway. It is great that the Commonwealth has funded the Goodna bypass instead. 50 15:36:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I want to start by acknowledging John and Gillian Grant and the 51 club crew who are in the House today. They have come to see our national capital and how the parliament works, and I know they have not been disappointed today. Speaking in this place on road issues is always important, whether they be roads of national importance, state and local roads or black spot funded roads. If you listened to this government, you could be excused for thinking that what was returned to us from our taxes for road funding for critical road infrastructure was only by the good grace of this government, and that it was some sort of reward for having voted the right way the last time around, that you might get a few crumbs off the table for urgent road upgrades and safety needs in your area. The motion today from the member for Ryan on road funding has as much credibility as the Prime Minister does when he talks about caring for workers. The reality is that, when it comes to road funding in Queensland, the Howard government has an 11-year track record of abysmal neglect. That is the reality. No matter how many times the member for Blair smirks on road issues, it is 11 years of doing nothing—that is the reality. We have barely been provided with enough crumbs for the past decade-plus to keep our struggling federal roads— 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson —Have you read the proposal? 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —in a barely safe condition, but now that the polling is going very badly for the government, suddenly we see the massive promise of big money—$2.3 billion, in fact. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson interjecting— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —It is amazing how much road funding can be promised when polling suggests you just might lose some key marginal seats. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Ryan is warned! 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —Of course, I am referring to the $2.3 billion and the little that has been done for 11 years. If you did the sums—and I will let other people do that—then you would know exactly what I am talking about. Tragically, even with the plans for the Goodna bypass and other road funding projects, including those for black spots—and we will not hear much about the Goodna bypass from the member for Ryan because he dare not speak those words in his electorate, that is for sure. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —When the time comes for budgets and to actually allocate funding, after 11 years we are still waiting. That is the reality: nothing has actually been delivered yet. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —They are promises for the future, after the next election; not now, not yesterday, not last year but after the next election. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Blair is warned! 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —That is a long time to wait and to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is exactly what we are now getting as a further promise from this government. What the members for Blair and Ryan and this government are promising is that they will spend $2.3 billion of your hard-earned money, but they will make you wait another five years at least before you are allowed to use the road they want to provide you—five more years on the Ipswich Motorway, five more years at least in the traffic jams, with the safety issues and everything that we have been waiting for. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Blair has been warned twice and will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Blair then left the chamber. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —It is about time the member for Blair was ejected from this House for not caring about the good people of Blair, Ipswich and the western corridor. As he skulks out of this place, I know they will remember him at election time for the things he has not done. In his own electorate of Blair they have missed out for a very long time and they are still missing out. At least I can say that in Oxley I have delivered the Ipswich Motorway upgrade in my section. Along the Oxley corridor, $600 million was spent— 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Ryan will remove himself under standing order 94(a) as well. The member for Ryan then left the chamber. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —not because this government somehow wanted to give that money to people in my electorate but because, after a long time of campaigning by the community, can I say, and by me assisting them, we have delivered that funding, because I wanted that money and I wanted that road upgraded. Members opposite have opposed it and they have gotten exactly what they desired since they were elected: nothing, because they wanted no money to come to the area and that is what they got. If you are a member of the government and you tell your roads minister, ‘I don’t want any money to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway in my part of the world’ then you will not get any, because that is easy to do. But if you are trying to achieve funding, that is a little bit more complicated. The reality is, if you want a full plan that will deliver roads and infrastructure way beyond 2030, you need to have a complete plan, a full plan. You do not need just one road. I am not a one-road man. I think the Ipswich Motorway upgrade is essential and critical and should be the first cab off the rank, but I also believe you need other roads in the area. You need a road to the south, and that is the extension of the Centenary Highway, through Springfield and the Ripley Valley and back to Ipswich. With it comes a brand new rail corridor and rail, which will do an immense amount for relieving traffic and pressure off the Ipswich Motorway. You also need a proper western bypass—a real one, not a Goodna bypass that was dreamt up by the member for Blair and maybe a couple of his cronies; a real one that is studied and done properly, with a fully accountable and transparent process where the community has some involvement. People will get a choice. They were not given a choice but they will have a choice at the next election in three, four or five months time. I think they will be voting with their feet and telling this government exactly what they think about road funding in Queensland. Bring on the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. (Time expired) 51 15:41:00 Anderson, John, MP 4K4 Gwydir NATS 1 0 Mr ANDERSON —I say at the outset that I commend the mover of this motion, who sits immediately behind me, for his efforts in bringing this matter to our attention. I think we are all rightly concerned about the tragic loss of lives on Australian roads despite the very real progress that has been made since road trauma and crisis galvanised the attention of the Australian people back in the early 1970s. Briefly, it is worth making a couple of points of history in relation to our early days in government. One is that in those days we faced a very real budgetary crisis in this country: government outlays were in a mess, government debt was huge and rapidly expanding and we faced real constraints in the early years in relation to road funding. I think it is fair to say that, in my case, I was rather taken aback at how quickly economic growth started to increase the load of the transport task in this country. That immediately highlighted two issues, not just the obvious one of the need to find more money for roads but another issue—that is, despite the fact that we were a century or so into Federation in this country, we had never developed a properly coordinated national transport plan. It had not happened. One of the things that disappoints me a little is that there is precious little recognition, even to this day, that we now have one. We do not run tax policy on the basis of complete ad hocery or political expediency—you do not run health policy on that basis, you do not run a defence policy on that basis and you should not run your transport policy on that basis. AusLink, which was very strongly resisted by the states for a long time, it has to be said, is an integrated, thought-through national transport plan for this country. In the first instance, as evidence of that, it gives us a national highway system which is matched by a national railway system. We have a national highway system because the states do not have adequate interest in national and international connectivity; the federal government does, on behalf of all Australians, and it ought to construct and maintain the national highway system to a high order. But, almost by definition—it is so obvious that it is like the nose on your face; you really should not miss it if you think about it—you need a matching rail network for freight. Under AusLink we secure that. A vital part of road safety in this country is in ensuring that there are no more trucks on the road than makes economic, social or environmental sense. That is why we now have a real federal commitment to operating a national rail network, which over time will take more and more pressure off our roads—not a commitment to operating trains, which governments are no better at doing than they would be at operating trucks. It will make our roads safer, drive the road funding and, I think, produce valuable environmental outcomes. A comment about the subsets of AusLink is that very often, to be quite frank, those of us who are elected to this place need to make sensible decisions about the funding of infrastructure. The truth is that the Roads to Recovery program, which funds local roads everywhere in every council area across Australia, is not only popular but makes common sense, but no BCR model would support it. A benefit-cost ratio conducted by economic gurus in this town would tell you that Roads to Recovery or the FAGs grants for local roads cannot be justified on economic grounds. All of us would recognise what nonsense that is. We might as well say, ‘We’re no longer going to kerb and gutter our suburban streets’ because I do not think you could make a BCR stack those up either. Common sense tells you that virtually everything we produce, everything we value add, everything we export starts its life on a local road. There is a very powerful case for upgrading local roads. We have brought the crash rate, the accident rate, down dramatically in terms of the distance and kilometres travelled by Australian people over the last 35 years. Better cars, better roads, better training, seatbelts and drink-driving laws and their pursuit have all helped. The reality is: we need to do more. Our road toll is still too high, particularly amongst young men. The Black Spot Program is part of it. I see the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads at the table; I urge him to do whatever is necessary to get the road training trial up for young people. It is now about 2½ years since I committed to doing that. It is time we rolled it out. We must do more to get young people to drive sensibly within their skill set. It is not simply a question of expanding their skill set; their skill set needs to be observed and recognised. (Time expired) 53 15:46:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I endorse the words of the previous speaker; there is no issue that is more important. The majority of my contribution to this debate will deal with young people and the need to address the issue of the loss of life of young people on our roads. This motion highlights the impact and the enormous cost to our nation of death and injury caused by road accidents. It also recognises the impact of the Black Spot Program, a fine program that I and members of this House support, and recognises how it has worked to eliminate dangerous crash sites. The biggest cause of death and disability for young people aged 15 to 25 is car accidents. The enormous cost of road accidents involving young people was brought home to me very graphically last week when the son of one of my children’s friends was killed in a road accident. A young 18-year-old hopped in a car with a driver who had been drinking—an action that many young people do—went down to the shop to buy something and was dead five minutes after he left home. This highlights the issue of the danger of young people and driving. The World Health Organisation has identified road crashes as the leading cause of death of young people under the age of 25 worldwide. Road traffic collisions cost an estimated $US518 billion worldwide. New South Wales statistics for 2004 for 17- to 25-year-olds recorded 856 casualties of road traumas and 187 deaths. These young people only hold 15 per cent of the licences but are involved in 28 per cent of the crashes. It is a very sad indictment of the failure by all levels and all persuasions of government. I call on all governments to work together to try and solve this problem. Research has shown that we need to look at changing behaviours and, at the same time, put in place laws that are going to prevent young people from losing their lives. Other statistics show that young people account for only 15 per cent of licence holders, but a third of road accidents fall into this group. First-year P-plate holders are four times more likely to be involved in an accident than a driver over the age of 26. Nearly half of all trauma admissions to New South Wales hospitals in 2005 were serious injury road trauma and, of these, 28 per cent were aged 15 to 24. It is very sad to hear about the high level of accidents but it is well reported, and I think members of this House know that. Every year drivers are killed or injured in road traffic accidents. As I have highlighted already, statistics show that this younger group has the highest number of accidents leading to death and disability. Research shows that risk and behaviour education, like the NRMA forums throughout New South Wales— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—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 for Shortland will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed. 54 15:51:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I move: That the House: recognises that the Federal Government needs to invest in education and improving the skills of Australians to ensure that all students have the opportunity to complete Year 12 at high school and ensure that they have appropriate entry‑level training for their chosen trade or vocation; and condemns the failure of the Government to invest in education and skills for Australia’s future, particularly when the commodity boom moderates. It is imperative for the future of Australia and Australia’s next generation that we recognise the need to invest in education and improving the skills of Australians. We need to ensure that all students have the opportunity to complete year 12 at high school and/or have the appropriate entry level training for their chosen trade or vocation. The federal government has shown a lack of commitment to investing in the future education and skills of Australians and continues to rely on the mining boom to support our nation’s economy. It is common sense that the more you invest in education, skills and training, the more you invest in your country’s future. Labor is willing to commit to that investment. It has set goals for Australia’s education system that will ensure Australia’s economy remains prosperous and productive. We on this side of the House make a commitment to placing training centres in all secondary schools. We make a commitment to providing educational avenues to all young Australians so that they can achieve their best. Not everyone is suited to university and many see their future within the trades sector. Skilling up and learning a trade is something that Labor and I, personally, support. For over a decade Australia’s education system has suffered at the hands of this federal government. Our education standards have slumped, and as a result Australia is now in the middle of a skills crisis. Australia no longer has a strong skills base that industry is able to draw on. Unless we educate our young people, Australia does not have a future. The income and prosperity of an individual is often strongly tied to the education and skills that they have obtained over the years. Australia’s goal should be to have the most qualified and the most trained workforce in the world. Australia therefore needs to meet two great changes: one, to improve learning at high school level; and, two, to increase the skills of our workforce. There are many schools within my electorate of Hindmarsh that are calling out for a greater emphasis on vocational education within their education program. The Labor Party has given them a solution. That solution is to give these schools the opportunity to obtain funding for trade workshops, computer laboratories and design labs. I am constantly approached by schools that have students who see their future in studies outside the university sector and who are well suited to pursuing future training in the trades sector. As a nation we need to be aware that young people in the many schools in our own neighbourhoods need to be able to make choices that will make them successful and productive members of our society. We need to encourage vocational education and training within schools, thus building a skills base for Australia’s future. There is currently no national plan for the future education of Australian students. Labor has made a commitment to increasing retention rates in schools from the current level of 75 per cent to 90 per cent by 2020. In the midst of a skills crisis, Australia needs to look at why young people are not continuing their schooling and not seeking further training or education. It is estimated that 120,000 Australians aged from 18 to 24 who have not completed year 12 are not engaged in the nation’s workforce. If these individuals were meaningfully engaged in the workforce, this would go a long way to meeting the estimated skills needed for the next five years. We need to improve our retention rates at schools. We need to give students more opportunities at schools. We need to provide training in skills associated with a particular trade while allowing young people to continue to study and finish high school. Increasing retention rates has the potential to contribute enormously to our economy. Increased retention rates would add $9 billion to Australia’s economy by the year 2040. In the future we will face more intense competition from regional trading partners such as China and India. In addition to this, our ageing population will take many of the skills Australia’s workforce has today into retirement. Australia needs to invest in the education of its students so that, as a country, we can be competitive in the growing global market. The mining boom the country is currently experiencing will not last forever. That is why it is important that we engage Australia’s youth—they are the key to our country’s future. As a country, we can no longer deny training opportunities to our young people. Nor can we allow our education system to focus on a ‘one size fits all’ policy. A versatile, innovate education policy will ensure our future. That is why Labor is investing in our nation’s education and in our country’s economic prosperity. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 55 15:56:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I rise to speak to the private member’s motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh. Investing in education is absolutely essential to improving skills in Australia’s workforce. It is all very well for Labor to monotonously attempt to target the Howard government in a political sense over its education policies and track record, but let us just consider the facts. They show that it is the Liberal Party side of politics that is in fact equipped to invest in education in an effective manner and in a way that actually values education and the educational choices of young people. And let us not forget the need to be able to position oneself to be able to make the hard decisions that are necessary for education reform. I would say that one of the Howard government’s greatest achievements is to have inspired the Labor Party to show an interest in vocational and further education. We have not heard the Labor Party’s policies on vocational education until recent months. In fact I understand that the word ‘vocational’ did not even appear in their 2004 election policy. They do not have form on this. They have no interest, except for the fact that it is the Howard government that has recognised that the skills shortage in this country is not simply a skills crisis, as Labor would have us believe, but that it is a skilled labour shortage. It is a problem brought about by having more jobs than there are people to fill them. An outstanding example of a Howard government initiative to boost the trade skills of young Australians is of course the Australian technical colleges. I am not sure that the member for Hindmarsh even mentioned the Australian technical colleges. They are a great success around the nation. They are a new innovation, and they are successful because of the quality of the facilities and the teaching staff and, very importantly, the close guidance and involvement of local industry, which of course knows the needs of industry better than anyone else. Two thousand students across Australia are already benefiting from being able to do their year 11, obtain their year 12 school certificate and start an apprenticeship at the same time and, having completed two years at an ATC, to have knocked off the first year of their apprenticeship. The Australian technical college in northern Tasmania, which I anticipate the member for Lyons will unequivocally support in his contribution, which I will remain in the chamber to listen to, is moving ahead in leaps and bounds—much to the contrary, I suspect, of what the Labor Party said would happen. The northern Tasmanian ATC was obstructed, molested and harassed by the Labor Party. They said it would never work. They said that students would not take up the option, that the courses would not be filled and that, in any event, students would not come away with an effective apprenticeship until something like 2012—just lies; just hampering a really good and useful initiative for young people. In fact, the opposite has occurred; there are only 150 places in an Australian technical college in its first year. In the northern Tasmanian example, over the Launceston and Burnie campuses, all the courses are full. They have been oversubscribed. That is a great testimony not only to the value of the initiative itself, the policies of the Howard government and the enterprise of former minister Brendan Nelson and the present Minister for Vocational and Further Education, Andrew Robb, in carrying these initiatives through but also to the local initiatives of our industries in northern Tasmania and to the students and the families who have taken their chances with it and are already finding that it is giving them wonderful skills and abilities with which to contribute to the local workforce. It is a great success and it ought to be celebrated. I have to say that, when I spoke to a group of students in my electorate two weeks ago, I was asked a fair question: ‘Why is it that the Howard government gives more money to private schools than to government schools?’ It was similar to the wording in this private member’s motion, which is completely prejudicial and based on a lie promoted by the Australian Education Union. It hides the fact that recognition is given to government schools but that equally this government supports choice. In fact, you will find, on average, a government school student—taking into account the total taxpayer contribution—receives double the amount which the average student in a non-government school receives. In concluding my remarks I simply again state on record that if we could have a legitimate debate on this issue, if we could have some honesty in politics and if we could have members in this place championing education, they would not say the things they do about the Howard government. (Time expired) 59 16:01:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —The honourable member for Bass fails to give any credence to the history of the Australian Labor Party support for trade training, which goes right back to the workers institutes that grew out of the railway workshops of Invermay that we would otherwise not have any knowledge of. This motion is to point out the sad state of affairs that exists in vocational education and training today. Despite some half-hearted attempts by the federal government to develop new training places, they have concentrated on bricks and mortar and everything that does not count instead of focusing on courses, encouraging students to take them up by providing incentives to young people and also modernising our trade training and our skill development. There are around one million Australian students in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 in government, Catholic and independent secondary schools who could benefit from federal Labor’s trades training centres in schools program. At the moment, these young people are not being given incentives or encouraged under current programs to continue their education or get into training. Many tertiary courses are just not suitable for young people and there is a need to start earlier to prepare them for the future. Federal Labor has come up with a real education revolution—one that would turbocharge the training and skills of the next generation of Australians. One of the biggest challenges we face in the future is to preserve our prosperity when the once in a lifetime mining boom comes to an end. We need to be able to fill the skills gap, a gap which is holding many of our enterprising firms back as they are unable to find the workers they need in order to grow. Not every Australian kid wants to go to university and this plan responds to their needs. We must ensure that these students are given the best possible education and training so they can develop the skills and education they need to secure the job they want in the future. That means providing real career paths to trades and apprenticeships, real choices and real opportunities. Many of the secondary schools in Tasmania, particularly those in Lyons, now do have some vocational education and training programs, but under the Howard government they have limited access to funds, therefore the programs are not as able to give the outcomes many would want and they have to travel to the cities for further education. Federal Labor’s trades training centres in schools program would provide between $500,000 and $1.5 million to secondary schools to build or upgrade trade workshops and information, communications and technology labs; metal or woodwork workshops; commercial kitchens; hairdressing facilities; automotive workshops; plumbing workshops; graphic design laboratories, computer laboratories; and facilities for other trades to meet the day-to-day needs of employers. This would allow students to train and pick up work in their communities, which is vital to alleviate the population changes in country areas and areas where skills are being lost. Federal Labor’s trades training centres in schools plan also includes a commitment to provide $84 million over four years to guarantee access to one day a week of on-the-job training for 20 weeks a year for all Vocational Education and Training in Schools students from years 9 to 12. It also includes a commitment to increase funding to the Enterprise and Career Education Foundation by $8 million over five years to improve linkages between schools and business and develop innovative, high-quality work and training programs for VET in Schools students. This government’s program is just not working—those students that have started with the private colleges are leaving again, as they have no access to transport and accommodation, which is not part of the package, and they are having to pay for courses just as they would at university but without the access to services. This sort of arrangement just cannot work in country areas. (Time expired) 57 16:06:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I must say that I was quite amazed when I read the motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I would like to recommend to him a reading of the Australian Constitution, which makes it fairly clear that education, particularly primary and secondary school level but also generally, is a responsibility of the states of Australia. Notwithstanding that, the Australian government are proud to have invested so much in education at all levels during our 11 years in office, to help to make sure that young people, who are Australia’s future, do have the opportunity to get one foot on the rung of the employment ladder. The Australian government are well aware that education is an absolutely vital means of achieving success, not only that of the individual but also that of the nation as a whole. I do not know whether the honourable member for Hindmarsh was actually joking when he moved this motion seeking to condemn the government for what he saw as ‘the failure of the government to invest in education and skills for Australia’s future’, because let us look at what this government has done by way of education initiatives. For example, there is the Higher Education Endowment Fund, with its revolutionary purpose of self-generating funds for expansion of facilities at our universities. That is in addition to the moneys being spent on Australian technical colleges and on primary and secondary schooling. It is pretty clear that this government—having repaid $92 billion of Labor debt and not having to pay the $8½ billion that the former government was paying—has been able to invest in desirable social objectives such as improved education funding and other areas which, under the Australian Constitution, have not historically been the responsibility of the Australian government. In five minutes it is impossible to cover the incredibly substantial program that the coalition government have in relation to education, so I will just have to cherry-pick a few items and mention them. When you look at what we have done since 1996 and what we are continuing to do, looking at the announcements in the most recent budget, one can see that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is probably playing party politics, which is understandable, given his marginal seat and given the election just a few months away. The reality is that there has not been any other government in Australia’s history that has given the investment in education at all levels that this government has. E0L Henry, Stuart, MP Mr Henry interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —The member for Hasluck is perfectly correct. There seems to be so much buck-passing with regard to the states—and we see here the member for Hindmarsh suggesting that the Australian government should fund this, should fund that and should fund something else. I must say that the more I hear about buck-passing the more attracted I am to the concept of the Australian government taking over the area of education in this country. That way we would be able to have a national curriculum. That would mean that, in a situation where people are increasingly mobile, moving from one part of the country to the other— BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —You want health and education? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lyons! 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —particularly, my friend, from your area of Tasmania to the Sunshine Coast— BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —You want health and education. You are a centralist. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is risking his health! 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —Kids lose time because of the different educational curricula at different institutions. If we were able to have this national standard, a standardised curriculum, obviously students would be much better off. But I said I was going to mention just a few initiatives. We have the $3 billion invested in vocational education and training, including a $1,000 payment to first- and second-year apprentices who are under 30 years of age, to assist in addressing the demand for more trades men and women. There is a $500 training voucher to assist apprentices to finish their course. There is assistance for those studying diploma and advanced diploma courses. These announcements followed the launch of some 25 technical colleges, many of which have now been established and are up and running and doing very well. One valid point that the member for Hindmarsh did make was that there are many people who do not want to go to university and Australia’s desperate need has been in the area of trade training. This government has got the runs on the board and is continuing to get the runs on the board with that, and we have a plan for the future. We are positively achieving improved outcomes in those particular areas. We have a proud record of spending right across the education sphere—primary, secondary and tertiary, both university and non-university sectors. I think the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh is unconvincing. He has come into the chamber and suggested that the government ought to be criticised when, in reality, we should be praised. (Time expired) 59 16:11:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Members on both sides of this House were highly amused some months ago when the member for Bass, who spoke earlier, imagined that he had been made a knight. However, today we see he has imagined what is actually in the motion before the House. I point out to him that there is no mention whatsoever of the continuing debate between private and public education; it was not mentioned at all. I also turn to another part of his contribution, where he talked about the great achievement of this coalition being to precipitate some comment from Labor with regard to the question of TAFE education. Quite frankly, this answers a question I have had in recent weeks, because I commissioned some work from the Parliamentary Library with regard to the educational performance of this country compared to other OECD countries, and the figures are alarming. Today the member for Bass has given us the answer as to why they are so poor and why this government’s performance is so dreadful. It is actually, as he said, the great achievement of precipitating debate by us. Let us go through some of those OECD indicators. With regard to the expenditure on tertiary education, this country is now ranked only seventh among the 22 OECD countries. The proportion of GDP spent has declined from 1.7 per cent in 1995 to 1.5 per cent today. With regard to what households pay for their education in this country, in 2003, the latest figures available, 19.6 per cent of education expenditure was borne by the household sector. That had risen from 13.7 per cent in 1995. The situation today is that, of the 22 OECD countries, only households in Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States pay more than Australian households for their education. It does not end there. In 2002, the most recent figures available, Australia’s investment in knowledge was 4.1 per cent of GDP; in the league of OECD countries, Australia came ninth out of 22. With regard to expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, Australia’s total expenditure is less than most other OECD countries. It ranks 18th on that indicator, out of the 22 countries. As I noted, this is an alarming situation, as shown by some of these figures, which are on the public record and which are OECD comparisons. They are reputable, they are credible and they are acknowledged. The situation is that expenditure on education is not only poor; it has seriously deteriorated. And it is not only in that information that we see such comments. In a recent paper, John Edwards remarked: The decline in Australian export performance in the years since 2000 has been quite unexpected. For the financial year 2001-02 the Commonwealth Treasury forecast export volumes would increase 5 per cent. They fell by 1 per cent. The following year it forecast an increase of 6 per cent. They again fell, this time by 0.5 per cent. But as part of his solution he, like most people, homes in on one of the most important issues. He calls for: … programs in education, training and retraining that increase the supply of skilled workers, and programs that support the basic science, engineering and research and development that no single business can make commercially viable. And I should note that another OECD indicator indicates the alarming performance of this country with regard to maths and science graduates. So even when we are talking about our trade situation, the renowned economist John Edwards says that one of the crucial factors that is driving our situation backwards is this government’s failure—this country’s failure—on training. A member on the government benches had the effrontery to say that Labor is supposedly talking about these matters for the first time. This week the government will put before the parliament the Social Security Amendment (Apprenticeship Wage Top-Up for Australian Apprentices) Bill 2007, which once again is just a reaction to Labor Party policies over the last year or so. They are catching up; they have decided they had better do something about it. It may not go as far as Labor went, but it is a last-minute gesture. I recently had the benefit of meeting some TAFE teachers. They pointed to alarming changes such as the government cuts in expenditure in 1996-97; the 16.3 per cent decrease in per unit funding from 1997 to 2001, when there was growth in enrolments; and the way in which this government is using TAFE funding to compel independent institutions to accept its Work Choices changes. We have a member on the government benches who is saying it is a state matter, but we have a federal government that is using its funding proposals to compel institutions to accept its Work Choices changes. We have a classic situation of failure. We are not looking at what the Labor Party says; we are looking at what this country does in comparison to its major competitors—the advanced developed countries. We have failed on education, and that is acknowledged in the statistics. Labor’s recent measure to initiate training opportunities in high schools in this country—which at the same time will do something about the deplorable retention rates by raising them from 75 per cent to 90 per cent—is a step in the right direction. (Time expired) 60 16:16:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —The principle of this motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh is very important to Australia, but in reality it demonstrates the great hypocrisy of the Labor Party and its members. It was Labor policy that promoted university education above all else, at the expense of trade training. It was under a Labor government that we saw apprenticeship numbers decline from 151,000 in 1991 to 122,600 by 1993. It was under Labor that we saw teenage unemployment at record highs of 34.5 per cent, because there were no opportunities for either education or employment. In the early nineties the opportunity of finding an apprenticeship was almost as rare as finding a French antique clock on the mantelpiece of the average Australian home. The country was in recession, as I am sure members opposite will remember. As we were all being reminded by Labor’s then leader, it was ‘the recession we had to have’. Labor has turned education in Western Australia into a complete disaster, with a huge shortage of teachers and total confusion among teachers and parents over the introduction of outcomes based education. In fact, it is reported in today’s West Australian that teachers of OBE English say they are still battling to make sense of a chaotic system that is changing from one week to the next. That is Labor on education. It is one thing to ensure that all students stay at school until they complete year 12, but it is quite another thing to ensure that we create a learning environment that provides positive outcomes for these young people. The Department of Education and Training in WA have struggled for over 10 years to effectively introduce vocational pathways in schools. They are restricted by the inability to introduce school based apprenticeships, by a union movement that is strongly opposed to this and by Western Australia’s Industrial Training Act, which is prescriptive and only allows for time-served apprenticeships. Ensuring that young adults have every opportunity to find their place in the world of work—with skills, knowledge and opportunity—has been my driving motivation since well before I decided to seek a career in parliament. Indeed, back in 1989 I embarked on a project to create one of the very first industry based training centres in Australia. With the support of the Master Plumbers Association and the Master Painters Association, in Western Australia we ultimately succeeded in that endeavour. The initial training focus was on youth at risk and the long-term unemployed, and then we focused on apprenticeship training and school-to-work vocational programs. So I have firsthand knowledge of the damage Labor did to our young people and those looking for employment at that time. With the election of the Howard government in 1996, things started to change dramatically for the better—not only for this country and the economy but also for the education and training prospects of our young adults. In fact, training opportunities for 15- to 24-year-olds have increased dramatically, with the number of Australian Apprenticeship commencements in 2006 up by a massive 154 per cent since 1996. In 1996 there were fewer than 155,000 apprentices in training across the country, compared to over 400, 000 apprentices in training today. Participation rates have also increased significantly at school and in post-school education and training over the past 11 years. The year 12 retention rate has gone from 71.3 per cent to 75.3 per cent. Over the same period the number of 15- to 19-year-olds in school or full-time education has increased from 64 per cent to 68 per cent. The percentage of young people aged 25 to 29 with at least a certificate III qualification has increased to 56 per cent—up by 16 percentage points since 1996. In the lead-up to the last federal election the Howard government made a commitment to establish 24 Australian technical colleges across Australia to assist in the establishment of school based apprenticeships and to provide an effective school based model for the delivery of vocational training with industry and employers. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—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 for Hasluck will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. 61 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 62 62 16:21:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —I grieve tonight for young children in disadvantaged communities around Australia. This is a blight on our society. It is a matter on which I have spoken a number of times since coming into the parliament in 1998, and I have been involved in a parliamentary group called Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse. Nevertheless, the small efforts that we make in trying to bring this terrible problem into greater public focus do not seem to have had much effect. Not that I think a few politicians talking about these problems of themselves would have a big effect, but I have to report that the figures on child abuse are getting worse. In 1999-2000 the total number of substantiated cases of child abuse was just under 25,000. In 2005-06 it was almost 56,000, more than double in just a very short period. I readily acknowledge that one explanation for that incredible leap in the number of substantiated cases of child abuse is greater community awareness and a more rigorous notification system. It is good that there is a higher level of community awareness of the problem, but the problem is getting worse. We hear of terrible cases of child abuse, of neglect, of torture and of sexual abuse in this country. Of course, that tends to get a little bit more notoriety in Indigenous communities, but I think that is a bit of a cop-out because this problem is widespread across Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. It is all very sanctimonious for us to frown upon what happens in Indigenous communities, and we should, but that is no excuse for what happens in non-Indigenous communities in disadvantaged parts of Australia. The work of Tony Vinson and others confirms that disadvantage is entrenched in communities around our country. Those communities which were the most disadvantaged 20 years ago remain the most disadvantaged today. We as policy makers and parliamentarians must ask why it is so difficult to break that cycle of despair, of dysfunctionality and of abuse. We have not enjoyed success in doing that. We in this country have now had about 16 years of sustained economic growth. We live in times of great prosperity—unprecedented prosperity—yet there are so many young children who are growing up in disadvantaged, violent and dysfunctional households. Why is it that people of goodwill—and most parliamentarians are disposed that way—have had so little success? Obviously, it is a problem at the state level. There have been any number of inquiries conducted in various states on child abuse and neglect. But it is also a federal responsibility. I am always heartened when Labor, my party, comes forward with programs for early childhood development. One of the more recent programs is that of making preschool universally available. That is a very important initiative and I hope that the coalition will join with us in that endeavour. I recall the incoming Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, announcing that she wanted a compulsory preschool year but, sadly, that announcement did not seem to be followed up by any action. If there is action going on behind the scenes, that is fine. I do not need to know about it at this stage, but I surely hope that there are real efforts going into improving the availability of preschool for all four-year-olds. Estimates suggest that there are about 105,000 four-year-olds who miss out on a preschool education, and it is absolutely clear that the great majority of those are from disadvantaged communities. There is always debate on the sorts of programs which are effective and those which are less effective, dating back to the Perry preschool program in the United States and the various Headstart programs. But I thought it would be opportune to share one with the parliament today, and that is an initiative of the Blair government called the Nurse Family Partnership program. Under this partnership, from a very early period—and by ‘early’ I mean after about 14 weeks from becoming pregnant—at risk mothers, or expecting mothers, are visited weekly by a midwife or a health visitor from that time of the child being 14 weeks in the womb all the way through until the child turns two. The idea is to help first time mothers bond with their babies and develop their parenting skills and to provide practical help to quit smoking and drug use, both of which are big risk factors for subsequent disadvantage and health problems in the children. I draw the attention of the parliament to this pilot program because it is the sort of program that I think we ought to be contemplating here in Australia. It is not the first time a measure such as this has been tried. The Nurse Family Partnership program of the Blair government was developed following a similar trial in the United States— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Blair should know that standing order 94A dismisses him from the parliament for an hour. He is in gross disorder and risks being named. The member for Blair then left the chamber 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —The Nurse Family Partnership showed positive results with improved IQ skills and language development, lower levels of abuse and neglect, improved health for young mothers and improved job prospects. So there seems to be some merit in the United States trials. Three were conducted: in 1977, 1987 and 1994. They have produced strong evidence, consistently showing the scheme led to improved health of mother and baby, fewer childhood injuries and a greater readiness for school so that, hopefully, children can go into that universal preschool year here in Australia. I quote three figures: a 48 per cent reduction in child abuse and neglect, a 59 per cent reduction in arrests and a 90 per cent reduction in the number of people receiving supervision orders. That is the US experience. In the UK there are just 1,000 babies, and the program costs £7 million. It is a modest start, but one that we should take a very great interest in. If we think of this purely as a social problem, I guess that is fine; but it is an economic problem too. Indeed the Nobel laureate economist James Heckman started off on other areas of endeavour but came to the conclusion that the most important contribution that policymakers could make, the greatest investment that they could make, was in the very early years of early childhood development. So it is not so much about building railways and ports, as important as those things are, but rather making a real investment in young people in those very early years. That produces spectacular returns, and importantly they are not just returns for the child or the mother but returns for society as a whole. In fact about 80 per cent of the returns from the Perry preschool program accrued to society as a whole and 20 per cent to those who are direct beneficiaries. Those returns included greater employability, less criminality, less abuse and obviously less incarceration, which is a very expensive approach. So I commend this program, the Blair program, to the parliament tonight. I hope, through the small contribution that I have been able to make here tonight in grieving for the children, that I have done just a little bit more to highlight the terrible problem of child abuse and neglect in this country. Hopefully we can do a little bit more to break that cycle of despair and misery that afflicts so many young people in our country. 64 64 16:31:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —Today I wish to raise an issue that is rapidly becoming one of great frustration for parents and schoolchildren in my electorate of Canning—that is, parents getting their young children to and from school safely and reliably on a school bus. The school bus issue has not simply been limited to one school or service in Canning. Shortly I will outline some specific areas where services are either nonexistent or downright inadequate. The state Labor government’s noncommittal and threatening attitude towards schoolchildren throughout the region has become abundantly apparent—an attitude that Premier Alan Carpenter’s ministry seems unwilling to change. Students in the area should be entitled to the same services as other Western Australian schoolchildren—and as taxpayers their parents have earnt it. In the Peel region there have been significant problems with securing dedicated school bus services and ensuring that, where there is a school bus operating, children are allowed on it. This is an area to which families are moving each week. With a growth rate of 4.6 per cent, Mandurah is among the top five regional growth areas in Australia. The population is 95,000 and rising. This has bought with it dramatic increases in enrolments at local schools. In fact in recent months community discussion has put the issue of building another high school back on the agenda. I have been approached by many of my constituents, parents of primary schoolchildren who have, for the last 18 months, been seeking a dedicated orange school bus service for the Dawesville Catholic Primary School, a school in Mandurah’s southern suburbs. Without a suitable school bus service running to the Catholic primary school, and with a government school just up the road, traffic congestion around the schools at drop-off and pick-up is not only time consuming but also incredibly dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. There are more than 750 students between these two schools and there are at least 675 vehicles a day using Ocean Road, with several of these being heavy vehicles. I have visited the school in the afternoon, at school’s end, and have seen firsthand that the traffic in the area is incredibly dangerous for young students. I have met with the principal of the Catholic primary school, Steve Dowie, and parents, who have led a strong campaign spearheaded by Merome Lawson and Barbara Lebreton to obtain a suitable bus after there were numerous expressions of interest. I have been presented with a petition containing more than 500 signatures calling for improved bus transport services to the school area. This is a very strong reflection that a school bus is needed and would be used. The token gesture by the state’s Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan, was a single public bus service for students living north of the Dawesville Cut as far as Halls Head and those living south to Lake Clifton. There have been some cases of students using that service being forced to see inappropriate behaviour by other public patrons on the bus. In any case the service is completely incompatible with school hours, having children arriving at school before 8 am and with no way of getting home in the afternoon. It is simply not good enough. Not only does this put additional pressure on teachers, who are forced to be responsible for these children from early in the morning, but also young students are simply left stranded in the afternoon. My state government colleagues, the member for Dawesville, Dr Kim Hames, and the member for Murray, Mr Murray Cowper, joined me for a meeting with senior officials of the Public Transport Authority recently to discuss the matter and urge the minister to provide an orange school bus service to the area. It was abundantly clear at that meeting that there was simply no room for negotiation on the part of the PTA or Minister MacTiernan’s office. My calls for improved services, and those of my colleagues, were simply met with a flat, ‘No, and the reason is that it’s too expensive.’ Now would be a good time to point out that the state Treasurer, Mr Eric Ripper, handed down his budget—which has been described as a pedestrian and unimaginative budget—in the same week as the federal budget. As the government has a surplus of $2 billion, parents of the Peel region should rightly find it very hard to accept that the government cannot afford one more school bus. It is no secret that they are flush with cash. It is not unreasonable to expect that a few dollars go back into basic community services such as a school bus service to get kids to and from school safely each day. The Peel region has certainly contributed to the government’s surplus through millions and millions of dollars of stamp duty and land tax, particularly on houses and land in the area. In response to my colleagues and I drawing attention to the issue and the strong campaign led by the P&C, the minister grandstanded in March. She said that Dawesville would gain an additional bus route and more frequent services as a result of the Perth-Mandurah railway opening in July this year, giving parents a glimmer of hope for the third term. She said, and I quote:  ... there will be more frequent services including special morning and afternoon deviations for students attending the Dawesville schools ... The minister’s comments can only be seen as a cynical and cruel hoax on two fronts. Firstly, it should come as no surprise to Western Australian taxpayers that, only weeks after declaring that new services would be in place when the long-awaited railway line opened, the minister has confirmed that the Mandurah railway line is running months behind schedule. This has shattered the hopes of Dawesville parents of having safe and reliable school transportation in time for the third term. Secondly, the more frequent services the minister proclaimed were in fact already planned. They are not dedicated school bus services but merely additional public routes to service the new Mandurah Transit Station. In any case, upon examining the proposed deviations to the service for those students attending Dawesville schools, parents have been shunted with the proposed routes not deviating into Pleasant Grove. This affects several families living in that area. In order for the Pleasant Grove children to catch the school bus they would have to cross a four-lane highway and dodge traffic doing 90 kilometres an hour. This is not just a road; it is a major highway linking Perth to the south-west of Western Australia with heavy traffic and haulage vehicles. The safety of students should be the foremost priority now, not when the minister finally finishes her railway. Is it going to take a tragic accident before the minister will get a proper school bus on the road? The issue is not simply one of securing new services but in fact of ensuring current orange school bus services—as the state government has revealed plans to withdraw existing school bus services over the next five years and charge some parents an interim fare of 50c. In late March, in a scene that can only be described as farcical, several children with some as young as three years old were refused access to their regular school bus from Furnissdale. The bus simply shut its doors on the young children, some of whom had been catching the same bus for more than five years. More than 20 families in the Furnissdale, Barragup and Murray River areas were protesting about the plans to scrap the service by not paying the 50c fare. The PTA threatened to call in the Department for Community Development and the police if the parents delivered their children to the bus stop, and if the children attempted to catch the bus. Targeting innocent children should never be an option. A day before the incident children were sent home with an unaddressed note to their parents simply stating that their children would have to find their own way to school. The member for Murray described the scene as a total abuse of power and a Mexican stand-off. Government authorities intimidating young children and using them to achieve a means is the lowest of lows. On that day children were left sitting on the side of the road, some in tears, for more than an hour until the PTA realised the embarrassment of the situation and, with the local media on the spot, called the bus back to collect the children. A similar situation ensued the following morning with PTA officials standing guard as the regular school bus simply drove past the students standing at the bus stop. After two hours of being stranded it was discovered that the school bus did return to the site where the children were left, only to hide around the corner. When questioned about whether the bus was awaiting instruction from PTA officials on site, the bus driver said, ‘Yes.’ Once again the PTA conceded and agreed to take the children to school. For the parents of the area, the issue is not one of money but of principle. If the parents pay the 50c fee they are essentially endorsing the government’s plans to phase out the service altogether. With their petitions, protests and refusals by the PTA to meet with them, the parents have been left with no option but to take a stand. A parent, Craig Waterman, whose six children catch the Furnissdale service, said that this is a lot deeper than paying 50c. It is about them getting rid of the school bus services altogether. Properties in this area will lose tens of thousands of dollars if there is no school bus service for residents. For dual-income parents this bus service is the only way their children can get to school. There will also be major environmental impacts from the new cars that will be put on the roads to make up for the loss of the buses. In another instance the school bus service for students living in Serpentine Jarrahdale and attending Pinjarra Senior High School has been threatened with cancellation, with the PTA suggesting the option of students moving school altogether to the Armadale Senior High School. This is another completely ludicrous statement by the PTA with it being, in most cases, detrimental to their education for students to relocate whilst undertaking their TEE. There was also some doubt initially as to whether there would be a school bus service available to more than 100 students living in Byford and travelling to the Serpentine Jarrahdale Grammar School in Mundijong. However, I am pleased to say that despite the many other shortcomings at least this one issue has been resolved thanks to Tony Simpson, the member for Serpentine Jarrahdale. Overall, the unavailability of school bus services and the cancellation of existing services has an abundance of repercussions on the local community. Foremost, the safety of young children is at stake. Currently students are battling to cross busy roads, parents are forced to drive their children at peak periods in congested suburban-like streets and, as I have outlined for Furnissdale, the PTA is simply not afraid to leave children on the side of the road, which is a disgrace. As Mr Waterman pointed out there is the environmental impact of having more cars on the road et cetera. More cars on the road means not only heavier traffic but also increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Parents are also experiencing unnecessary stress over a matter that should never have come to an issue. Many families, particularly the dual-income families, are forced to adjust their working hours or in some cases resign altogether in order to make drop-offs and pick-ups. All this while Minister MacTiernan and the PTA turn a blind eye, simply ignoring the issue, ignoring the safety of our children and ignoring the very loud calls of parents who are fed up with the Carpenter government’s disinterest and disgraceful scare tactics. Parents and children of Canning deserve much better. (Time expired) 67 67 16:41:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I recently met the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association, AFFCRA. Its key objectives are to advocate on behalf of its members and to lobby for reform of credit and bankruptcy laws. Lately AFFCRA has also played a key role in raising professional standards of the industry by lobbying for a national accreditation scheme for financial counsellors, better data collection, training and professional development. My appreciation of their efforts to help disadvantaged clients has been reinforced. Whilst I have been generally aware of the role of counsellors, a particularly poignant local case has driven this home more clearly. A constituent is about to lose her home due to her inability to comprehend the complexity of the financial products that she has signed up to over two decades. She initially purchased a home for $78,000 in 1987. Today she owes lenders a total of $470,000. The woman is a single parent with little prospect of finding employment that will come even close to meeting a fraction of her loan repayments. Her debts began to pile up after the breakdown of her marriage and subsequent numerous attempts to refinance. Her tale indicates poor comprehension of debt matters and even poorer lending practices by numerous institutions that were only too happy to lend to her at inflated interest rates. My constituent and her son will be evicted from her house in a matter of days. I refer to this matter as I believe that if she had access to appropriate financial counselling many of her problems would simply not exist. Sadly, in all her years of poor financial management she simply never came across an independent financial counsellor nor had she ever been referred to one. In November 2005 the ANZ publication ‘Understanding Personal Debt and Financial Difficulty in Australia’ reported on a qualitative survey of consumers who had self-identified as being in financial hardship. The resulting report noted: For people who saw a financial counsellor, it was unanimously a positive empowering experience for them, albeit at a negative point in their life. In addition, the majority stated it had changed the way they viewed their finances and changed their financial behaviours. The current sad state of affairs comes after more than a decade of defunding of financial counselling services by the Howard government. Ironically whilst the Howard government has been totally missing in action over issues of consumer protection, the out-of-control personal debt crisis has meant that there has never been a more urgent need for more qualified financial counsellors. Recent press reports in Sydney note that suburbs with a very high mortgage foreclosure rate are amongst the 10 or so cited in my electorate, so it is a very big local issue. The importance of financial counselling was best summed up in a paper delivered by David Tennant. He said: Despite the existence of well intentioned credit laws and efforts to educate people in relation to good lending and borrowing practices, it is inevitable that people will encounter financial difficulty through no fault of their own. In such circumstances, financial counselling intervention can be effective in assisting people to respond positively to their immediate financial problem and to help them positively plan and manage their financial affairs into the medium and longer term. Financial counselling Australian-style, with the clients’ needs as the central, obvious focus, is in marked contrast to the models employed in North America and the UK. There the counselling is tied to repayment of debts. Indeed, in North America, credit counsellors not only facilitate the construction of debt repayment agreements, but are resourced directly from the funds collected from consumer debtors. Consumer debtors actually pay for counselling which is often at five minutes to midnight and not in their interests. To this end, I refer to a recent Victorian Government report: A free financial counselling service funded by government … arguably ensures independence and more appropriate advice. Further, through funding arrangements, government can enhance and monitor the standard of service being provided. The public interest is clearly served by maintaining, enhancing and strengthening the current system. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to be the case. We are slowly heading down the American path of user-pays. Government intervention is overdue to stop this trend. In conclusion, I note that AFCCRA are playing a key role in making sure that policy makers are hearing this. I now turn to events on the weekend in the electorate adjacent to mine, the electorate of Parramatta. There a ceremony was held to mark Sorry Day 2007. I note that two events were held: one was the customary weekend event at this time of year, and there I was very moved by the contribution of Cleonie Quayle, a local resident who cited two stories from the stolen generation report. The first story concerned the seizure of grandchildren from an obviously elderly Australian and recounted his situation, dying of malnutrition, bedsores and grieving because he had been deprived of his immediate family. The other story she recounted was of a woman’s aunt whose children were taken from her. Those children fell victim to sexual abuse and eventually rape. I think the examples she gave were very telling. She said that the girl in the stolen generation report talked of having no-one to speak to about it, no family to discuss these matters with, and no-one to give her any empathy and feeling, because she had no connection with her family when she was raped in these institutions. I note that Parramatta council was, I think, the first council in Sydney to declare itself, over a decade ago, as in accord with declarations of being sorry for these events. I note the activity of local Aboriginals—Doug Desjardines, Marcia Donovan and Bruce Gale. I note the activity of Councillor Phil Russo, who, of course, is not of Aboriginal extraction but has been active on the consultation committee. David Williams is not on that consultation committee but he has recently had notoriety in Sydney for talking about the condition of black servicemen in the wars and the way in which their history—and, more particularly, discrimination against them—has not really been articulated. Coincidentally, today, the Sydney Morning Herald spoke of the Lovett family and of their not being granted land as ex-servicemen like any other Australian servicemen. It was interesting at the ceremony. I started talking to a bloke in the mob at the function, Mr N.G. Bull, an Anglo-Saxon Australian, quite advanced in age. He had grown up in the area. I started talking to him there and—this is probably a part of why he was there—he recounted two experiences of his in Australia with regard to Aboriginal people. He recounted that, in one country town where he was at the time, the Australian singer Jimmy Little, who was on tour there—who, just by coincidence, from my recollection, also comes from Granville in my electorate—had his bags thrown out of a hotel. He also told me—as I say, unsolicited—another experience of his own. He often travelled Australia and he once gave a lift in his car to an Aboriginal in Queensland in the late sixties. As they came to this country town in Queensland, the Aboriginal bloke offered him some money for a meal for giving him the lift. And Mr Bull asked him, ‘Why are you giving me the money? Why don’t you just come inside?’ He replied, ‘I won’t be able to go into a cafe to eat. That is just money as thanks to you.’ Also that day there was a second ceremony, which is not an annual event. That was at Lake Parramatta where a memorial was put up to commemorate the fact that 10 years ago Parramatta was, as I understand it, the first council in Sydney to associate itself with a Sorry Day campaign. A memorial was put up there notifying people of that history. A tree planting was undertaken by Cleonie Quayle and Linda McDonald, who are also part of the local consultation committee. I note these events where Parramatta has been a forerunner. Ironically, the adjacent Auburn Council was the last council in Sydney to fly the Aboriginal flag. It is quite ironic that they are next door to each other. But, in the interim, Auburn has made up for a lot of lost time and certainly has major activities around these events. Finally, the other council in my electorate, Holroyd, runs a very big NAIDOC week every year. It is quite a big event and attracts people from surrounding suburbs. Whilst the whole council has been unified around this and has been especially active, I would have to say that Councillor Malcolm Tulloch has had a particular interest in Aboriginal affairs and has driven this matter home. I guess there is more interest in this in our region because, up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this area was still semirural. In the late 19th century the major industries in the Granville-Guildford area were charcoal and timber-getting. And, in a local history which came to light from the state library—where it had been in their archives, unlooked-at for 100 years or so—a local shopkeeper recounted seeing the last dwindling Aboriginals drifting down Parramatta Road or, as it was then called, Sydney Road, and expressed the remorse of local residents at the declining condition of Aboriginal Australians at the beginning of the 20th century. 69 69 16:51:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —In February of this year, a young constituent of mine, Ms Annabel Catt, died as a result of taking a drug called PMA at a concert called ‘Good vibrations’. Only a very small number of weeks ago, Annabel’s brother Antony gave a very moving address to the students at Narrabeen Sports High School where Annabel went to school, where she was a lovely dancer. He made this address in such compelling terms that I want it to be known as a message to many young people. Accordingly, I am going to read Antony’s speech into the Hansard record. Antony addressed the assembly at Narrabeen Sports High and talked to young people to whom this message is very relevant. He said: Good morning. My name is Antony Catt and Annabel Catt was my little sister. On Sunday the 18th of February, just after six am, I was lying in my bed telling myself to get up. I’d moved to Canberra three weeks prior and had decided the night before that I would drive to the South Coast and go surfing. When my phone rang I didn’t think anything of it. My girlfriend was on holidays in the US and I just thought that it was her. When I picked up the phone there was a stranger on the line. His voice was shaky and he told me that he was from the intensive care unit at Mona Vale Hospital. It was obvious that he had really bad news because he couldn’t find the words to say what it was he had rung to tell me. I told him to just give it to me but instead he put Dad on the phone. Dad told me that Annabel had taken ecstasy and that she was gone. He then passed the phone on to Mum who offered words of comfort. I told both my parents that I loved them and they said how much they loved me. The phone call was very brief; none of us really knew what to say. That is how this nightmare began. Some people will always think poorly of Annabel because of the manner in which she died but defending Annabel isn’t why I am here today. Annabel had everything to live for and those that knew Annabel well will always remember a happy person, beautiful in every way, and that is what is important to me. I am here to tell you about the tragic death of my little sister to illustrate the very real dangers of drug use, in the hope that what happened to her, doesn’t happen to you. On the 17th of February Annabel went to the Good Vibrations music festival with her best friends. I want to pause at this moment to let you know that my family is very close to Annabel’s friends and we bear no grudge toward them. They loved her and she loved them. They are devastated just like us. This is what Annabel took the day before she died—a capsule. It looks harmless enough doesn’t it?— and he showed a capsule— I know what’s in it, but do you? Annabel didn’t know what was in the capsule that she took at Good Vibrations either. She thought that it was ecstasy. It wasn’t—it was the far more toxic substance PMA. Street names for PMA include red Mitsubishi, Dr Death, red death, red killer and death. Because of its lethal reputation, PMA generally isn’t a sought after drug. Despite this, drug manufacturers sometimes pass PMA off as ecstasy because the chemicals that go into ecstasy are harder to obtain. The great worry with PMA is that when it kills, it usually kills in clusters. I am extremely grateful that nobody else has died as a result of taking a capsule from the same batch as Annabel. After Good Vibrations Annabel went to a friend’s house to stay the night. Annabel and her best friend had a temperature and were acting a little weird—but they had taken what they thought was ecstasy; these were not abnormal symptoms. Sometime after four in the morning, Annabel’s friend was awoken by Annabel suffering violent fits. An ambulance was called but by the time it got there my little sister was effectively dead. Annabel’s temperature was so high that her body just couldn’t cope anymore. To put it bluntly, this tiny little capsule had cooked and destroyed Annabel’s body from the inside out. Like all of our family, Annabel was on the organ donor register. We would have been pleased if every part of Annabel’s beautiful body could have been used to save the life of another human being. Despite this, there was only one part of Annabel that the doctors could use to help someone else—the corneas in her eyes have restored the sight of two people. Her corneas could only be used because they do not receive any of the body’s blood flow. Every other part of her body had been so destroyed by the drug rushing through her system that it was useless to anyone else. It’s horrible and it’s extremely scary, but this is perhaps the best example of how much damage this little capsule can do to your body. I can just imagine what was going through Annabel’s mind when she took the capsule that killed her. She would have realised it was dangerous, but she wouldn’t have believed that of all the people who took ecstasy that day, that she was holding the capsule with the deadly dose of poison. The people who made the capsule that killed Annabel knew how deadly it was but they didn’t care; they just wanted to make a quick buck, even if it killed someone. That’s the thing with these types of drugs, you have no idea what’s really in them and there is no way you can trust the people making or supplying them, no matter who they are. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was the first, second or hundredth time Annabel took ecstasy, the result would be the same, she would be dead. Annabel’s death demonstrates that you can experiment with drugs just once and end up in a coffin. What happened to Annabel could happen to anyone. While Annabel’s death proves how easily drugs can kill, it would be dishonest of me to stand here and try to convince you that instant death is a common result of taking ecstasy, I’m not. People do die from taking ecstasy, but it wasn’t ecstasy that killed Annabel—it was the similar yet far more toxic PMA; but don’t let this make you think that ecstasy use is safe. The long-term effects of ecstasy and other drugs are almost as frightening as what happened to Annabel I’m twenty-five now and have been around long enough to see the long-term effects of drug use on people my age. I have seen physical sickness, mental illness, accidental death and suicide. It’s terrifying, it’s real and I’m not exaggerating—these are the consequences of frequent drug use. What I really want you to take away from this point is that most people I know who have suffered the long-term effects of drug use started their journey at your age, experimenting with friends. Some stopped, but others were always looking for a new rush and searched for it over time by moving from one drug to the next. You might be one of those people. If you are, I am asking you to seriously think about the path you are taking, because you’re not going to have any fun if you wind up debilitated, institutionalised or in a coffin. It is sad fact that no matter how well the dangers are known, people will continue to use drugs. If you or any of your friends ever take drugs and suspect that something is going wrong, please, get help. Ambulance officers are only interested in saving your life; they won’t call the police and they won’t get you into trouble. Annabel’s friends did call an ambulance but unfortunately for everyone, she couldn’t be saved. Annabel had also taken the so-called precautions with ecstasy use the day before she died. The toxicology report showed that she had no alcohol in her system and she had drunk plenty of water throughout the day. Annabel’s death really demonstrates that no matter how much care is exercised, using drugs is never safe. You’ll make up your own mind about drug-use but there is one last thing that I want to emphasise. Annabel was a very special person, she was very much loved and she is immensely missed. You too are very special; you too are loved and if you too departed today, you would be grieved in exactly the same way as we grieve for Annabel. If you ever consider taking drugs I urge you, think about what has happened to Annabel, think about what has happened to those who are dependent on drugs and think about what impact their death or dependency has had on their loved ones. Think about whether you want to be dead or dependent. Then ask yourself, is this really worth the risk? Thank you for listening. Antony and his family are in the chamber today. They love Annabel and miss her greatly. This was the testimony of one young man to his sister. He did not want her passing to be one that lessons cannot be learnt from. We have named the dance studio at Narrabeen Sports High School after her. The students who enjoy dance will remember that the life of a young girl who had much to live for was lost in the dreadful business of illicit drugs. 71 71 17:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I am sure all members would want to note the contribution just made by the member for Mackellar in this grievance debate. I rise on quite a different matter. I rise to speak on the position that this parliament is now in: dealing with the government’s proposed changes to the Work Choices legislation. I rise today to grieve for the loss of fairness in our workplaces and the loss of standards displayed by this government when it comes to government advertising and parliamentary process. In the past month we have seen some breathtaking arrogance in the actions of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and their government. Today has come pretty close to taking the cake in what has been a month of arrogance. We have seen Australian newspapers, having been briefed by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, report on what will be in the bill that finally comes to this parliament today. Perhaps most arrogantly of all, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wrote an opinion piece in the Melbourne Age calling on people to fairly assess his legislation. Frankly, if we are to fairly assess his legislation, do you think we might be able to see it at some point? Do you think the minister might reflect on whether it is proper to brief the media about matters that are coming to parliament before the bill is tabled in parliament itself? More than anything else, the past month has not been about a proper parliamentary process and it has not been about changes in the law; it has been about an excuse for an advertising campaign. The Howard government has always been very keen on advertising, particularly around election time. No-one should forget the extraordinary $55 million campaign in 2005, when the Howard government made two very important points on our TV screens: firstly, that they had new laws called Work Choices which were being introduced and, secondly, that there were award conditions supposedly under threat that were to be protected by law. I have retrieved one of the Work Choices advertisements, showing the sorts of branding and features that we used to see at that time from the Howard government. The interesting thing when you look at this pamphlet is that today not one word of it is true. It has the label ‘Work Choices’ on it. That was the title of the government’s bill, but we know the government’s pollsters have said to it that it should no longer say the words ‘Work Choices’. Workers in the call centre who take information calls have been told to no longer say ‘Work Choices’. Last week we saw the farce in parliament where the Prime Minister, minute after minute, talked about his industrial relations laws but would no longer say the words ‘Work Choices’. We see that this advertisement claims that it is going to be ‘a simpler, fairer, national workplace relations system for Australia’. It is not simpler. It is more complex than anything that has gone before. It is not fairer, because it has hurt Australian working families. It is not national, because the Howard government has been unable to come to any arrangements with state Labor governments to make it truly national. The biggest untruth of all is the suggestion that there are award conditions that would be protected by law. We know that, after giving Australians that $55 million pledge that there would be award conditions protected by law, leaked information showed that, for example, 76 per cent of workers on Australian workplace agreements lost shiftwork loadings, 70 per cent lost incentive payments and bonuses and, most startlingly of all, 45 per cent lost every condition that Mr Howard told them would be protected by law. Let us look at the chronology of the past month and at what has brought the bill that we will see later today to the parliament. The chronology shows very clearly that this whole effort has been based on politics and PR first and policy and parliamentary process last. Let us go through the dates. On 3 April the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications approved Open Mind Research Group, a pollster and market research company, to undertake workplace relations research. On 24 April the draft report was received from Open Mind Research Group. We presume it said, ‘Don’t say Work Choices.’ We presume it said, ‘Pretend you’re changing the laws.’ On 4 May the government announced changes to the Work Choices laws. The Prime Minister’s office contacted the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to tell them to place what they refer to as ‘non-campaign’ full-page ads in national newspapers on the following Saturday and Sunday, at a cost of $472,195. These advertisements were actioned following contact from the Prime Minister’s office to the Government Communications Unit and were formally authorised by DEWR. So the government made an announcement and immediately the advertising campaign was in train. But it was not until they were confident that the advertising campaign was in place that they bothered to do anything proper like issue drafting instructions to try to get the bill put in place. It was on 4 May, the day of the announcement, that the first set of instructions was issued. Subsequent instructions obviously occurred some time between 4 May and 13 May. So all of the priority was on the advertising campaign and there was very little priority given to getting the bill to parliament. We saw the ads on 5 May and 6 May and we were told that the changes were to come into operation and become the law on 7 May. At that time, they were not even written down into a bill. On 9 May Whybin TBWA was formally approved by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications as an advertising agency for an industrial relations campaign. On 16 and 17 May that committee, on which the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff sits, considered the first tranche of IR advertising. On 20 to 21 May we saw $4.1 million of advertising, and it is today, 28 May, that we will finally see the bill in this place. It is politics first, policy last, every step of the way. I asked the Prime Minister in question time today about what his laws will do and, most particularly, what they will not do. He was unable to answer. Let me describe this, because it is important. I asked the Prime Minister whether it was fair for a mother who needs to arrange child care to be subject to sudden roster changes. The Prime Minister would not say. Under clause 23.6 of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association - Victorian Shops Interim Award 2000, known as the Victorian Shops Award, a mother working in a shop in Victoria would have to be given 14 days notice of a change to her roster—14 days to get appropriate childcare arrangements in place and to reorganise the family. Under what we know about the government’s changes to Work Choices today, there will be no protection for that. That mother working in that shop could be told by the boss, ‘If you want a promotion, take the Australian workplace agreement.’ She might move to a new shop and be told, ‘If you want the job, take the Australian workplace agreement.’ Or she might just be told by the boss, ‘Sign the Australian workplace agreement,’ and she might be fearful not to. She could sign an Australian workplace agreement that strips away the notice of roster changes. So after that she could be given one hour’s notice that her roster had changed, one hour’s notice to reorganise of all of her family arrangements. Is that fair? No, of course it is not. It is extreme, it is unfair and it will hurt Australian working families. And Mr Howard is not even pretending to fix that unfairness. We know as well that Mr Howard’s laws seem to be a moving feast, even though employers are supposed to have been complying with them since 7 May. But the nature of the exemption for struggling businesses seems to have changed and been narrowed, if today’s newspaper reports are to be believed. How can small businesses cope when the Prime Minister announces one thing—saying that the laws apply to them—and then legislates another? We all know the Prime Minister is a clever politician. He is interested in employment and workplaces; unfortunately for working families, the only— (Time expired) 74 74 17:11:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —I rise in this grievance debate on a matter of great concern and importance to the future of the Central Coast—that is, water. Currently we are experiencing the worst drought on record, with water restrictions tightened to level 4 on 1 October 2006. For local residents, this has meant that they have been unable to water their gardens, wash their cars or top up their pools unless they have access to alternative water supplies, such as from a tank or a bore. The installation of a tank or bore for many of my constituents is not a feasible option due to the high costs involved in the purchase and delivery of the tank and other needed components, the hiring of a professional plumber to install and connect the tank as well as ongoing maintenance costs, particularly if they are connected to town water. The watering of sporting fields, school ovals and grassed areas has been banned, meaning that local children are suffering because many of these popular play areas have become unsafe and often unusable due to the lack of watering making them hard, dry and dusty. The federal government’s Community Water Grants program has greatly contributed to conserving water. Thirty-one local community groups and schools in the Dobell electorate have so far benefited from almost $1.1 million under this program. Our present dire water situation has highlighted the need for a clear long-term strategy to ensure a safe, secure and sustainable water supply. In 1975, under a state Liberal government, the public works department devised a plan for Central Coast water. It relied on the construction of the Mangrove Creek Dam, and this was undertaken by the state government. They called for tenders, ran the project and provided 50 per cent of the funding. The Mangrove Creek Dam was intended to be a reservoir. Its capacity was to be several times the volume of water in Sydney Harbour and it was to be capable of having 30 metres of extra wall. If we added two metres to the dam wall, the capacity would go up by 1½ times. If we added five metres to the dam wall, the capacity would increase by three times. Unfortunately this plan has not been fully implemented. A former mayor of Gosford, Mrs Pat Harrison, was quoted in a local paper recently. She said that she was unable to get state government approval to build the missing link that would link Mardi and Mangrove Creek dams. This request was made several times and was knocked back by the state government on each occasion. With my engineering background, I have already looked at other options in discussion with council engineers, and the pipeline linking Mardi Dam and Mangrove Creek is the best way to proceed. They are also looking at other options, such as groundwater and recycling of water. Rainwater collected in the Yarramalong and Dooralong valleys flows into the Wyong River, and a new weir would enable high-level flows to be transferred to Mardi Dam. This water would be virtually free for our residents. A pipeline from Mardi Dam to Boomerang Creek tunnel and then to Mangrove Creek Dam would allow the water from Mardi Dam to be stored, helping to future-proof our water supply. I have been discussing this project with my federal colleagues for the past three years. It is something the state government and local councils should have done many years ago. The Central Coast water authority developed a plan called Water Plan 2050. This plan was recently adopted by both Gosford council and Wyong Shire Council. In fact, the plan went on public display last Monday and is open for comment by the public until the end of June. At a recent meeting between federal and state MPs and the local councils on the Central Coast, which I called to discuss support for the missing link proposal, Labor’s lack of interest in securing our water supply was apparent. The Central Coast state Labor MPs did not even bother to attend. Unfortunately, the state government’s proposal for Tillegra Dam is no solution; it is a way to rip off our water users. Even if state Labor kept their promise, Tillegra Dam would not be built for another 10 years to 15 years, and in the meantime the Central Coast could become a dust bowl. We already have low dam levels—Mangrove Creek Dam is at 10½ per cent—so why on earth do we need another dam near Dungog? Maybe it will assist the Hunter, but it is not going to do anything for the Central Coast. The water transfer system must be built. It will store Central Coast water and could also take Hunter water and bank it. If the state government project ever happened, it would leave the Central Coast indebted to the Hunter Water board for decades to come. Water from the Hunter—and Hunter Water is 100 per cent owned by the state government—would cost residents an additional 90c a kilolitre. The New South Wales government obviously expects Central Coast residents to continue paying this for the next 60 years. Premier Iemma’s capital investment program would do little more than bleed our residents and feed more dividends into the state government’s coffers. The Central Coast community should be very suspicious of Labor’s announcement in relation to water. I am concerned that, should the Central Coast water authority become an arm of the Iemma government—which is what state Labor is pushing for—future proposals to increase water and sewerage charges for Central Coast residents would not be subject to public scrutiny. Local people are entitled to expect some scrutiny. A state Labor minister would have the authority to appoint three board members. The other two members of a five-member board would be one each from Wyong and Gosford councils. State Labor’s main priority is to control and profit from the Central Coast water supply, and its announcements are about funding backdoor ways to further strip the local identity. State Labor is the approval authority for the environmental assessment and the project itself. State Labor must stop playing politics with our vital resources and get on with the job of providing real outcomes for the Central Coast. The practical solution to the water crisis is to use Mangrove Creek Dam as a reservoir, as was always intended. We need three levels of government to find the solution and to fund the solution. We have Labor federal candidates—for Dobell and Robertson—supporting the missing link, and the Leader of the Opposition visited my electorate on Friday to promise $40 million to the missing link pipeline project. The project cost is $80 million. This promise will cover only half the cost of the project, and the state government has already ruled out funding the other half. On 10 May 2007, state Labor voted against a motion in the New South Wales parliament that supported the missing link. It called on them to explain why they opposed it. Instead of explaining themselves, they rejected the idea altogether. Federal Labor’s promise of half the funding would leave Wyong and Gosford councils to contribute the other $40 million—which they simply do not have. That means that this plan is literally dead in the water. The Leader of the Opposition is promising his $40 million, knowing that he will never be forced to actually fund the project. This is typical Labor Central Coast politics, and the people of the Central Coast are sick of it. Six months out from an election, they promise millions for a project they know will never happen. We have had this before with the fast-train link to Sydney, the Tillegra Dam and now the missing link—all from Labor six months out from important elections and all without any chance of happening. The member for Griffith should be putting pressure on his state Labor colleagues to contribute funding to this project. State Labor should not be allowed to walk away from its obligation to the Central Coast community. The Leader of the Opposition did not even bother to meet with the mayors of Wyong and Gosford councils or the council engineers, and he did not even get the facts on this project during his visit to Dobell. I doubt that he has even seen Water Plan 2050. Curiously enough, they did not even invite the state Labor MPs. They did not even know that the Leader of the Opposition was visiting the coast. Furthermore, his press release does not indicate how a federal Labor government would fund its $40 million promise. Alternatively, the Howard government has a strong record on its commitment to future-proofing the Central Coast water supply. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, with his vague promises, the member for Robertson and I are working on securing a real funding commitment towards this pipeline so that councils can begin working on the project within months. We have been working for some time, together with the councils, to find a solution for the water crisis. By working with the community, we have been able to secure $2.6 million for the Porters Creek Wetland Stormwater Harvesting project. The Australian government has also contributed $6.7 million to the Hunter water pipeline, along with the councils and the Hunter Water Corporation. We have been proactive when it comes to working for the Central Coast, but there is still more to be done. With the building of the missing link pipeline, the Central Coast will be self-sufficient once again. I am calling on the state government to scrap its pie-in-the-sky plans for the Tillegra Dam and instead work with local councils and the Howard government to see this project through. Just before question time today, we had the member for Grayndler—the master of frivolous points of order—speaking of rhetoric. Where is the other $40 million? Why did you not invite the state Labor MPs to your announcement at Mardi? You have gone from the missing link to the missing millions—some solution! I would also like to note that the Leader of the Opposition’s PA and Councillor Neil Rose were acting like union thugs at the meeting last week. They were ordering ratepayers to leave the Mardi Dam, claiming it was a private Labor meeting. That is some way for the opposition leader and the member for Grayndler—together with their federal Labor colleagues in Robertson and Dobell—to show how they care. It is just an excuse for more union thuggery. That is what we can expect from union people who have now blown in from Melbourne to take on the Central Coast candidates. It is absolutely disgusting and it should be stopped. 76 76 17:21:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —I rise in the grievance debate today to draw attention to the federal government’s missed opportunity to support the desire of many individual households to take personal action on climate change. Last Friday I attended the launch in my electorate of Big Switch Projects, which is running a pilot program. The suburbs of Woonona and Bulli in my electorate have been selected as part of the 10-month program. The program is funded through a $400,000 grant from the New South Wales government. The seed of the idea for the project came about rather simply. The managing director of Big Switch Projects, Gavin Gilchrist, was thumbing through an Integral Energy report which showed that five neighbouring suburbs in my electorate all faced similar peak supply problems. The Big Switch project offers Woonona and Bulli residents a discounted energy audit that will show the resident where they can save on electricity and also offers a range of subsidised energy-efficient products. There are extra subsidies for low-income earners. Woonona and Bulli residents are offered a home energy consultation. The subsidised energy products include: six compact fluorescent lamps; energy-efficient infrared coated lamps; a low-flow AAA-rated shower head; ceiling insulation at a 35 per cent discount on retail prices; energy-efficient fridges; change to a gas cooker, gas heater and gas hot-water system; and installation of a solar hot-water system and roof solar panels. The project is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 800 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. This week will be most important to the climate change and energy debate in Australia. As we read in the press, the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading will provide their report to the Prime Minister later this week. Events to try to address climate change and energy consumption have gathered pace over the last two years. Just last week the British government released its white paper on energy; the G8 prepared to meet under the chairmanship of Germany, where climate change will be the dominant agenda item; and Japan shifted its position ahead of the G8 meeting by announcing a global target of 50 per cent reduction on global greenhouse emissions by 2050. I acknowledge that the APEC summit later this year will also be discussing climate change, but despite the apparent new discovery of climate change by the government it cannot escape the fact that for over a decade it has refused to concede that climate change is an enormous challenge both domestically and internationally. In this fast-changing debate, I am also mindful of the impact of climate change measures on the poor and disadvantaged. I am mindful of the point made by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in November last year. That is why I was so pleased to participate in the launch last Friday of Big Switch Projects. Wollongong and the Illawarra region generally, as many are aware, are heavily involved in coalmining and steel production. We host the Southern Hemisphere’s most competitive steel production plant, at Port Kembla. But, at the same time, we are playing our role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and considering energy supply more efficient. BlueScope Steel is considering building a cogeneration plant at Port Kembla worth between $500 million and $900 million. It would generate electricity of 120-megawatt baseload and up to 220-megawatt peaking. BlueScope has substantially reduced its use of fresh water in all plant production through an in-house recycling process. On the foreshore of Lake Illawarra, a modern gas-fired power station is under construction on the site of a long-closed-down coal-fired power station, formerly known as Tallawarra. And, at the moment, carefully anchored just off Port Kembla, is the wave generation machine that uses the natural power of wave movement in the ocean to generate electricity. As climate change and energy continue to rank as major concerns among the Australian community, I am very pleased that Wollongong and the Illawarra region generally is playing its part in better and more efficient use of energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and innovation by research and development in renewable energy sources. The point was made by several speakers at Friday’s meeting that it is equally as important to find new and cleaner methods of energy production as it is to find new, better and more efficient ways to use the energy that we do produce. There is no doubt that many people in the community are increasingly keen to play their own role in their own homes in contributing to that effort. That is why on 29 April this year, the leader of the Labor Party announced that a federal Labor government would introduce a program to offer Australian households low interest rate loans of up to $10,000 to help make existing homes greener and more energy and water efficient. Some of the items Australians will be able to purchase under this plan will include: solar panels; rainwater tanks; roof insulation; solar hot water heaters; high-efficiency gas hot-water heaters, replacing electric storage systems; awnings; grey-water recycling systems; and energy-efficient lighting. It is along the lines of the excellent state program that I saw on Friday. Federal Labor’s $300 million solar, green energy and water renovations plan for Australian households is a practical way for Australian families to make a real difference on climate change. This is part of federal Labor’s overall and comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050. The solar, green energy and water renovations plan for Australian households will save families money over time on their energy and water bills. So this plan not only will provide efficiencies in the use of energy for the greatest impact on greenhouse gas emissions but also has the potential to bring down the cost as a family budget item. This plan could generate up to $2 billion worth of green-inspired investment and benefit the small business sector, especially tradespeople. I am conscious of the vitality of the small business and trades sector based businesses, providing to homes things like water-recycling systems, water tanks, solar energy solutions and gas connections. In my electorate, I certainly see many of these businesses popping up now in once-vacant places. Labor’s plan will make it easier and more cost-effective for families to refit their homes. Many programs at the moment focus on the requirements for newly built homes. I have talked to a lot of people who have established homes who are disappointed that their capacity to participate in this effort is limited by their ability to find the money up front to make the required changes. Labor’s plan would introduce low interest rate loans of up to $10,000 to 200,000 Australian households with household incomes of up to $250,000, by 2012—to be repaid in line with their capacity to pay. Government accredited environmental audits will be carried out to identify how these households can cost-effectively reduce their energy and water use in their homes. There will be a free green renovations pack, which will provide tips for green living, energy-efficient light globes, a shower timer and a water efficient shower head. There will be an option for families that prefer to borrow through their financial institutions to generate carbon offset credits through the voluntary carbon trading market. There will be help for households to save up to $800 a year on their energy and water bills and increase the value of their homes. I am sure many people are increasingly conscious that as they go to resell their homes the informed buyers are more often than not looking now for these innovations in the household. There will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by up to 15 million tonnes over the lifetime of the scheme. This one program is equivalent to taking around four million cars off the road for a year or planting another 15 million trees. The low interest rate program will begin in January 2009 and is expected to support 200,000 households over the period till 2012-13. As with all government programs, this plan will be revised based on the take-up and the success of the program. Federal Labor understands that governments, families and individuals can be partners in reducing household greenhouse gas emissions and reducing pressure on our stressed water systems. Water tanks, solar power, insulation and eco-friendly building materials can all make a big and important difference to the energy efficiency of a home. The more homes that can participate in such a program, the more efficient and eco-friendly our communities will become. (Time expired) 79 79 17:31:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —The past 11 years have been typified by a replenishment of the role of the individual in our society. Individual liberty has been most definitely at the forefront of the actions of this government. The fear is that later this year, because of some attraction to the jockey—do not mind the jockey; let us look at the horse—we could see a circumstance in Australia in which a government could be returned that does not govern for Australia but governs for the Labor Party and the trade union movement. ‘No ticket, no start’ will be the mantra of their conduct. There would be an absolute attack on personal liberty, because the collective would override the individual at every turn. Let me put the case for why this would be so. One example would be the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, which, only a couple of months ago, commented that, if a Rudd government were returned at a later point in this year, all Commonwealth public servants would be required to join the Commonwealth Public Sector Union. This, it said, would not only make the union flush with funds but also give it the power, because of those funds, to purchase affiliation prowess within the Labor Party and the labour movement, give them additional left-wing votes and create the possibility for them to influence who was in the cabinet. Let us unbundle that. Individual public servants would be told, ‘No ticket, no start; you have to join the Commonwealth Public Sector Union.’ Not only that; when they joined, the handful of people at the top of the tree in that union would start to decide who was in the cabinet of the country—the supreme policymaking body, which affects the lives of everyday Australians. Currently, only 17 per cent of people in private enterprise are in unions. But all of that would change with a change of government. No ticket would mean no start. The example of the Commonwealth Public Service would start a knock-on effect as every other union would begin to take a role in trying to suppress the growth of the Left through the Commonwealth Public Sector Union. We are already seeing this in places in Queensland, where a forced amalgamation of councils comes hand in glove with a statement from the Queensland government that members of the Australian Workers Union—a right-wing union—will in fact be placed, like worms in an apple, in every council that has been forcibly amalgamated with another one in order to coordinate the way that council operates. Am I hearing correctly? Yes. The state Labor government in Queensland will pay union officials to go and park themselves in councils and decide who stays and who goes; who is hired and who is fired. This is an insight into the way in which a federal Labor government would operate. There will be a union official beside every cash register in every small business in every part of Australia. They will decide who is hired, who is fired, what services are offered, what goods are made available, what time you open and what time you close. There is no doubt about it. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has entered the chamber and he will correct me if I am wrong, and I know that he will not correct me. Greg Combet is looking forward to the time when unions will run Australia again. Today in the House we heard another example of the way in which that CFMEU thug in Western Australia, Kevin Reynolds, is yearning for the opportunity to get rid of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner established by this government in 2005. Why did we establish that office? To get building and construction on a proper and legal footing and to allow individuals who want to work hard to get the opportunity to work and to progress. What we are now seeing in Western Australia—where the CFMEU have run roughshod over the Western Australian building industry for so many years and where the ‘blue flu’ took people out of work sites for hundreds of days each year—is unemployment down to around two per cent. We have an example in Queensland and we have an example in Western Australia. Kevin Reynolds wants to see the end of the ABCC because they are using powers to hit unionists with individual writs of some $28,600 if they breach the agreed conditions, such as entry to work sites. Reynolds says that they are going to put their shoulder to the wheel to assist in the campaign to unseat the Howard government and that they are going to have the biggest celebration possible on the night that it is defeated. Labor’s captivity to its union masters is a source of enormous concern for each of us on this side, and it should be of enormous concern for all thinking Australians. There will no promotions within state or federal government organisations or within businesses unless you are a member of the Labor Party. The Labor Party policy on industrial relations is all about this. They talk about workplace democracy, but what it means is that as long as a simple majority of the total number of workers in a particular workplace participate in a ballot then everybody else can please themselves. There was a fantastic article in the Courier-Mail of 24 May by Dr Paul Gollan of Macquarie University, who warned that if union heavies could get 51 per cent of a workplace to participate in a ballot then all they would have to do would be to get 51 per cent of them to vote one way to get what they want. You could end up with just 26 per cent of the total workforce telling the other 74 per cent what to do and how to go about it. You would see the good, the bad, the ugly, the lazy and the productive all getting paid the same. Individual enterprise, the freedom to negotiate and choice in the workplace would be denied people. I just do not understand why the Australian Labor Party cannot follow the advice of Rod Cameron, who said, quite rightly, the other week that people do not want unions back in their lives. They do not want a circumstance where they are told what to think by a selective group of people in a smoke filled room with the Tammany Hall logic of ‘If you don’t agree with us, we’ll get you’ prevailing. I certainly do not want to see a Commonwealth Public Service that is as heavily politicised as we see in states like Queensland, where Labor Party membership means promotions, where loyalty to the Labor Party ahead of loyalty to Australia could create a seditious kind of environment—but that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party have planned for Australia. They have planned the return of the great tomato sauce strikes where, if you do not see tomato sauce in your workshop canteen, it is: ‘All out, brothers. All out until we get the tomato sauce.’ These things happened in years past. We saw the great dim sim strikes at Darling Harbour because of the smell of dim sims wafting up from Sussex Street. It was not the smell of Labor Party headquarters; it was the dim sims from Chinatown which caused all the workers to go out on strike until they got a dim sim allowance. That was 20 years ago, and we have spent the last 11 years repairing the mess caused by the stupidity of the sorts of circumstances where wharfies went on strike if they were not allowed ‘the nick’—that is, anything they could flog from any container that happened to have been opened. All I would say to anybody in Australian business—if you still decide to stay in business after this election if a Rudd government is returned—is: do not have a part container delivered to an Australian wharf, because we will be back to the situation where ‘the nick’ will be back in vogue. We do not want a nation where allegiance to this political party, the Australian Labor Party, first and foremost is the way in which every business place, every state public servant and every federal public servant will operate. We do not want to see a circumstance where if you speak out, you will get kneecapped just like the poor member for Charlton who has been so poorly treated by the Australian Labor Party. She—and her father, with 48 years of membership of the Labor Party—spoke out against the union movement and she was simply abolished from the party, told to leave. It is a disgrace that the member for Charlton has been treated in the way she has been treated. We see the Queensland government advertising currently on radio and saying, ‘In small business if you need a workplace mentor, someone who understands how a small business operates, contact the Queensland government’—another worm in the apple, where a union affiliated public servant will arrive at your business, start to unpick it and then start to tell you how you should affiliate yourself with the Australian Labor Party at every turn. I promised myself 20 years ago that I would find an occasion to put on public record the time when I was a member of the Australian Journalists Association and I resigned from it when it affiliated with the ACTU. It went from being a professional organisation to just another union. After I rejoined, when I briefly worked for the ABC, I was told that my resignation of two years earlier was not officially recognised and I owed two years in back dues. That is the way the union movement in this country wants to operate again. How can it be fair in the workplace if you cannot be sacked for stealing from the boss, but you can be sacked if you do not join a union? Real workers are left out of the equation in Labor’s planning for the workforce. Unions and their members are simply political playthings—a numbers game. The ALP has members in this place who are union members but they have never been on the tools. As far as I am concerned, this pompous lot opposite should never be given the chance to administer Australia in favour of the Labor Party. Stick with the Howard government which actually administers Australia in favour of all Australians. 10000 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question agreed to. 81 Bills R2809 81 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey. Bill read a first time. 82 82 17:41:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction Today I am introducing the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. This bill establishes a fairness test to strengthen the safety net for agreement-making in the national workplace relations system. The new fairness test will enhance the safety net for over 7.5 million Australians making workplace agreements. It will allow employers and employees to modify or exclude protected award conditions, but only where employees are fairly compensated. The fairness test will guarantee employees fair compensation in lieu of conditions such as penalty rates and overtime and shift loadings. With this bill workers must be paid more, not less. The stronger safety net will provide significant additional protection for vulnerable employees, including young people and workers from a non-English-speaking background. This bill will reassure Australian workers that when they enter into a workplace agreement, it will be a fair one that has been approved by an independent statutory authority. This bill builds on the important employment and workplace relations reforms undertaken by this government in 1996 and again in 2006. This bill is an important part of an employment and workplace relations system that has helped reduce unemployment to a rate of 4.4 per cent and create more than two million jobs over the last 11 years. This bill will ensure that Australia’s future economic prosperity is bolstered by a flexible and modern workplace relations system. It was never the intention that it may become the norm for protected award conditions such as penalty rates to be traded off without proper compensation. There was concern amongst some in the community, however, that trading off penalty rates and other loadings, without fair compensation, might occur with adverse consequences for final take-home pay. The introduction of the fairness test is accompanied by the establishment of two independent statutory offices—the Workplace Authority Director and the Workplace Ombudsman—to play pivotal roles in maintaining the safety net. This bill will require the Workplace Authority to apply the fairness test to ensure that workplace agreements provide fair compensation in lieu of protected award conditions such as penalty rates. If an agreement does not pass the fairness test, it will need to be changed so that it is fair and the employer will have to make up any back pay. The Workplace Ombudsman will ensure that employers comply with their legal obligations in regard to the fairness test. The Workplace Ombudsman will strengthen the policing role which has been undertaken by the Office of Workplace Services. The government is providing significant funding to ensure that these functions are well resourced. This legislation will make it clear that employers cannot dismiss an employee because a workplace agreement fails or may fail the fairness test. The legislation will also make it clear that employers cannot coerce existing employees into modifying or removing protected award conditions. Finally, the legislation will also make it clear that when an employer takes over a business they cannot require an employee to sign an Australian workplace agreement as a condition of continued employment. For outworkers, the prohibition on the reduction of their special protections is retained unchanged. The changes introduced in this bill will ensure that the opportunities and flexibilities inherent in the national workplace relations system are used but not abused. The national system The Workplace Relations Act 1996 provides a national regulatory framework for Australian workers. The framework offers flexibility and choice for employees and employers in agreement making. This choice and flexibility is producing good outcomes for the economy, with sustainable and strong jobs growth and historically low unemployment a dominant feature of the economy. This choice and flexibility is essential for meeting the work and family needs of working women and men. Australian working women and men also want a fair and robust safety net of working conditions protected by the law. And the system provides this, as well as strong, enforceable protections against discrimination and breaches of freedom of association. Since the reforms commenced in March 2006, more than 326,000 new jobs have been created—85 per cent of these are full-time. Significantly, the unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4 per cent in April 2007, its lowest level since November 1974. Real wages, which have risen by 23.4 per cent over the life of the coalition government, have continued to grow, and strikes in 2006 reached the lowest level since records were first kept in 1913. The fundamentals of the government’s reform remain intact. The goal of employment and workplace relations reform is to achieve better outcomes for both employers and employees through greater flexibility in employment arrangements in the workplace. The safety net Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 entitlements such as minimum wages, annual leave, personal and sick leave and maternity and parental leave are set out in the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Agreements must still provide benefits equal to or better than the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard—that is, the entitlements in the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard cannot be traded off when workplace agreements are entered into. Protected award conditions are penalty rates, including for working on public holidays and weekends, shift and overtime loadings, monetary allowances, annual leave loadings, public holidays, rest breaks and incentive based payments or bonuses. These protected award conditions are not mandated in agreements because to do so would limit flexibility in agreement making. However, they will not be able to be traded away without fair compensation. Fairness test The fairness test will apply to workplace agreements lodged on or after 7 May 2007. Where an agreement, including an agreement made before 7 May 2007, is varied the whole agreement will be subject to the fairness test if the variation excludes or modifies protected award conditions. The fairness test will apply to Australian workplace agreements covering employees with a gross basic salary of less than $75,000 per annum who are employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions are usually regulated by an award, where the agreement excludes or modifies protected award conditions. There are more than 4,000 awards. In addition, all collective agreements covering employees in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions are usually regulated by an award and where the agreement excludes or modifies protected award conditions will be subject to the fairness test. How will the fairness test be conducted? As is currently the case, workplace agreements will operate from the day they are lodged with the Workplace Authority. The fairness test will require the Workplace Authority to be satisfied that a workplace agreement provides fair compensation to an employee in lieu of the exclusion or modification of protected award conditions. Protected award conditions will be drawn from the federal award which binds the employer or from the transitional instrument based on the relevant state instrument that applied prior to the commencement of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 on 27 March 2006. If there is no such instrument and the employee is working in an industry or occupation usually regulated by a federal award, the Workplace Authority will be able to designate an appropriate federal award. In deciding whether a workplace agreement passes or does not pass the fairness test, the Workplace Authority may inform itself in any appropriate way. In many cases, it will be able to assess an agreement based on the agreement and information lodged with it. For example, when the agreement is lodged employees will be able to include information about their personal circumstances, including their family responsibilities and the significance they attach to the particular workplace flexibilities for which they have traded off protected award conditions. The authority will also be able to contact the employees and the employer where necessary. Employees already receive an information statement when they are offered an AWA or collective agreement. This requirement is retained and will now also inform employees of their rights in regard to the fairness test. The fairness test will not involve legalistic hearings. The Workplace Authority will not arbitrate agreement outcomes. When considering whether a workplace agreement provides fair compensation, the Workplace Authority must first have regard to the monetary and non-monetary compensation that the employee or employees will receive in lieu of the protected award conditions. The bill defines non-monetary compensation as compensation for which there is a money-value equivalent or where a money value can reasonably be assigned and which confers a benefit or advantage on the employee that is of significant value to the employee. A meal provided by an employer to an employee who is regularly required to work overtime will not constitute adequate compensation in lieu of penalty rates for overtime. This means that, contrary to misleading claims that have been made, a slice of pizza will not constitute non-monetary compensation. In most cases it is expected that a higher rate of pay will be agreed to in lieu of protected award conditions that have been modified or removed. In establishing what is fair compensation the Workplace Authority must consider the work obligations of the employee or employees under the workplace agreement. For example, the Workplace Authority would consider whether employees were required to work shift work or on weekends and would otherwise have been entitled to penalty rates. The Workplace Authority may also have regard to the personal circumstances of employee or employees, in particular, their family responsibilities. For example, an agreement may well meet the fairness test where a parent wants an Australian workplace agreement that enables him or her to leave work one hour early on a weekday to collect his children from school and make up the time on a Saturday morning and be paid the normal hourly rate rather than the higher Saturday rate. Only in exceptional circumstances and where the Workplace Authority is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so may the Workplace Authority also have regard to the industry, location or economic circumstances of the employer and the employment circumstances of the employee or employees in deciding whether fair compensation is provided. The Workplace Authority may decide it is appropriate to consider the economic circumstances of an employer when a workplace agreement is part of a reasonable strategy to deal with a short-term crisis. For example, employees working in a canning factory in a regional town negotiate a one-year agreement that excludes penalty rates so that the factory can remain competitive where the business is struggling due to the impact of the drought. This will keep the business alive and maintain jobs. This is similar to the public interest test that applied to workplace agreements prior to the commencement of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. The changes I introduce today deliberately limit the circumstances in which agreements that would normally fail the test are able to operate. While it is necessary to allow for the situations where such agreements are appropriate, such agreements should be very much the exception and must not be contrary to the public interest. In the case of a collective agreement, the Workplace Authority must be satisfied that, on balance, the collective agreement provides fair compensation in its overall effect on the employees. This is similar to the way the previous no disadvantage test applied to workplace agreements. Like the no disadvantage test, where protected award conditions are removed or modified, employees will most often be compensated with a higher rate of pay for each hour worked. What if an agreement fails the fairness test? Where an agreement does not pass the fairness test, the Workplace Authority will provide advice to the employer and employee on how the agreement could be changed to make it fair. The employer and employee will have 14 calendar days to make the agreement fair. Fixing a failed agreement could be done by varying the agreement or making an undertaking, which would be enforceable. If an agreement is not fixed, it will cease to operate at the end of the 14-day period. The entitlements of the employee or employees will revert to the arrangements that would have applied to them had they not made the unfair agreement. This could be an earlier workplace agreement or the award. An employee with a designated award (and where no other workplace agreement is in place) will retain an entitlement to the protected award conditions from the designated award. Where an agreement initially fails the test, but is satisfactorily rectified, the employee will generally be entitled to compensation or back pay for the period during which the agreement was unfair. The employer will be expected to make up any back pay from the time the agreement was lodged for any entitlement the employee would otherwise have been entitled to. Where an agreement does not pass the fairness test and an employer does not compensate the employee or employees, the Workplace Ombudsman will be able to recover any shortfall in entitlements on behalf of the affected employees. A court may also impose a penalty if compensation is not paid. Will a proposed or draft agreement meet the fairness test? The Workplace Authority will offer a pre-lodgement assessment of proposed agreements against the fairness test. Either an employee or an employer can request a pre-lodgement assessment of a proposed agreement. This process helps people make fair and clear agreements from the start. It helps them to know where they stand in regard to protections, entitlements and obligations. It minimises the risk of a shortfall in payments where an agreement fails the fairness test. The pre-lodgement assessment of a proposed agreement is an administrative, rather than a legislative process. This is because the legislative fairness test can only be applied to a properly made and lodged agreement with identifiable parties. Where a pre-lodgement assessment is requested, the Workplace Authority will provide written advice indicating whether or not the agreement would pass the fairness test. Provided the circumstances have not changed when the agreement is lodged, pre-lodgement approval will result in consideration of the agreement being fast tracked on lodgement. The Workplace Authority The bill establishes the workplace authority director and deputy directors. The workplace authority director is to be appointed by the Governor-General ensuring the independence of the office. In addition to conducting the fairness test, the workplace authority director will undertake the functions of the Employment Advocate, such as accepting the lodgement of workplace agreements and providing information about agreement-making. The Workplace Authority will have particular regard to the needs of workers in disadvantaged bargaining positions, such as young people and workers from a non-English speaking background. The Workplace Authority, together with the Workplace Ombudsman, will receive extra funding of $370 million over four years to ensure its increased responsibilities are met. The Workplace Ombudsman The bill establishes the Workplace Ombudsman to be appointed by the Governor-General, also ensuring independence of the office. The Workplace Ombudsman will undertake the functions of the Office of Workplace Services, such as assisting employees and employers in understanding their rights and obligations and promoting, monitoring and investigating compliance matters. The bill confers upon the Workplace Ombudsman the function of investigating breaches of the Workplace Relations Act, including in respect of the fairness test. The Workplace Ombudsman will be assisted in discharging his or her functions by having the power to appoint workplace inspectors. One of the key new roles will be enforcing the prohibitions on employers from dismissing an employee because an agreement has failed the fairness test, or coercing an existing employee to agree to give up their protected award conditions. The Workplace Ombudsman will focus on ensuring that young working Australians are not being unfairly treated in the workplace and conduct regular random audits to ensure employers are meeting their obligations to young people. The Workplace Ombudsman will receive extra funding of more than $60 million dollars—that is out of that $370 million—over four years to ensure its increased responsibilities are met. Conclusion This government has worked hard to create a balanced workplace relations regulatory framework that encourages job creation and allows Australian businesses to compete and grow. This bill provides a stronger safety net to underpin what is already an efficient system for a modern Australian economy. The flexibility and opportunity created by the government’s workplace relations reforms have played a role in contributing to the growth of our economy and the economic prosperity shared by working Australian families. The changes I will introduce today build on this strong foundation. The changes ensure that choice and flexibility remain the fundamental building blocks of successful workplace arrangements. The changes reassure working Australians that protected award conditions cannot be traded away without fair compensation and the approval of an independent statutory authority. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 87 Business 87 Mr ROBB (Goldstein —Minister for Vocational and Further Education) 18:01:00 —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 29 May 2007, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting and for government business to take precedence from 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on that day. Question agreed to. 87 Miscellaneous Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 18:02:00 —by leave—I move: That unless otherwise ordered, at the resumption of the Main Committee meeting at approximately 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 May 2007, the first item of business shall be Members’ statements, each for no longer than 3 minutes, with the item of business continuing for 30 minutes irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House. Question agreed to. 88 Bills R2764 88 Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Dutton: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Dr Emerson moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to implement Labor’s BAS Easy option for simplifying GST bookkeeping requirements on small business with an annual turnover of less than two million dollars”. 88 18:03:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —I rise in relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business) Bill 2007 to support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin. This bill provides some important measures to help small business. We support those measures but we strongly assert that they do not go far enough. In fact, these measures are too little and too late to deal with the mountain of paperwork and red tape that is swamping small business in this country. It is another desperate attempt by this government, after 11 years of, effectively, inactivity on the alleviation front but a lot of activity in adding red tape and burden to small business, to show that they are doing something because of the continuing complaints that come from small business about their inability to get on with what they want to do—running effective businesses and being able to spend more time with their families instead of just filling out forms for the government or becoming unpaid tax collectors for the government’s GST. Having said that there are some important initiatives in this legislation, the government have still baulked on an important measure, which I will come to later, that could alleviate or give the option to alleviate a significant burden that falls on business in being that GST tax collector. As for the measures in the bill which we welcome, effectively this legislation introduces a standard $2 million turnover threshold to obtain tax concessions. Prior to this legislation, there were a range of thresholds for different concessions. This was a terribly confusing situation. It was another example of the red tape nightmare that the government imposes on small business. So this step is welcome. Labor also supports the standardisation and the three definitions of aggregated turnover to determine if a business satisfies the threshold. We also support the provisions in this legislation to increase the capital gains tax maximum net assets threshold from $5 million to $6 million and we support the decision to remove the $3 million depreciating assets test from the simplified tax system. We, of course, support the GST cash accounting threshold going from $1 million to $2 million. But we are still very concerned that so few small businesses take advantage of the simplified tax system. In Senate estimates hearings last year we learnt that less than 30 per cent of small businesses access that system. Under the arrangements, small business can group assets and depreciate them much quicker to improve cash flow in the early years. This, you would have thought, was a welcome initiative, so why is it that so few avail themselves of it? I hope when the minister responds he can enlighten us more as to why so few businesses take advantage of this system. Finally, we support the increase in the GST registration threshold from $50,000 to $75,000. This is an initiative that the Leader of the Opposition called for earlier in the year, and we welcome the government embracing this initiative that Labor put forward. As welcome as those measures are, they do not go far enough in easing the pressure on small businesses, the burden of red tape. After 11 years of inaction and of promising when they came to office to halve the amount of red tape, these measures are too little too late and a further desperation in the government’s desperate throes to try to pretend that they are doing something that they have neglected for so long. I remind the House of the Prime Minister’s commitment back in 1996, when he made a promise to ‘cut red tape for small business by 50 per cent’. What happened when the government won office? We had a review, the late Charlie Bell review, soon after the government came to office. That was followed by a report, a big launch and a lot of words, but no effective action. And then we had another report, the Banks report. Not only did those reports not ease the problem; plenty of additional measures added to the red tape and the paperwork. The most significant measure that added to this red tape, of course, was the introduction of the GST and the mountain of paperwork that that involved. Instead of saying to small businesses: ‘We want you to do what you’re best at. We want you to get on with running your business. We want you to have the time to spend with your family,’ this government turned every small business into an unpaid tax collector for them. Tax collections through the GST now net in excess of $40 billion—a tax, I might say, the government say is not really theirs. I was almost gobsmacked last week when I heard the Treasurer get up in this House in question time and argue that this budget will see a lessening of the tax burden in proportion to the GDP. The problem in arriving at that proportion is that he left out the GST; he left out the $40 billion. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —The orphan tax. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —This was the great saviour of the nation that he now does not want to own—the orphan tax. That is what the GST is. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Are you still opposed to it? DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —Why don’t you count it honestly, Minister; that is my point. You are the ones who have argued for it, you are the ones who have imposed the burden. 10000 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —The minister has asked the question and I am trying to respond. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Ignore the interjections and keep going. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —Why is it that the government are not honest with the Australian public and admit it is their tax? If they do admit that, as everyone else accepts—including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who counts it—then the proportion of tax under this government has increased and will continue to increase despite the tax cuts that are included in the budget. They are the highest taxing government in the history of this country. The only way in which this government can try to pretend they are not is by ignoring and not counting the $40 billion of GST revenue. No person in business can ignore the tax. No person can pretend it is not there. They have to collect it and they have to go through the paperwork to satisfy the government’s needs, but this government want the luxury of pretending it is not their tax. We did have an attempt on the part of the government to not have the tax imposed. I remember when Mr Macfarlane, a former minister for small business, wanted to run a fundraising function for his seat of Groom and operated on the basis of advice from the Liberal Party in Queensland that GST was not required to be paid. I remember something like that. There was supposed to have been a tax report clearing the minister of these wrongdoings. That report has never seen the light of day. This was a former minister for small business who thought it was such a fantastic tax that every small business in the country should collect it and pay it, except his FEC. What sort of double standard is that, Mr Deputy Speaker? Six years on from the introduction of this GST, we now have a massive compliance burden. The government has not reduced red tape by 50 per cent. It has not reduced it at all. It has massively increased it. What did the government then embark on? It said that it would have another review. The Banks review was established in October 2005, it reported and the report was released in April 2006. It highlighted many of the concerns of small business concerning regulation, red tape and compliance. This bill attempts to adopt a number of the recommendations. But I want to use the time that is left to me to go to the GST compliance issue, because I think this is terribly important and there is an easy solution. Labor has been proposing it since 2001. It is called BAS Easy. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —You’ve never been in small business, not one of you. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —The minister wants to parrot on in ignorance and ignore the real solutions that will help ease the red tape burden on small business. Labor proposed a concept called BAS Easy as far back as 2001. It was developed when I was the shadow Treasurer and with the assistance of the member for Rankin. Previous leaders of the Labor Party announced it, including me in that role. At the time this initiative was announced, it was criticised by the Treasurer. He had not even read the detail but he criticised it. He then moved to a position in which he criticised it, on the one hand, because it would cost business more but, on the other hand, because it would cost revenue more. How can it do both? The Treasurer, as always, was never across the detail. He is only the show-pony performer in this chamber in question time—always lazy on the job, lazy on the detail and not prepared to understand the sorts of burdens that small businesses are under. He has ignored a real proposal that could have had strong bipartisan support. The proposal that we put forward was called the ratio method. It effectively said, based on one’s past history in terms of GST remittances, let us give small business the option of a system for GST tax remittance that would essentially involve two boxes. One box, on the approval of the tax office, would include the ratio of GST that should be submitted and the second box would contain the turnover of that business for the quarter in question. The quarter in question was the calculation that businesses had to make—but they have to do it anyway. They have to know what their turnover is. The simple calculation would have been the turnover for the quarter times the ratio. We made sure that there would be no requirement for reconciliation at the end of the accounting period. You cannot get a simpler system than that. Why wouldn’t it be embraced? The truth of it is that the government has embraced it in part. But if it has embraced it in part, why not extend it as an option to all small businesses? I ask the minister to tell us, when he gets up to respond in this debate, why he has not done it. I said that there would be two simple boxes. The ratio could be arrived at by two methods: a snapshot method where the business could opt to have it determined at two different points in a 12-month cycle or a business norm. Business norms, interestingly enough, are already embraced by this government when it comes to the mixed food business, so it is possible and we know that the tax office has already identified business norms in certain professions. From memory, it has identified them for a whole range of initiatives in the case of retailers of mixed businesses. It has identified those norms in relation to, for example, retail trade at 0.87 per cent; the wholesale trade at 0.77 per cent; accommodation, cafes and restaurants at 0.87 per cent; property and business services at 0.76 per cent; cultural and recreational services at 0.65 per cent; and personal services at 0.80 per cent. Clearly, there is the capacity for the tax office to identify the norms. We ask: why shouldn’t small businesses be able to exercise this option in whatever category they operate? As I said, we proposed this initiative six years ago. Small businesses in this country could have had the relief we were urging six years ago. We also proposed the $2 million threshold. We are pleased that the government have at least embraced the $2 million threshold but we want to see the BAS Easy notion extended to small business. Interestingly enough, the government have introduced what are called SAMs, simplified accounting methods, but only for retailers that sell food. That is what they did way back. Under division 123 of the tax act the commissioner can create SAMs that some retailers can choose to exercise. It does not provide the past history method but it does provide for the schedules method, the business norm method. It only goes to, if you like, the one form of simplified BAS Easy and it is limited in its application only to those that sell food. In 2006 the Banks review said it should be extended to restaurants, cafes and caterers, and in October 2006 it was extended to them. But the question that I again pose to the minister for response when he gets to the table is this: if it is to be extended to other food retailers, why not make it available to all businesses? The machinery is there, the option is there, the principle is there, so why does it have limited application? In the 2007 budget we had the interesting circumstance where the government claimed it was adopting this BAS Easy approach. It basically said that the SAM could be extended to all entities that have mixed supplies, taxable and GST-free, or mixed businesses. But from my reading of the bill—and perhaps the minister can enlighten us—it still seems to be restricted essentially to food businesses, because the businesses have to be mixed suppliers of both taxable and GST-free goods. Why not all businesses? That is the question that I pose to the minister. Labor has come forward with an initiative, a practical initiative, that can ease the red tape burden on small businesses as the unpaid tax collectors of this country. This government has ignored Labor’s call to embrace it in a bipartisan way; the government is pretending to have embraced it. We have seen no legislation come forward to amend the tax act to extend the BAS Easy option beyond the food sectors of industry. I ask the minister: if the Treasurer announced on budget night that he was going to extend the principle of the SAM, when we are going to see the legislation that extends it to all businesses in this country? That is what the small businesses of this nation want to know tonight. They want to know from this government when it is going to lift the red tape burden. I say this to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley: Labor are committed to lifting the red tape burden. We have been committed to doing that for some years. This government has ignored those calls. This is smart policy. It deserves bipartisan support. But, as usual, the government has squibbed it because it has failed to understand the important ramifications for small business. 92 18:23:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr DUTTON —in reply—I start by thanking those members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business) Bill 2007. I will address very quickly the contribution made by the member for Hotham and, on behalf of small business in this country, say to him that they, like me, would shudder at his response and the suggestion that he, a former ACTU boss— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —I knew it wouldn’t take long tonight—straight into it! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —and his esteemed colleague ‘the Academic’, the two of them, were able to come up with as a way forward for small business: ‘We’re here from the ACTU and we’re here from the university and we’re here to help you.’ ‘We’re the champions of small business,’ the Labor Party say, but none of them has been in small business. They are the champions of small business, but none of them has run a small business successfully. Certainly, in the case of 80 per cent of them, none has had the capacity to indulge in a career outside of the union movement. And they are expecting small businesses in this country to believe that they have the capacity to show small business the way forward and to improve the Australian economy. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out that I ran a small business, unlike the Assistant Treasurer. 10000 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—There is no point of order. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Of course, the point that the member for Rankin failed to add in his contribution was that it started out as a big business and then he worked it into a small business. That is a point that needs to be made. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —This had better not be a frivolous point of order, Member for Rankin. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —No, it is not. I find that offensive and it is totally incorrect. I ask that the Assistant Treasurer withdraw that comment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —The point here tonight is that the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business) Bill 2007 amends the law to make it easier for up to two million Australian businesses to determine their eligibility for a range of small business concessions. The current tax laws contain a number of special concessions for smaller businesses. The issue is that the law defines ‘small business’ in different ways and, in the past, each tax type has had its own set of eligibility criteria based on the particular group of taxpayers being targeted for assistance. Each definition was tailored to the specific characteristics, policy objectives and constraints of each particular tax concession. The managed separate eligibility criteria determining what is a small business, however appropriate when considered individually, are a source of complexity and unnecessary compliance costs for small businesses. This bill collapses all of those many definitions into just one based on aggregate turnover. The bill also delivers on a number of the government’s 2006-07 budget announcements, including increasing the capital gains tax maximum net assets threshold from $5 million to $6 million, increasing the goods and services tax cash accounting turnover threshold from $1 million to $2 million and extending the rollover relief available under the uniform capital allowance system to small business entities who use the simplified depreciation rules. This bill demonstrates what the government has demonstrated time and again: its commitment to reducing the red tape and compliance costs for Australian businesses—in this instance, Australian small businesses. Over the past decade, the government’s strong economic performance has seen both individuals and businesses benefit from lower taxes and greater incentives to save and to invest. Now 80 per cent of individual taxpayers have a top marginal tax rate of less than 30 per cent and businesses face a top tax rate of 30 per cent. Real household wealth has doubled since 1996, and business profits are now at record highs. These results have not been achieved by good fortune alone but as a consequence of a clear economic philosophy and experience. The member for Rankin has moved a second reading amendment asking the House to call on the government to implement amendments to the GST law to assist small businesses. The member might not have paid attention to the budget speech, but the government announced four initiatives to make the GST easier for small businesses. Firstly, I would like to note that the GST was part of the A New Tax System package, which is the most comprehensive and successful tax reform in Australia’s history and one Labor opposed at every step. The GST replaced a narrowly based and inefficient tax system and broadened the tax base to cover the services sector. What Labor always refuse to acknowledge about the introduction of the GST is that it removed sales tax, it removed stamp duty on marketable securities, it removed the BAD tax and it removed the FID—it removed all those taxes and more— and that is part of the reason why this economy is in good shape today. People who are listening to this debate tonight, particularly those in small business and those who are trying to balance their family budget, should recognise that Labor opposed this economic reform every step of the way. They stand condemned for that stance again tonight. Although Labor now make themselves out to be economic conservatives and people who could continue to manage the Australian economy well in the future, they have opposed every step that this government has taken, particularly in relation to tax reform. The states and territories are much better off with this broad based, secure and growing revenue source. The GST is expected to generate $42 million in revenue in 2007-08—and I remind the House that it is the states and territories, not the federal government, that benefit from every cent of GST revenues. This government recognises that tax compliance can present a challenge for small businesses. There is no doubt about that. The government has demonstrated time and time again, though, that where possible we take steps to simplify taxes for small business. To that end, the budget included four measures to simplify the GST for small business. Of course, those measures are in addition to the significant changes that are contained in the bill that is now before the House. The government announced a start date of 1 July 2007 for all these changes and, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, changes to the GST base require the unanimous agreement of the states and territories. The government has sought the relevant approval from the states and territories and, once that approval is obtained, I will move quickly to bring the changes before the parliament. I do suggest tonight, though, that Labor members contact their state Labor colleagues if they wish to expedite the process—and while the member for Rankin is talking to his Labor colleagues about this, he may also wish to discuss the payroll tax that they rip out of business. His comments about inconsistent payroll tax bases are a matter for the states and territories, and this government cannot be held responsible for Labor’s continuing mistakes in running the state governments. The member for Rankin also raised concern about the take-up rate for the simplified tax system. The take-up rate for the STS has been reflective of any new system, in that the number of taxpayers entering the STS has steadily increased since its introduction in 2001—and some 850,000 small businesses are in the STS. The bill before the House today introduces a new small business framework. The framework removes the elect-in element of the STS and, from 1 July 2007, small business taxpayers will be able to access any of the STS concessions so long as they are a small business entity. This bill is expected to further increase the take-up of the already successful and popular STS concessions. Through all of these debates the point remains that the coalition government has been responsible for reducing interest rates for small business from where they were under Labor—at about 20 per cent—down to the levels they are at today. The government has been responsible for driving the unemployment rate down from over 10 per cent under Labor to 4.4 per cent now—a 32-year low. We have employed 326,000 people over the last two months, and two million since we have been in government. The Labor Party have opposed us on every measure that we have put up to help small business, to reform the Australian economy, to make sure that we can build on the successes that we have maintained over the last 10 years and to set ourselves up for continued economic prosperity into the future. People, particularly those in small business, should be reminded of those facts on a day-by-day basis. In particular, they should be reminded that the Labor Party, which is now dominated by the unions—with more than 80 per cent of their frontbench having been either a former union boss or a union hack in some other form—would stand against small business in this place if they were ever elected to government. People in small business recognise that small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. If we want to see small business in this country broken, then we need a return to a Labor government. Small business does not deserve that, Australian families do not deserve that and the Australian economy does not deserve that. I thank those who have participated in this debate, and I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin 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. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm. Debate adjourned. 94 Bills R2752 Cognate bill: 95 Bills R2749 95 Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr McGauran: That this bill be now read a second time. 95 18:35:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —Prior to the break in this debate on the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and cognate bill, I noted that this legislation provides for the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation to be replaced by a proposed new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia. This new company will, for the first time, be able to use levy funds to promote the environmental values of the use of wood products and the use of wood products harvested from forests. The new company will invest industry funds into research and development to support improvements in productivity and efficiency in the industry. The research work of the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation has been well respected by those in the industry, and we look forward to the new organisation delivering results to help improve the competitiveness of the forestry and wood products industry. During the budget sitting week, I had the pleasure of escorting around the parliament Mr Stuart Bennett, Director of Midway Wood Products. Mr Bennett formerly managed a very successful timber mill at Birregurra in the Corangamite electorate and maintains an active involvement in the industry. Mr Bennett indicated to me that a need exists to do more work on plantation tree species, especially for hardwood and sawlogs. Mr Bennett stated that the improved genetics of pine trees had resulted in a 15 per cent boost to yield over time, demonstrating the benefits of research. This is an endorsement of the current R&D corporation and justification of the government’s policy to maintain support for forest and wood products research and development in the new company. From a processing perspective, Mr Bennett advised that the quality of wood is better when sourced from plantations because the trees are the same age and of consistent type and are therefore less costly to process than timber sourced from forests. But, in a cautionary note, Mr Bennett made the point that it has not yet been proven that a suitable quantity of sawlogs will be grown in plantations to meet long-term demand. This is a key challenge for the domestic timber industry. Where will the industry source suitable timber supplies? I note that, in his second reading speeches on these bills, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry confirmed industry support for the legislation, for the establishment of a new company and for its new, broadened roles. The industry supports these measures because they will help timber workers and timber communities respond to challenges facing the sector. The challenges include: difficulties in attracting private investment for plantations, an undersupply of softwood and hardwood sawlogs, restrictions on harvesting from native forests and ongoing attacks on the industry from radical environmental extremists. Finally, the establishment of the new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia, through these bills will be necessary to support the forestry industry, because it is an industry under threat as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, would know. There has been a determined campaign waged against the forestry sector over many years which has sought to marginalise the industry and put the future of the industry and forest workers’ jobs at risk. Opponents of the sector have gone about the total destruction of the industry with a religious-like zeal. Not only have our foresters been forced out of many of the nation’s forests but there are also groups which now seek to wipe out the plantation sector. Mr Anthony Amis, representing the misnamed Friends of the Earth, recently wrote in the Age newspaper, dated 4 April 2007, attacking the plantation sector and blaming it for causing all kinds of ills from water pollution, air pollution and toxic waste to crumbling roads. There could be no more renewable an industry than the timber industry, where you can grow a tree, cut it down and coppice another tree to grow in its place. This simple fact of life seems lost on Friends of the Earth, who want to force foresters out of forests, close down plantations and presumably source the future supply of Australia’s wood and paper needs from environmentally devastating and ethically bankrupt logging in the Amazon and sensitive environments in Third World nations. While Friends of the Earth would see sensitive world forests bulldozed to supply Australian timber, the Prime Minister has recently announced the establishment of a Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The Australian government has committed $200 million to kick off this measure to protect world forests. In announcing this initiative, the Prime Minister recognised that almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world’s forests. More than 4.4 million trees are removed every day world wide. In contrast to the arm waving by Friends of the Earth, the Howard government’s $200 million commitment to this initiative will support new forest planting, limit destruction of the world’s remaining forests and promote sustainable forest management. This is a key, practical measure to help stop denuding forests in developing nations. The government’s clear support for Australian timber workers and a sustainable forest industry can be contrasted with the Labor Party, which proposed a disastrous policy for Tasmanian forest industries at the last election. Former Labor leader Mark Latham sold out Tasmanian timber workers and their families during the 2004 election. It is good that this legislation allows the forestry industry to promote itself. Concerns about Labor’s policy remain within the forestry industry. Even some Labor MPs are concerned about Labor’s policy, as was taken to their national conference just a few weeks ago. Steve Lewis, writing in the Australian on Monday, 2 April 2007, reported: One frontbencher expressed concern at the draft policy, which is based on “no overall loss of jobs in the industry” while leaving open the prospect of locking up further old-growth forests. “You can’t have it both ways because Tasmanians can’t be conned,” the MP said. That is right. The opposition leader cannot have it both ways. He tries to walk both sides of the street on most issues, but the Australian people know that is not possible. It is disappointing that the opposition environment spokesman is not contributing to this debate. It would be very helpful if the member for Kingsford Smith would come in here and speak in support of the timber workers, but we all know that he will not because he wants to close the timber industry down. The opposition spokesman wants to force timber workers out of native forests. That is why he will not step into this chamber and speak in favour of this particular legislation. Labor MPs know the opposition spokesman cannot be trusted on this issue. I, again, quote Steve Lewis in the Australian, of 3 April 2007: Although Labor MPs believed Mark Latham’s 2004 Tasmanian forestry policy was dead and buried, Peter Garrett seems determined to resurrect at least part of it. Labor’s climate change spokesman says he is determined to hold on to that part of the draft policy platform which clearly states that Labor in office will consider further protection of Tasmania’s old growth forests. In the context of the threats faced by the forestry and wood products industry, I note the comments by Tasmanian Premier, Paul Lennon, following the ALP national conference: “I’m fed up with Tasmanian forestry workers and their families being election bait … “I don’t want the looming federal election to be another period of uncertainty and worry for them … Premier Lennon was obviously unimpressed with the federal Labor Party’s position, which, once again, has the potential to sell out timber workers. The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania is quite clear on what it thinks of Labor’s policy. FIAT Executive Director Terry Edwards told the Hobart Mercury on 30 May 2007 that if Labor’s policy is: … exactly as it reads—additional reservation—then as happened at the last federal election we’ll be campaigning against the Labor Party. It is disappointing that Labor is sending such negative signals to forest workers. It is a sign of just how much these new reforms are needed to allow the forestry industry, working cooperatively as a whole, to promote their industry and the benefits of sustainable timber harvesting. I am pleased to speak on these bills in support of our forest industries, timber workers and their families. I personally have been a long-time supporter of sustainable forest industries and the use of good science in forestry. The Howard government has supported our timber industries and contributes to research and development which promotes improved tree species and a more competitive production timber system. I commend these bills to the House. 97 18:44:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of the forestry industry and what I regard as an important bill, the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007. The opposition is also paying close attention to the outcome of the Senate committee’s consideration of this matter. In response to the comments by the member for Corangamite, it is interesting to note that the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has not chosen to speak in this debate. Many in the industry are fearful of the minister’s real views because we all appreciate that he represents an inner-city, very Sydney-centric seat which is becoming more and more marginal. It contains what is best described as a large percentage of doctors’ wives, who have a particular view about the timber industry—which is, close it down at the first available opportunity. If the polls continue as they are currently, then we will wait and see what the environment minister’s real, private position is—if it is publicly declared—with respect to the future of the forestry industry, especially given his decision to close down the mining industry on Christmas Island. He has put at serious risk the future livelihood of many workers on Christmas Island in his endeavour to play to the gallery and say, ‘I am the saviour of rainforests in Australia.’ This debate cuts both ways. Just as I am very supportive of the community forestry agreement in Tasmania—which, I remind the member for Corangamite, provides for additional reserves—I am also concerned about the future of Christmas Island. It is an island that has very serious economic challenges ahead of it because of its long-term dependency on the superphosphate industry. It is our responsibility during this process of transition to work with the local community to, if possible, transfer some mining reserves to some forest reserves. It is very clear on the basis of the evidence to date that reforestation is working very successfully on Christmas Island. So as far as I am concerned, the member for Lingiari is correct. The minister for the environment, Mr Turnbull, representing a very inner-city seat, has chosen to basically put the future of Christmas Island at risk because he is not concerned about the long-term viability of the forestry industry in Australia; he is more concerned about potential Green preferences. I raise those issues here seriously because this is a very serious debate. That is why we support the proposal to establish a new company under the Corporations Act 2001 to be called Forest and Wood Products Australia. This new body will replace the former statutory authority, the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. As its name implies, this was focused on research into and the development of the forestry industry—which is exceptionally important. The forestry industry is not an industry that is standing still; it is an industry which is vitally concerned with research and development. This new body will not only accept research and development responsibilities but will also be expanded to appropriately take on marketing and promotional activities as well. As a former shadow minister for forestry and someone who is vitally concerned with rural and regional communities in Australia, I think this initiative is long overdue. I would like to see the industry expand, especially with respect to the growth in plantations in Northern Australia. Such an initiative—now that we have some stability with respect to the future of the managed investment schemes, which the member for Corangamite has such serious concerns about—might encourage investors in Aboriginal communities to pursue plantations, which would create long-term, viable employment opportunities and economic opportunities for those people in Indigenous communities, which are seriously suffering economically at the moment. Research and development, especially in those tropical regions, is therefore vitally important to the future capacity to expand the forestry industry in Australia. As we appreciate, the industry faces great challenges, some of which were touched on in passing by the member for Corangamite. We know that that is partly related to the fact that, because of public pressure, there is an ongoing campaign, based not on scientific evidence but on emotion, to lock more and more forests away from commercial forestry. Further loss of resources has occurred through bushfires. The industry faces threats to its markets through misguided campaigns against Australian forestry and timber products more generally. Sawmills and timber-processing facilities are struggling. They are struggling to keep going and to make the innovations and investments needed to maintain a viable industry for the future. Let us hope that this new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia, can play a driving role to advance the industry and secure that future. The selection of its board is very important. Again I find myself supporting the comments of the member for Corangamite. The board must comprise members who represent all the stakeholders in the industry—with the appropriate qualifications, skills, knowledge, expertise and energy to drive the future of Australian forestry. They must also be prepared to stand up and be counted in terms of being committed to the industry. I therefore encourage the government to include the National Secretary for the CFMEU’s Forestry and Furnishing Products Division, Michael O’Connor. He has always fought courageously for the industry, its workers and its communities dotted around regional Australia. Sometimes, unfortunately, Michael O’Connor has found himself standing alone. It has sometimes been hard for some employers to have the courage to stand in the front line with him. Michael knows that in parts of rural Australia when the forestry industry goes so does the local community—the local doctor, the local school, the local sporting or netball team, the chemists and a variety of other facilities disappear from these communities if the forestry industry disappears. It is central to the future viability of many small and medium sized communities in rural, remote and regional Australia. So we have to make sure that we get on this board people who are committed to the industry and have the knowledge and expertise to actually drive it so that we can guarantee a viable future for the industry. I would also add that Timber Communities Australia has been a strong, tireless and loyal advocate for the industry. Having a member representing that organisation would add strength and diversity to the board and recognise the significant contribution of that organisation to Australian forestry over many years. It has also been a courageous advocate for the future of this industry. That is about strength, because the industry has many enemies. The success of this new organisation may well make or break the industry. It will be essential for it to focus on internationally competitive, environmentally sustainable practices, innovation and the production of high-quality forest and timber products. Just as importantly, it will defend Australian forestry and timber products in domestic and international markets through its promotional and marketing activities. As I have said many times before, no forestry policy will ever go far enough for the Green movement. They will simply shift the goalposts at every opportunity. There will be no end to this struggle in their minds. As far as they are concerned, nothing short of shutting down forestry, coal and airline industries in Australia will ever be good enough. It is forgotten that Australia’s forest and wood products industries contribute about two per cent of Australia’s GDP and directly employ more than 83,000 people. This is one of our largest manufacturing industries and it is the lifeblood of many rural and regional communities throughout Australia. Although we are both a net producer and exporter of timber in volume terms, we unfortunately have a significant trade deficit in forest products of around $2 billion. So it is important that we grow both our domestic and export markets to offset that deficit. It is economically smart and clever for Australia. If collectively the industry, the unions and the timber communities do not conquer the agenda of the Greens and their fellow travellers, the truth is they will conquer our great forest industries and Australia will be the poorer for it. That is why it is absolutely essential for the friends of the industry to unite on issues like certification, fire management, catchment management and the role of forests in climate change policy. We, as a nation, have unfortunately spent the last 30 years increasingly locking Australia’s forests away from the forest industries in national parks. But the managers of our forest conservation assets could learn a lot from the forestry industry, and I hope this will also be a focus of Forest and Wood Products Australia when it comes to research and development, marketing and promotion. Four years ago the Pilliga State Forest in New South Wales was one of the world’s finest timber resources for white cypress pine. White cypress pine needs to be managed. It needs to be thinned to allow it to grow, and it germinates only in rare events initiated by favourable climatic conditions. These germination events may be several decades apart, and when they occur the young seedlings come up so thick that, as legend would have it, ‘a dog cannot bark in it’. If the seedlings are not thinned they quickly reach a stage when their growth is curtailed. That means that trees in a forest might be 50 to 80 years of age but still only a few metres high and with diameters of only a few centimetres. In that situation they create a monoculture, and a monoculture in a forest is not desirable because it leaves no ground cover and creates perfect conditions for erosion and land degradation. Let us deal with a bit of science. We understand that the Greens and their fellow travellers are not interested in such a complex debate. It goes to proper management: when such forests are managed, biodiversity flourishes and erosion and fires can be controlled and managed. There were an estimated 15,000 koalas living in the managed part of Pilliga State Forest before it was effectively locked up four years ago, and it was a favoured place for wildflower devotees. But in December last year, after four years of so-called conservation and no management, a hot fire destroyed the Pilliga, the koalas and the wildflowers. Gone are 420 jobs, which are so important to regional New South Wales, and, interestingly, a timber industry in north-western New South Wales worth $38.4 million. That is nothing to be sniffed at. By the time Christmas arrived last year, 700,000 hectares of forest in eastern Australia, much of it in national parks, had gone up in smoke. By the end of summer more than one million hectares were lost—‘lock it up, forget it and do not manage it’, is the catchcry of many in the environmental movement—more than 16 times the annual average amount of forest harvested by our world-class forestry industry. What a comparison. But let us not deal with the facts. Some people do not want a factual debate, just an emotional debate—especially as we move closer to state and federal elections—so that they can do yet another dirty little Green deal with preferences. Interestingly too, 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere as a result of those fires. According to a CSIRO scientist, we also lost 370 million animals in this summer’s bushfires alone. As the forests regenerate their thirst for water will be insatiable. At a time of a deep drought this is the No. 1 concern of most Australians. Where is the evidence that native animal and plant species are better protected in national parks than state or privately managed forests? There is none at all. But this unfortunately is not a one-off. Back in 2003 we lost more than three million hectares to bushfires in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. Thousands of hectares of mountain ash forests in our alpine regions were wiped out and there has been practically no regeneration of the species in national park areas, unlike commercial forestry areas which use proven silvicultural practices to ensure regeneration of all species harvested. The 2003 forest fires also released 130 million tonnes of CO2—about a quarter of Australia’s total annual greenhouse emissions. Equally significant, studies predict a reduction of up to a fifth of the water flowing into the Murray-Darling Basin region as a result of the regeneration of those forests. It is estimated that the regrowth from the 2003 bushfires will use 430 billion litres of water a year for the next 50 years. There is much more to this drought than people realise. The question has to be asked whether it is time to rethink our management strategies when it comes to national parks. If we believe in climate change we are going to have to confront issues such as the thinning of our national parks forests to save water in our catchments and prevent fires—a strategy that the forestry industry has employed for over a hundred years. We are going to have to confront the issue that perhaps cattle grazing in our alpine areas was good fire management practice and less environmentally harmful than the devastating fires that have ripped through our national parks in the absence of any active management. The Greens are opposed to active management of our national parks, but the evidence when it comes to forest conservation is firmly stacking up on the side of the forestry industry. I hope this is the message Forest and Wood Products Australia can effectively deliver to our domestic and international markets, and to those in our community who have been subject to misinformation campaigns for way too long. It is time, too, for the industry to stand up for itself and, instead of jumping into bed with the green groups as the easy way out of secondary boycotts, take on the fight with the CFMEU’s forestry division and the timber communities in the interests of better national conservation and industry outcomes for Australia and the world at large. More also needs to be done in terms of social outcomes—not only in saving the dying timber communities in places like Baradine but also in building new opportunities, particularly in Indigenous communities like Port Keats-Wadeye, building on the success of ventures like those in the Tiwi Islands. The industry also has a great opportunity to capitalise on the carbon sequestration benefits of forests and timber products. This is a huge challenge. The world’s forests and soils store more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, twice as much as is in the atmosphere, and they have the potential to absorb 10 to 20 per cent of total global emissions from now to 2050. In Australia, the annual net sink in forests and wood products is about 10 per cent of total greenhouse emissions. It is growing trees that sequester carbon most rapidly, generally early in their lifecycle. So managed forests are very important in terms of carbon absorption—hence the interest of the Indigenous community. And it is time that green hypocrisy when it comes to the proper utilisation of wood waste was ended. About five million cubic metres of timber residues are generated from commercial forest harvest operations each year, very little of which is burnt for power generation. If an extra four million cubic metres of that waste was used, 30 per cent of the MRET would be met overnight. Yes—meeting an MRET through the forestry industry. That is a real challenge to the so-called environmental movement. But wood residues account for less than five per cent of MRET certificates, because wholesalers and retailers are too frightened of secondary boycotts by environmental NGOs to sell power generated from them; it is not politically correct. I hope Forest and Wood Products Australia have the courage to front up to this issue and do something about it. It is part of the greenhouse debate. There are also new opportunities for wood residues and timber crops when it comes to alternative transport fuels. I am referring to lignocellulosic ethanol. There is a growing ethical debate about food versus fuel, with ethanol in Australia produced from starch, grain or sugar. In the United States and South America, diversion of land from food to biofuels production is already driving up the price of food. Mexican corn prices have doubled in the last year, forcing the government to put a ceiling on tortilla prices. Sugar prices have also doubled, and that is why Australian sugar producers are more interested at this moment in the sale of their cane for sugar than for ethanol. Countries all around the world are now considering biofuels production from various crop sources, and these will be grown on land that previously grew food—or else on newly-cleared forest land. Interestingly, 80 per cent of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions arise from the deforestation of the Amazon basin, mainly to grow sugar cane for—guess what—ethanol. This dilemma comes at a time when climate change is also perceived as a threat to world food supplies and when drought in Australia is of great concern to all of us. As a Science Alert reported a couple of weeks ago, the industrial production of biofuels threatens to create conflict over food for humans, feed for animals and feedstocks for liquid transport fuels. That is why production of lignocellulosic ethanol from waste and non-food crops is a very important future technology. There are many exciting opportunities out there for the forestry industry in Australia. The opposition supports this bill and wishes Forest and Wood Products Australia every success in its future endeavours. We only hope that, by working together with the forestry industry, we can take the debate forward on the science rather than on emotion and the coming and going of state and territory elections over their regular four- and three-year cycles. We owe that to the timber communities. (Time expired) 102 19:04:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007. The key elements of these bills are as follows. First, the main bill will establish a new forestry research and development and marketing company to replace the former Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Second, it will allow the Commonwealth to provide matching funds for research and development projects undertaken by the new company. Third, it will allow the new company to collect levies to fund its activities. This amount will be limited to the lesser of either 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production of the Australian forestry industry for the financial year, or 50 per cent of the amount spent by the new company on research and development activities that qualify under the funding contract in that financial year. There are also carryover provisions for research and development that is not 50 per cent matched. This will maintain research and development funding at the levels of the previous Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Fourth, the bill gives the minister broad powers to revoke the status of the new company if it is deemed to have contravened the act or the funding contract or a number of other specified instances which would call into question the legitimacy of the company’s activities. Fifth, it gives the minister the authority to direct activities of the new company in exceptional and urgent circumstances. And, sixth, it allows the minister to delegate any or all of his or her powers and functions under the bill to either the secretary of the department or an appropriate SES employee. The transitional and consequential provisions include: transferring the assets and liabilities of the Forest and Wood Products and Research and Development Corporation to the new company, assets being estimated at $6.4 million; transferring staff from the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation to the new company; maintaining the terms and conditions of employment of staff in the new company; and retaining the Commonwealth as the liable party under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act until staff commence with the new company. This also affects some existing entitlements for transferring Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation employees. It is worth noting that the new company is not an approved authority for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Act 1990 or the Superannuation Act 2005. The transitional provisions allow the carryover of long service leave. They require final annual reports from the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, and they allow unmatched research and development money to be carried over to the new company. The current Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation provides what has been described as a ‘national, integrated research and development focus for the Australian forest and wood products industry’. It is committed to research and development that promotes internationally competitive and environmentally sustainable practices. The main bill establishes a company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act which will assume the research and development functions currently being provided by the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation and incorporate new functions of marketing and promotion. The old Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation could not undertake marketing and promotion activities, and the forestry industry has indicated its support for a new company to undertake this responsibility. Some concerns have been raised about the bill. As the bill establishes a new entity undertaking new responsibilities, it is appropriate that it should be reviewed to ensure that it is properly established and that transitional arrangements are appropriate. It is appropriate to compare the outcomes of this process to the Uhrig template to determine if the administration of the new corporation is satisfactory. A review is also appropriate to consider the terms of the statutory funding agreement between the new corporation and the Commonwealth. A referral through a proper committee process will allow for the appropriate review and consultation to be undertaken. The bill gives me an opportunity to say something about current and future directions of forestry research. Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss these forestry issues, particularly in relation to global warming, with some key people from the Food and Agriculture Organisation—Dr Wulf Killmann and Mr Jim Carle. We discussed global warming and carbon sinks. It should be noted that half the dry weight of biomass is carbon. Forests, like other ecosystems, are affected by climate change, be it a sea level rise that threatens coastal forests or changes in temperature and rainfall patterns. Some impacts will be negative; some will be positive. But forests themselves influence the climate and the climate change process. They absorb carbon in wood, leaves and soil and release it into the atmosphere when burned—for example, during forest fires or the clearing of forest land. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change obliges all member countries, of which Australia is one, to assess and report national greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions and removals of carbon reflected as stock changes in forests. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has created guidelines, methods and default values for all parameters needed to assess carbon stocks and their changes in forests. Quantifying the substantial roles of forests as carbon stores, as sources of carbon emissions and as carbon sinks has become one of the keys to understanding and modifying the global carbon cycle. Unfortunately, the Food and Agriculture Organisation has found that many of the 229 countries and territories which are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have had difficulty in providing complete information concerning all pools of carbon—that is, above- and below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter and soil carbon to a depth of 30 centimetres. Many countries do not possess country specific information on the parameters necessary for calculating all carbon pools. As a consequence of missing data, it is not yet possible to aggregate country data to obtain complete regional or global totals for carbon in any pool. But it is worth pointing out that these totals and their changes over the years are very important for the global warming debate. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that global forest vegetation stores some 283 gigatonnes in deadwood and estimates that soil down to 30 centimetres and litter contain 317 gigatonnes of carbon. It therefore estimated, as at 2005, the total carbon content of forest ecosystems at some 638 gigatonnes, more than the amount of carbon in the entire atmosphere. That is obviously very significant. Roughly half of total carbon is found in forest biomass and deadwood combined, and half in soils and litter combined. In terms of trends, the Food and Agriculture Organisation has concluded that from 1990 to 2005 carbon in biomass decreased in Africa, Asia and South America, remained approximately constant in Oceania, and increased in Europe and North and Central America. Not all subregions followed this trend. More research in this area is essential, but the potential of forestry to play a role in tackling global warming by absorbing carbon from the atmosphere is clear. How effectively is this potential being realised? The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change expressly allows countries to meet their targets through the use of carbon sinks. The protocol allows parties to fulfil parts of their obligations through purchasing certified emissions reductions from carbon offset projects under the clean development mechanism involving forests. Conferences of the parties to the climate change convention have held meetings to address specific issues concerning the so-called land use, land use change and forestry activities. The parties to the convention have, perhaps unfortunately, reached different conclusions regarding the proper role of forests and appropriate national legislation to foster that role. As a result, national legislative activity on the issue of forests and climate change has been limited. One exception is Costa Rica, which has created a certified tradeable offset to attract developed nations looking to sponsor mitigation projects. The first project funded under this mechanism has involved forests. Indeed, New South Wales has changed its property laws to recognise a separate legal interest in the carbon sequestration potential of forest land. A number of issues need to be resolved in relation to legislation to foster carbon sequestration in forests. For example: who can claim credit and receive payment for carbon sequestration and can that ownership be transferred? Who is responsible for carbon debits from deforestation, forest harvesting or natural calamities? How will the amount and duration of carbon credits be determined, recorded and verified? How can the government promote orderly sales or other transfers of ownership? How will national law allocate the risk of failure of carbon sequestration projects? Will the law assess liability for damaging a forest’s carbon sequestration potential? Countries need to be thinking about how to encourage and integrate the use of forests as carbon sinks. Sequestering carbon in living forest biomass, soil and wood products, as well as substituting wood energy from sustainably managed forests for fossil fuels, are important mitigation measures. Industry now adds about 6.3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year and the destruction of forests contributes at least another gigatonne. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, some 370 parts per million, is about 35 per cent higher than it was in pre-industrial times, when it was 280 parts per million. It is therefore an appealing proposition to turn harmful emissions of carbon dioxide via photosynthesis into new forests, thereby replacing some of the 16 million hectares of natural forests that the planet loses annually. There are various things that industry can do to increase its contribution to climate change mitigation through forestry. Dr Wulf Killmann says that 80 per cent of the energy performance of a pulp and paper mill is determined on the day machinery is purchased; that the forest products sector is probably one of the lowest investors in research of any of the resource based sectors; that there is a serious lack of funds for research and development; that the dryer section of the paper machine is the main user of energy followed by the concentration of the black liquor and that breakthrough technologies are needed that completely change the way mills dry paper and concentrate black liquor; and that, in the Nordic countries, research and development in a biorefinery is expected to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in the next few years. The global forest products industry can play a significant role in combating climate change. Dr Wulf Killmann believes it has exceptional ability to become a net supplier of a range of energy products and it could, in combination with carbon capture and storage, become an important actor in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This will require optimising the use of raw material, increasing efficiency, producing bioenergy and expanding into biorefinery products. It also requires that forests be managed responsibly. Jim Carle says that planted forests account for about seven per cent of global forest area—or about two per cent of global land area or slightly fewer than 300 million hectares. They provide more than half the industrial wood produced in the world and their extent and productivity are increasing. Compared with naturally regenerating forests, planted forests represent a higher investment per area unit and normally produce higher values through their products and services. They are also sometimes controversial, and achieving a balance among social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits is a challenge. Planted forests can play a significant role in regulating water flows and improving water quality. They can be an important mechanism in rehabilitating catchments. As with naturally regenerating forests, they can regulate floods, reduce debris flows and stabilise land, thereby reducing soil erosion that would otherwise lead to excessive sedimentation in rivers and lakes. They can control soil and water salinity and improve soil stability to prevent landslides. It should not be assumed, however, that the impacts of planted forests are invariably positive. Inappropriate planting, particularly if using species with high water requirements, for example, can deplete water resources such as groundwater. Then there is the issue of fire. While the release of heat-trapping emissions from fire is a natural phenomenon, the net release of carbon by wildfires, as a consequence of fire induced site degradation and lowered carbon sequestration potential, is contributing to global warming. Human population growth is associated with increasing rates of conversion of natural vegetation to agricultural and pastoral systems and with the development of residential areas, infrastructure and traffic. Land-use change is occurring in traditionally uninhabited or uncultivated areas, such as mountain slopes and floodplains. This is frequently a result of poverty, deforestation or vegetation conversion for production of cash crops for the global market. In many regions of the world, the process is associated with the use of fire for land clearing and the increasing occurrence of uncontrolled fires. Many regions of the world have experienced a trend over the last decade towards excessive fire application in land-use systems and land-use change, and a trend towards more severe fires. The effects of fires include smoke and water pollution and impacts on human health and safety, loss of biodiversity, and site degradation with knock-on effects such as desertification, soil erosion or flooding. Fires burning under extreme conditions in some vegetation types, including organic terrain, can deplete terrestrial carbon and disturb the global carbon cycle. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has been coordinating a multistakeholder process to prepare a global strategy to enhance international cooperation in fire management. This is in line with recommendations from the third International Wildland Fire Summit, which was held in Sydney in October 2003. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has developed a set of voluntary guidelines for fire management which cover the positive and negative social, cultural and economic impacts of natural and planned fires in forests, woodlands, rangelands, grasslands, agricultural and rural/urban landscapes. The fire management guidelines cover early warning, prevention, preparedness, safe and effective initial attack on incidences of fire and landscape restoration following it. Naturally around the world there are many different situations, ranging from areas with few fires and little impact to areas in which fire is a key component of ecosystem health. Even in developed countries, people and communities move into fire-prone areas, causing problems for protection from fire. Of particular significance, and certainly this is true of Australia, are the areas in which fire plays an important role in the environment, either playing a role naturally in sustaining the ecosystem or providing for livelihoods through agricultural or other uses. Jim Carle says that the need to protect lives, resources and property from the adverse effects of fire must be balanced against the need for the appropriate use and equilibrium of fire in the environment. He also says that the notion of the ‘good fire’ should continue to be advocated. Fire can be good for habitats, for resources, for reducing threats and for maintaining cultural values. The projections for global warming indicate increasing impact in relation to fire regimes. The prospect of a global mean temperature rise from 1.6 to 5.4 degrees Celsius by 2100 represents a much more rapid change than any experienced over the past 10,000 years. Just as importantly, in turn more frequent droughts will give rise to more high-severity wildfires, leading to loss of vegetation cover, desertification and reduced terrestrial carbon sequestration. Both land use fires and wildfires in all ecosystems are affecting carbon pools and global carbon cycles. In turn, global warming affects the duration and severity of dry seasons, therefore impacting on the incidence and severity of fires. In light of global warming, fire management practices need to take into account observed and anticipated changes in fuel and vegetation type, burning conditions and additional fire risk. Policies are needed to maximise the storage of carbon in ecosystems without increasing the likelihood of unwanted fire risk. We need to minimise the global warming emissions that occur as a result of large-scale, unwanted fire by restoring and maintaining ecologically appropriate fire regimes. 107 19:23:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —The Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007 will establish a company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001 to assume the research and development functions currently provided by the FWPRDC and will incorporate the new functions of marketing and promotion. This legislation effectively replaces the old forestry R&D statutory authority, the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, with a new R&D and marketing corporation called Forest and Wood Products Australia, FWPA. However, we need to ensure that the proposed administration of the new company will adequately represent the views of all affected parties within the forestry industry. We should make sure that everybody in this industry is given representation. This legislation is not controversial. I believe it is important that marketing should be involved in any research and development strategy. By all reckoning, the timber industry needs all the promotion it can get. I would like to talk a little about the timber industry and the terrible misinformation that seems to be spread out and about, especially from Tasmania, without any real rhyme or reason. The timber industry is a fine industry. It is an old industry with links back to the dawn of civilisation. Timber has been used over aeons for everything, from the home to transport to energy—to every part of the life of early man. It was and still is a very important and enduring part of our civilisation. Just think of the analogies nowadays and what trees are used for: there is the tree of life and the tree of knowledge; art gives the tree a vital part in every landscape; it is our muse and our balance in a chaotic environment; we talk about roots and the protection of spreading branches. So much of our life is dominated by trees and timber products. I would say that in some people’s minds there is a sacredness about trees that seems to ignore the very practical relationship between man and our forests, by growing them, cutting them down and growing them again. Trees are the ultimate sustainable product. They will survive long past man’s pitiable efforts to ‘save’ them from man. Research and development over the years has developed timber and its products to great heights. Timber is used in some of our best designed furniture. In this Parliament House we see the magnificent timbers from around Australia fashioned into floors and fittings, contrasting beautifully with the natural stone and marble around the building. The timber inlays in the Marble Hall are some stunning examples of marquetry, which is now becoming fashionable again. We have used tree and timber products as we have moved through the ages. Paper and paper making is so much part of our lives that people forget where it comes from. Paper is used for our newspapers, computer paper, art paper, labels and packaging on almost all our processed foods and many other household products, posters, books, magazines and notepads. In fact, as I looked at my desks, both here and at home, I thought that if paper did not exist I do not think I could survive. If we took paper out of our lives, it would be a very poor place indeed. Yet when someone suggests that they want to build a pulp mill in Tasmania, there is an uproar that it will ruin our lives because it might give out some emissions, put some effluent into the water or use a bit of the water. I say ‘might’ because there has so far been no proof of intention to do this. Surely, for the sake of being able to use our own trees and our own workers and being self-sufficient in the raw materials of our timber based products, we should at least allow the company to put its case without vilification at every turn. Gunns has been part of our lives in Tasmania, as indeed has some of our timber. It is a Tasmanian company employing Tasmanians and developing some of our savings to help our economy. Its managing director is a long-term Tasmanian. He lives in the north and his office is in Launceston, and it is in his interests to ensure that his environment is not despoiled. He is no different from the rest of us. Pulp mills are already in Tasmania and have been for some time. In fact, the family of a current Greens senator sold their land for the Wesley Vale pulp mill in the 1960s and now there are two pulp mills, a paper machine and an off-machine coater and manufacturers of a variety of office and specialty paper grades. Paper manufactured at Burnie is mostly plain paper for forms grade photocopying and offset printing and base grades which are then transported to Wesley Vale for coating. In 1989 there was an attempt to expand this pulp mill and there was such an outcry, led by the particular senator I referred to, that the proposal was dropped, and Tasmania had to wait nearly 20 years for someone to be brave enough to try for another one. Pulp mills are a known factor to those who live around them, and we have had little trouble living with them since the 1930s. Like many other processing plants, there are problems from time to time but they are always fixable. I live in the town of Longford, where there is a meat processing plant. Local residents have for years lived next to the chimney plume which, in days gone by, used to exude an odour very like overcooked meal and meat. That problem has finally been solved. Although the plume is still there, and you can see when there is an inversion layer and you can see which way the wind is blowing, it has become a part of our lives and it harms nobody. Like people in Finland who live in a landscape full of pulp mills, these are benevolent giants in their communities, providing their jobs, their recreation and their economy. Why should ours be any different? With proper research and safeguards, any problems could be overcome. It does not have to divide communities. It is crazy to have scare campaigns running on emotion only. The facts seem to have mysteriously disappeared along with the science. This is why we must ensure that there is ongoing independent research available for industries and their communities to make rational and informed decisions about the future. If there is a situation that could lead to a problem in the future then those people should be able to sit down and talk about it using up-to-date information and come to some useful and workable conclusion. I am not saying that this bill will necessarily provide all that but legislation should help people to help themselves in coming to terms with change and new directions. This bill gives us some hope that funds will be invested in research and development. I support the bill. 108 19:33:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Ms LEY —I thank all members of the House for their contributions to this debate on the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007. The forestry industry is important to Australia as it contributes significantly to our national economy and exports. Research and development makes a positive contribution to the productivity and sustainability of the Australian forestry industry. When combined with generic marketing and promotion, it will increase the competitiveness of Australia’s forest and wood products in the international market. I thank the member for Hotham for his support for the continuation and expansion of forest research and development to include the promotion of Australia’s forestry industry, although I must correct him on one small point: the new arrangements do not result from the Uhrig review but rather from the expressed desires of the forestry industry to broaden the scope and capacity of the industry research and development provider to include marketing and promotion to its already strong track record on research and development. The Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 will provide the power for the government to declare an industry owned company as the industry services body for the forestry industry. I also thank the member for Corangamite for his support and echo his comments that the development and promotion of a sustainable forest can only be beneficial to Australia and those Australians who depend on forestry for their livelihood. In fact, in my own electorate of Farrer the forestry industry is a major employer and economic driver. Good research and development coupled with promotion and marketing is an important requirement for the industry to remain strong and competitive. This legislation is an important step forward for the Australian forestry industry. The establishment of public companies or industry services bodies to undertake the delivery of marketing, research and development and other services to the agricultural industries is not a new concept. The legislation follows the precedent set by other industries. It closely resembles other industries’ legislation but has been tailored to meet the specific requirements of the circumstances of the forestry industry and the operating arrangements of the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Under these new arrangements, there will be accountability to the levy payers as members of the company and to the government through the funding contract. The constitution of the new company, which is to be the industry services body, and the funding contract are being developed. The funding contract will be tabled in both houses of parliament after it is signed off. Recent practice has been to table the funding contracts in parliament after signing. The legislation will provide for the establishment of a new industry services body for the forestry industry that will give industry the opportunity to better promote the environmental values of wood products as well as increase access to domestic and international markets. The industry services body will undertake generic marketing and promotion, research and development, and other industry services to the forestry industry. Integration of research and development and promotion will enable the forestry industry to be responsive in a unified voice to deal with the challenges currently facing the industry. It is hoped that the establishment of this new industry services body will also improve communication within the industry and with stakeholders and the government. By being able to better promote the industry and improve communication, access opportunities to the domestic and international markets for Australian forest and wood products will be maximised. The company that is declared as the industry services body will be limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001 and will assume the research and development activities that are currently provided by the statutory authority, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. The company will have a skills based approach to its board membership and advisory committees. This will allow interested parties seeking positions within the company to be considered, based on their skills set and the desired skills set of the company. Members of the company will have the opportunity to nominate and vote for board members. The accompanying bill provides for the one-off transfer of assets and liabilities and the corporation’s existing employees to allow the new industry services body to function from day one with funds and without any disruption to the current research and development work. The transferring employees will support the interim board of the industry services body which will be made up of most of the current serving board of the corporation to ensure a smooth transition from the corporation to the industry services body. The Commonwealth values the outputs of research and development, and the legislation will provide for the Commonwealth to continue to match, dollar for dollar, funds spent by the industry services body on eligible research and development. The new industry services body will be accountable to the Commonwealth. It will be bound by a number of measures outlined in the legislation, the funding contract and the company constitution. Should a variety of circumstances occur such as the company constitution is changed in an unacceptable way, the industry services body fails to comply with the legislation or the funding contract, or the company ceases to carry on business, the minister will have the ability to suspend the payment of statutory levies and other relevant payments and/or declare that the company ceases to be the industry services body. The transition from the existing statutory authority, Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, to the new industry services body provided for in this legislation will unite and strengthen Australia’s forestry industry to remain productive and sustainable into the future. The Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the accompanying transition bill are the result of a partnership approach to forestry matters between the government and the forest industry. It aims to provide the industry with greater ownership and control to enable them to be responsive to the markets and to have the capacity to respond more effectively and efficiently to current and emerging challenges. Ultimately this will mean increased access to domestic and international markets and improved sustainability and profitability of the industry. Once again, I thank those who spoke on the legislation. I have not mentioned the member for Wills, the member for Batman and the member for Lyons. I thank them, as well as the members for Corangamite and Hotham. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 110 Ms LEY (Farrer —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 19:40:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 111 Bills R2749 111 Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr McGauran: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 111 Ms LEY (Farrer —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 19:42:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 111 Bills R2738 111 Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Dr Stone: That this bill be now read a second time. 111 19:43:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to speak tonight on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 to, among other things, change the process of appointing federal safety officers; allow the Federal Safety Commissioner and persons working in the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner to disclose protected information on the scheme to the minister; extend the application of the Australian Government Building and Construction Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme, administered by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, to cover situations where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for building work funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, taking appropriate steps to see that such persons are also accredited while the building work is being carried out; extend the accreditation requirement to funding arrangements beyond those currently contemplated by the legislation; and clarify that subsection 35(4) of the act only overrides Commonwealth provisions to the extent of any inconsistency. Labor notes that the government has again had to return to the parliament to correct some elements of its industrial relations platform and this time it must amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act. The last opportunity I had to speak to the original bill—that is, the 2005 bill—was on 10 August 2005 when I made my views known about the prime motivation for the legislation proposed by the government. But clearly the need for this particular bill is not because there are any changed circumstances in the industry but rather a deficiency with the preparation by the minister in relation to this particular matter. Labor opposed the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill when it was first introduced in 2005 because it was a flawed piece of legislation based on a flawed premise. But given the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill’s focus on occupational health and safety, we will be supporting this bill’s timely passage through the parliament. However, Labor’s concerns with the government’s approach to this law in the past remain the same. Labor has opposed the Howard government’s approach to the regulation of industrial relations and health and safety in the building and construction sector because it provides a separate set of laws for the industry and has created in excess of 200 pages of new legislation. It exposes ordinary employees to extreme penalties for taking industrial action and, in connection with the national code of practice for the construction industry and Work Choices legislation, it contributes to an astonishing level of regulation of industry. The Howard government has also indicated that it will consider on a case-by-case basis intervening in the public interest where employers use existing mechanisms under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This is an unprecedented level of government intervention in support of employers in bargaining negotiations at the industry level. It does appear, given the intent behind the legislation, that the government is more inclined to intervene to assist employers in this industry than employees. I contend that is indeed symptomatic of the approach taken by the government with respect to industrial relations legislation. It is legislation that I would contend was prepared for political purposes and which is complex, conflict driven and based on false assumptions that will not assist industry or its consumers. It also fails to address a number of significant issues in the industry such as phoenix companies, tax avoidance and the still-unresolved question of protection of employee entitlements. There are a number of other matters on which there should be a greater focus. There does not seem to be a concern for the very high bankruptcy rates among small contractors in the sector. There is not a particular focus on the relatively widespread non-compliance with award or industrial obligations. Again, the legislation is designed primarily to focus upon conduct of employees or employees’ organisations and therefore it lacks balance and consideration for any particular breaches by employers. To that extent it is, as I say, politically driven. That is why Labor has committed to abolishing the politically influenced ABCC and creating an industry specific inspectorate within the proposed independent umpire, Fair Work Australia. These specialist units will operate within the inspectorate arm of Fair Work Australia and one of the first to be developed will be for the building and construction industry. We want to take the partisanship out of the industrial relations legislation. We want to ensure that there is balance; that the approach of statutory authorities that regulate employment conditions, whether in the building industry or indeed in any other industry in this country, has an eye to breaches of law, if they are there, by employers, employees and indeed organisations that represent either of those two groups; and that it does not focus the government’s enmity towards one particular part or player within the industry. When this bill was introduced by the government, the minister cited high rates of fatalities and the fact that the industry also had the third highest incidence of workplace injuries with more than 12,500 compensated injuries or 34 injuries per day. Labor agree that we need to do all that we can to ensure that Australian men and women who work on building sites across the country work safely and return home safely. We also agree with the view that OH&S performance must be enhanced through cultural and behavioural change but we would argue that the Howard government’s punitive and adversarial approach will not achieve this. Labor are driven by a desire for genuine improvement in the area of occupational health and safety across Australian workplaces and we believe appropriate compensation is an important and essential part of that. In fact Labor have a very proud history of focusing on policies that prevent injury at workplaces and indeed have done so in the state legislatures of this country. Wherever there is a federal responsibility, Labor have always been at the forefront of policy development in the area of OH&S. Labor have made a very significant contribution, particularly when compared with the coalition parties, in this area. I think it is fair to say that we have never sought to use this particular area, which potentially affects workers in this country so drastically, as a political football. However different the respective views are of both major parties in the area of industrial relations, we are particularly concerned that occupational health and safety—that is, that area of public policy—would find itself in a situation of being misused for political and partisan purposes. Labor is driven by a desire for genuine improvements, as I say, but the Howard government is moving to reduce coverage and compensation by shifting major Australian companies from state based schemes to Comcare. Only last month we had before us in this place a bill which had as its principal objective the minimisation of the costs of work related injury and disease for those covered by Comcare, even though it is a beneficial scheme. This contrasts with the historical evolution of occupational health and safety policy in Australia, which has placed the prevention of workplace injury and illness before all other objectives. This is a principle that has, historically, underpinned state and federal legislation in this area. But this shift away from that accords with the Howard government’s Work Choices laws, their punitive and adversarial nature and the ideology behind them. If the government were really serious about occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry, we contend, it would abolish its unfair industrial actions law for the industry. Indeed, another area that concerns me and that is associated with the government’s approach to occupational health and safety is the way in which it has sought to prohibit parties from agreeing upon enterprise clauses that go to union health and safety training. Now, we understand—we do not like it, but we understand—that the government has an extraordinarily high intolerance of unions in this country and would like to see them critically weakened. It is certainly something that the government has sought to do since it was elected in 1996—that is, target the organisations of employees registered under the Workplace Relations Act, and target them critically to damage them so that employees have difficulty getting genuine representation in the workplace. But we do not understand how the government can go so far as to prohibit the capacity for an employer and his or her employees to reach an agreement on a particular clause that would allow for union health and safety training. We do not understand how that could be acceptable if the government were genuinely concerned about occupational health and safety. So this bill is of concern to us. Unfortunately, it is consistent with the approach the government has taken of putting its enmity towards unions before the safety of Australian workers in workplaces. That is a critical problem with respect to this bill and all bills that the government has introduced in this area of public policy. Labor consider the better approach to be to ensure that fairness exists in the workplace. We would seek to put fairness back into the system. This would mean having a system that places a high degree of focus on cooperation rather than conflict and settling old scores. The latest available workplace safety data from the ABS suggests that we are not making real progress on occupational health and safety in our Australian workplaces. The figures for work related injuries are instructive. Nearly 700,000 people were injured at work in Australia in 2005-06, and the majority of them, 63 per cent, were men. Men had a higher work related injury or illness rate—74 per 1,000—than women, although the rate for women was still very high—51 per 1,000. Younger Australians, both men and women, recorded higher work injury or illness rates. The 15 to 19 age group had the highest rate, with 78 per 1,000, followed by the 20 to 24 age group, with 75 per 1,000. Mature-age workers—that is, those over the age of 55—recorded the lowest rate of work related injuries and illnesses, with 50 per 1,000. The Australians injured at work were predominantly employees—86 per cent of all those injured. The injury rates for owner-managers are certainly significantly lower in comparison. Workers who were employed under shift arrangements had comparatively high rates of injury relative to total employee levels. Indeed, although they make up only 16 per cent of the workforce, 27 per cent of employees injured were those working in shift arrangements outside the ordinary spread of hours such as a day shift. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the ABS data was that more than 43 per cent of people who had experienced a work related injury or illness ‘had not received any occupational health and safety training in the job where their injury or illness occurred’. Furthermore, over 10 per cent of those injured did not apply for compensation because they thought they would not be eligible, thought they were not covered or were not aware of applicable coverage. This, coupled with the previous statistic, suggests that workers are still in a situation where they are not receiving the relevant training about workplace safety and they are not aware of their rights and responsibilities with regard to workplace safety and coverage by their relevant scheme. That is why we argue very strongly that it is an appalling decision by the government to proscribe the right of an employer and a group of employees to enter into agreements that may involve union-sponsored health and safety training. In fact, Senator Murray, who does not represent the interests of either major political party, has said time and again that, whatever criticisms some may have of unions, unions have always played an important role in the health and safety of workers. To remove the capacity for such an agreement to be reached under an instrument pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act seems to be counterproductive and, indeed, seems to make it less likely that workers will be safer and more likely that they will be injured in their workplaces. That is of concern to Labor, and again it is symptomatic of a government that places its ideology before the safety of Australian workers. It is also disappointing to see that the ABS statistics record that about 10 per cent of those who did not apply for compensation acted in this way because they thought it would reflect poorly on their current or future employment record or because the process for making a claim was too complicated. That is, one in 10 workers injured said that the main reasons they chose not to formally seek compensation was the fear of their employment record being affected and the concern that the way in which you apply for compensation was too complex for them. The current legislation does nothing to address these issues; indeed, it contains aspects such as prohibiting leave to attend occupational health and safety training. These ABS figures confirm that what is needed is cooperation, not conflict, and information, not intimidation. On this point, can I address some matters relating to the sector which is the topic of this debate. As I have previously mentioned, Labor is completely committed to policing the building and construction sector in a way which promotes occupational health and safety and provides constructors and building firms with certainty. But we must also put these reforms into perspective. In recent weeks, some sections of the industrial relations debate have tried to instil fear and uncertainty into the sector—in particular, the commercial segment of this sector. The facts underpinning the building and construction sector are worth examining. There is little doubt that the building and construction sector is a driving force in our strong economy. The value of construction activity in 2006 was $103.2 billion, of which $36.5 billion was residential and $23.3 billion was non-residential. In terms of total value, as at December 2006 the Australian commercial property market was worth $576.6 billion. Not surprisingly, the property sector that was worth the most across Australia as at December 2006 was retail, which reached $315 billion in value. In terms of floor space, the industrial sector is by far the largest of the four major commercial sectors with over 101 million square metres of stock estimated to be worth $130.5 billion. New South Wales has almost 43 per cent of commercial property by value, followed by Victoria with 25 per cent. Queensland is the fastest growing, increasing its value by 23 per cent over the past year to now account for 13.5 per cent of commercial property by value. Around Australia, construction costs have risen and are still growing at above the rate of inflation. But growth is well down from the increases seen in previous years. For example, construction costs in Brisbane increased by a massive annualised rate of 27 per cent in mid-2004. It is worth reflecting on what exactly are the drivers of costs in this sector, as much misinformation about this very issue has been publicly aired in recent weeks. According to the experts—analysts who focus on this sector day in, day out—the key drivers of costs in the building and construction sector are labour supply, building approvals, the consumer price index and materials. One of the biggest impacts on materials and their cost has been the strength of global demand for resource and construction materials. Analysts agree that this has had a dramatic impact on the price of construction materials. Given the size of retail in the commercial building sector, obviously the demand for retail property is heavily dependent on retail turnover, which is reliant on population growth, disposable income and consumer confidence. Obviously, given the strength of the economy these factors have all been strong and have fed into demand in the construction sector. Another factor impacting on prices in this sector, as noted by the Reserve Bank of Australia, is strong investor demand as pension funds across the globe look for assets offering long-term income streams at high yields. Analysts also agree about what will be the main impact on construction costs in the future. The skills shortage remains the biggest risk to the sector while demand for building and construction remains strong. A Reed Construction Data report released earlier this month revealed that construction costs in Victoria have surged by 44 per cent since 2000, or nearly twice the pace of inflation. The sharpest increase in construction costs was recorded in Western Australia, where they have jumped by 58 per cent since 2000 as workers have been sucked from construction to the higher-paying mining industry. In Queensland, construction costs have risen by 50.2 per cent since the start of the decade. The Reed Construction Data report confirmed that the dire shortage of skilled tradespeople accounted for most of the rise in building costs. In my home state of Victoria the skills shortage is having a serious impact on building and the affordability of housing. The Housing Institute of Australia has previously stated that the housing industry faces a skills deficit of 150,000 tradespeople over the next five years. Meanwhile, the average age of builders is increasing. For example, the average age of a builder in Victoria is now 47. So in any debate about costs in the sector and future risks to these costs, we should be armed with the complete facts—and only the facts should determine our policy response. I would like to reiterate Labor’s support for this bill. I would like to remind the House that this bill is being introduced and legislation is being enacted because there were deficiencies in the original bill—and I was involved in the debate on that bill in August 2005. So the fact is that this is a bill to correct the minister’s failure to attend to the concerns of the building industry. Labor support the bill because there is some focus on improving occupational health and safety in the building industry. But this bill is flawed, as was the primary bill. The bill was politically motivated. It was not focused entirely on the concerns and interests of employees and their safety in the workplace. It was as much about adversely affecting the capacity of employee organisations, and indeed employees, to go about their business safely. The government should try to remove its ideological blinkers in the area of industrial relations. It should concern itself with the interests of employees and employers and not be so blinded by its enmity towards unions that it has to spend almost its entire energy worrying about how it can critically injure or damage those organisations. Instead, it should focus its attention upon reducing the awful statistics of death and injury in workplaces, whether they be for the building industry or any other sector of our economy. As I conclude my contribution to this debate, I reiterate Labor’s support for this bill but state our longstanding commitment to replace the ABCC with the Fair Work Australia alternative, which will focus on placing fairness and cooperation back in our workplaces. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! I took the view that the deferred division should not be proceeded with until the member speaking at eight o’clock had concluded his or her speech, so I did not interrupt the member. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour. 116 Bills R2764 116 Debate resumed. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 133, I now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Rankin on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Emerson’s amendment) stand part of the question. 20:12:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay) 73 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Baird, B.G. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 53 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Byrne, A.M. Crean, S.F. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Katter, R.C. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. * Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 117 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 117 20:20:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —Sadly the coalition government has voted against Labor’s BAS Easy proposal. It says that it is a friend of small business, but the Treasurer obviously finds BAS Easy too hard. BAS Easy is an option for a small business to be able to complete its GST bookkeeping requirements within a few minutes rather than the several hours that are required under a GST that has been in operation now for more than six years. You would think that, if it genuinely was a friend of small business, the government would embrace Labor’s BAS Easy proposal. Instead the Treasurer announced in the budget that he would extend the simplified accounting methods to a greater range of small businesses—not just mixed food retailers but all small businesses—but only on the basis that if a small business wanted to have a look at the option of the simplified accounting methods then that business would be able to approach the tax office. Our grave concern is that the Treasurer has wanted to give the appearance of helping out small businesses with their GST bookkeeping requirements but in fact will not give any such help at all. If he were genuine about giving help then he would have instructed his coalition members to support BAS Easy. The fear we hold is that if the coalition were re-elected then the answer that small businesses will get from the tax office, when approaching and asking what ratio they might be entitled to, will be a very unfavourable one—in other words, defeating entirely the purpose of simplifying the GST bookkeeping requirements. In order to explore that a little further I have foreshadowed to the revenue minister that we would like to get a greater understanding of the proportion of small businesses that are availing themselves of the simplified tax system. Labor supports the simplified tax system. I think I can say that on behalf of the shadow Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. It is a good idea. It allows small businesses to group small assets and to write them off either immediately or at a faster rate than otherwise would apply. There are other benefits as well of the simplified tax system. I would point out that when Labor senators were asking government officials in November last year about the proportion of small businesses that were availing themselves of the simplified tax system and therefore would be eligible for the simplified accounting methods, the answer given was the figure of around 28 per cent. We accept that the simplified tax system at that point in time was still relatively new and that it would take time for accountants to advise small businesses of the benefits of the simplified tax system. It is not a criticism. We are simply pointing out that 28 per cent of eligible small businesses seems to be a rather small proportion. We did hear from the minister that there is something in excess of 600,000 businesses now availing themselves of the simplified tax system. That sounds like a lot, but I am not sure how the tax office or Treasury is counting the total number of small businesses. We are asking a simple question—that is, the proportion of eligible small businesses that is accessing the simplified tax system. I accept the possibility, though not the likelihood, that the minister will not know the answer to that question—although I did alert him to that a little earlier. I hope he will be able to enlighten us here tonight. If he cannot then we would like to pursue this matter further so that we have a better understanding of the whole operation of the simplified tax system. 118 20:25:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr DUTTON —In response, I will comment briefly on the comments of the member for Rankin on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business) Bill 2007. According to ATO data as at 29 March 2007, over 850,000 taxpayers were part of the simplified tax system in the 2005-06 income year and approximately 650,000 taxpayers were part of the simplified tax system in the 2004-05 income year—an increase of some 200,000 taxpayers. As the member for Rankin would be aware, there are some two million small businesses in this country and, if that goes some way to answering his question, he can work out the percentages he likes from there. The reality is that the Labor Party approach this debate with no real understanding of small business. It has been reflected not just in their comments in this debate but also in their policy both during their time in opposition over the last 11 years and when in government. The Labor Party do not understand small business because they are not of small business. As their former leader said, they are not here to represent small business; they are here to represent the interests of the union movement. The reality is that if you have a frontbench made up of 80 per cent of people who were either former union bosses or union hacks in one form or another, they are not people who can properly represent the interests of small business. The question for small business is: do they want changes to the tax system, a system which has been in place since 2000? Their clear indication to me is that, over the last six or seven years, they have been working through a system to be in a position of confidence now and have the capacity to complete their BAS, to work within the obligations that have been imposed upon them by the government through the ATO. They are largely satisfied with the way in which the system works. Computer systems are now in place, particularly for small business operators. Small business do not want another round of wholesale change imposed on them by the Labor Party. If the Labor Party is going to give credit to small business, then they need to acknowledge the fact that the clear message from small business is that they want a system of certainty and improvements in some administrative practices. They do not want wholesale change to a system that has been in place since 2000. Small business also ask the Labor Party to reverse their job-destroying industrial relations position particularly in relation to unfair dismissal. One of the biggest impediments for small business has been the fact that they have not been able to decide who can stay in their business. Small business owners risk their capital and have their houses on the line and are the last ones paid at the end of the week or the end of the month. They are creating jobs in this country. Under the Labor Party’s opposition to unfair dismissal over the last 10 years, small business has suffered in this country. If there is one message from small business to the Labor Party it is: reverse your job-destroying decision in relation to the reintroduction of the unfair dismissal laws, get behind the coalition stance on unfair dismissal laws and make it easier for small business to employ staff. And that is what we have seen over the last 12 months—326,000 jobs have been created and well over 80 per cent have been full-time positions. In the past small business have put casual employees on their staff. They have been afraid to employ full-time employees because it is too hard to part ways if things do not work out. The reality is that Labor’s message from small business is not about BAS or BAS Easy, as the member for Rankin would have you believe, but about unfair dismissal laws. For as long as Labor says black is white, small business knows that it is no friend of small business in this country. Small business knows that a return to Labor would be a return to high interest rates for small business, a return to union domination of small business in this country, a bad outcome for small business and a bad outcome for families in this country as well. 119 20:30:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —The reason for the government’s decision to oppose BAS Easy is now clear. The Assistant Treasurer has conveyed to this parliament his ignorance of the proposal. He has said that this proposal of the Labor Party would create new changes and extra challenges for small business. Since when did an option create those sorts of complications? It has been made clear time and time again in our public statements that BAS Easy is an option. If, as the minister asserts, small businesses are deliriously happy with spending many hours a week doing the GST bookkeeping, and have nothing else to do with their time, then they can stay with the existing system. We have made that perfectly clear. What Labor is doing is providing an extra option—an option based on taking snapshots twice a year, once in the first half of the year and once in the second half of the year. This should sound familiar, even to the minister, because it is an adaptation of the simplified accounting methods. Those simplified accounting methods were first introduced not long after the GST was introduced but they were limited to a very small range of businesses—that is, mixed food retailers. The purpose of extending the simplified accounting methods to other businesses was to give them the option of taking the benefit. They do not have to if they do not want to. If they are as happy as Larry or as happy as the minister says they are, fine; they can stay with the existing system. What is wrong with an option? DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —In the case of the superannuation clearing house, as I am reminded by the member for Prospect, again, the government says, ‘This could be very complicated.’ Well, not if it is an option. They do not have to do it. What is wrong with options? What is wrong with choice? This government says it is all for choice. We see this in Work Choices, which is no choice at all. In the case of working Australians who want to bargain collectively and who go to the employer and say, ‘We want to exercise our choice to bargain collectively,’ under the Orwellian Work Choices legislation the employer can say, ‘You think you’ve got a choice, Pal? Well you ain’t got no choice whatsoever, because we’re not going to talk to you about your desire to bargain collectively.’ If we are talking about freedom and choice, let us give a choice to everyone. Let us give a choice to working Australians who want to bargain collectively. Let us give a choice to those small businesses that want to access Labor’s proposal for a superannuation clearing house. And let us give a choice to small businesses that want to avail themselves of BAS Easy. Yet this minister mischievously presents it not as a choice, not as an option, but as an obligation. It is not an obligation; it is a choice. Those simplified accounting methods, according to the Treasurer, are a very good idea. He introduced them in around 2001. He has extended them somewhat since then. He announced in the budget that they would be extended further, to any small business—not just to small restaurants, cafes and catering companies but to any small businesses who wanted to go to the tax office and say, ‘I’m really interested in cutting my GST bookkeeping requirements; I’d like to talk to you about you issuing me a ratio, or we’ll do a snapshot. Let’s have a talk.’ The problem—and it is evident in the behaviour of the coalition tonight—is that it is pretty clear that if this government were re-elected, that would be a very short conversation. The tax office would say words to the effect of, ‘Yes, we’ve got a special ratio for you: it’s called 10 per cent—10 per cent, the full Monty, because you’re not getting any GST input tax credits.’ 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I remind the honourable member for Rankin that the question is that the bill be agreed to. We are in consideration in detail; we should be discussing the clauses of the bill. It is not an opportunity to reopen the second reading debate. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —And the clause of the bill relates to the option of getting that ratio from the tax office; that is not going to happen if this government is re-elected. That is a crying shame. This government should recognise that the No. 1 bugbear for small business is still, after six years, the GST bookkeeping requirements. This government ought to have adopted BAS Easy, but each and every one of its members voted tonight against BAS Easy. Bill agreed to. 121 Mr DUTTON (Dickson —Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) 20:35:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 121 Bills R2738 121 Debate resumed. 121 20:35:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I am pleased to support the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 as it provides a very strong statement from the Australian government that we want contractors, people involved in the building industry, to practise safe work practices, and we want those people to put their workers’ safety at a premium in their conduct, not regard it as an optional extra. It is, from our reading of the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, a key aspect of the commission to ensure that we can establish the powers and functions of the Federal Safety Commissioner. The bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme. The act also regulates the appointment and powers of Federal Safety Officers. It allows the Federal Safety Commissioner and persons working in the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner to disclose information on the scheme to the minister. It amends the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 to streamline the processes of appointing Federal Safety Officers and clarifies that subsection 35(4) of the Building Construction Industry Improvement Act only overrides Commonwealth provisions to the extent of any inconsistency. Indeed, the main purpose of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act to: extend the application of the scheme administered by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner to cover situations where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for building work funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, ensure that the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authority takes appropriate steps to see that such persons are also accredited while the building work is being carried out, and extend that accreditation requirement to funding arrangements beyond those currently contemplated by the legislation. Essentially, we are keeping faith with the building workers of Australia by ensuring that the Commonwealth can provide a ready role model for others involved in this sector. I listened with a deal of interest to the member for Gorton about a half an hour ago—he is a good fellow. If you read his words and listened to his presentation in the House, you would be left with the conclusion that what he was saying seemed fair and reasonable. The trouble, though, is that every time those opposite speak about workplace fairness, they are coming with so many strings attached that the ‘good ship Labor’ sinks into the ocean. It leaves the moorings of the wharf with so many strings attached that there is no way it can sail. The Labor Party try to suggest that this is all about the Australian government having some pathological dislike for the union movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government is enormously in favour of an effective union movement that truly represents the workers of Australia and truly meets their interests and ambitions. But the trouble with those opposite is that so many of the Labor Party arguments about the matters contained within this legislation, and all matters to do with industrial relations, are ready proof that too many—in fact, I would say all—union leaders in this country are living off the efforts of the past. The reputation of the union movement in effecting a safer working environment is without doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that unions have been at the heart of so much of the argument to create a safer working environment. But they are living on the efforts of those in the past, because those in the union movement today are no longer the keepers of a working environment that is safe. Employers themselves understand that the costs to them, both personally and emotionally, as well as the potential for fines and other imposts if they do not make a safe work environment, are very real—as they should be. I get disappointed as a person who was once a member of a union—the Australian Journalists Association. When it affiliated with the ACTU, I resigned because it went from being a professional body to being just another union. I do not understand how any journalist in Australia can suppress their partiality when they are a member of the media and arts alliance. I remain gravely concerned, but I never hear those opposite speak about work safety actually being hinged around things like the inquiry into the Queensland construction industry, which found that over 50 per cent of people on construction sites could not read English to an adequate level. Fifty per cent of people on Queensland construction sites had an illiteracy that could in itself cause a deal of danger. Sure, they could understand the word ‘Danger’ and the word ‘Warning’ and those sorts of words, but a full interpretation of written instructions or a full interpretation of the way in which to act safely in the workplace is not possible for 50 per cent of those people, according to work which was done by the Department of Education, Science and Training a couple of years ago. I think that is a point of enormous concern. Nor do we hear from those opposite that one of the strings attached to their argument about the unions being completely involved in all arbitration when it comes to work safety is just how over the top and ridiculous some of these occupational health and safety requirements have actually become. The Beattie government in Queensland has so overlegislated now that a chap rang me a year or so ago and told me about a fridge mechanic who entered his house. The fridge mechanic said, ‘I am required by occupational health and safety law to prescribe a safety instruction to you if you are going to stay in your kitchen while I repair your fridge.’ The seals had broken. There was safety tape marked out two metres around the fridge, and he told this home owner that, unless they had steel-capped safety boots, safety goggles—and possibly a face mask but certainly at least goggles—and other safety equipment such as gloves they would not be allowed to be anywhere near the repair of the fridge. You just cannot help but wonder how silly and over the top a lot of these things have become. So here we have the Australian government instead, through this legislation, saying to our building contractors in Australia who want to work with the Australian government, ‘Have a work safety principle operating, have a set of requirements that you impose upon your workers, deliver on that and you can deal with us.’ We are not, as the Labor Party are suggesting, affecting any rights of entry of union officials under the Workplace Relations Act. Nor, as the Labor Party try to suggest, are we overriding any state or territory OH&S legislation. Under the Workplace Relations Act, a union official is entitled to access a site to investigate potential breaches of OH&S, but they need to have, of course, a right of entry permit and they need to make sure that they comply with all the requirements of the relevant state or territory OH&S legislation. We are not, though, going to allow, as has been done by the CFMEU in Western Australia, a proliferation of occupational health problems in the form of the ‘blue flu’. Therefore, we are not going to see an end, as the Labor Party have again committed to tonight, to the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, which was established in 2005. That is what Kevin Reynolds, the head honcho of the CFMEU in Western Australia, wanted to see—as we heard reported today by the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Kevin Reynolds is longing for a return to his power and a Greg Combet style of having the unions back in charge of Australia. We are not going to allow a situation where union officials enter a work site and in fact stop work from progressing, building from being performed and progress from being achieved on some premise of unsafe practices when, in fact, all they are about is trying to spread blue flu, which saw so many days lost to industrial action—71 per 1,000 workers in the December quarter of 2004. Now, since the creation of the ABCC, we have seen that number reduced to just nine in the same quarter last year. It went from 71 in the last quarter of 2004 to just nine in the last quarter of last year. For the 12 months ending in December last year, there had been 45.2 days lost per 1,000 workers compared to—wait for it!—725 days lost in 2005. This so-called concern for occupational health and safety by trade union officials has cost jobs in the building and construction sector. This government is about providing a positive example and through legislation is enacting a process by which people in the building industry will be able to work for the Commonwealth, and it is amending the Building And Construction Industry Improvement Act to allow the scheme to apply more broadly. It has always been intended that the scheme would eventually be applied to construction projects funded both directly and indirectly by the Australian government. The amendments contained in this bill will allow the scheme to progress to stage 2. Stage 2 will apply to head builders on construction projects indirectly funded by the Australian government, subject to certain thresholds, and it will lower the contract threshold for directly funded construction projects from $6 million to $3 million. An example often put forward is that of indirectly funded construction projects such as a project funded under AusLink. And I know of examples that have been put forward in discussions with state governments about education funding, particularly vocational education funding, where the state governments, so bereft of the morals expected of a reasonable authority, have danced to the tune of union officials and actually held up in past years vocational education funding bonus payments simply because they did not want to see these particular measures contained within this bill applying to projects that might be constructed. For instance, TAFE college buildings were not built or their construction was delayed because the work of the union was more important than the facilities to be funded by the Australian government. These sorts of— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I know exactly what I am debating, member for Gorton. I am giving plenty of examples as to why this bill is a good bill. This bill provides direction, instruction and inspiration to others in the building industry to conduct themselves appropriately. As far as we are concerned, transitional arrangements are not necessary. Stage 2 will apply only to new contracts and funding agreements entered into after the date of the commencement of these amendments, which is 1 October next. By implementing this particular scheme in two stages, smaller builders have been given time to better understand the operation of this scheme and get used to the principles in this scheme. They have been given adequate time to set up and prepare their management systems so they can become accredited under this scheme and gain access to Commonwealth work. Stage 2, which starts on 1 October next, was announced on 23 October last. So the government has given plenty of time to those businesses interested in that sort of work to get themselves involved and ready. In addition, the Federal Safety Commissioner has undertaken significant consultation on these various stage 2 recommendations with a view to bringing people with us as we create a cooperative and positive environment. This scheme is certainly not part of any federal takeover of occupational health and safety. Through the Council of Australian Governments process, we are trying to bring about the harmonisation of OH&S legislation by working with state and territory requirements. I remember a few years ago working on the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services and talking to people in the railway industry, by way of example, about the ridiculous range of safety requirements in that particular industry. The same is true in the building industry, where the various types of credentials, occupational equipment and rules and regulations differ from state to state. If you are credentialed in one state, you run the risk of not being able to work across the border. In places like south-east Queensland, this silliness has to be overcome by the harmonisation of this legislative requirement. In that part of Australia, building contractors and building people generally move from one state to the other and they need all of their credentials organised and able to be readily recognised by both state authorities. This scheme therefore is a way to achieve that, and is just one of the tools the government are using to address some of the unacceptable OH&S performance records we have seen in various parts of Australia. I acknowledge the member for Gorton’s observations about those who are hurt in our workplaces. I acknowledge that anybody hurt in a workplace on any given day is bad news for all of those in that profession and industry. It is bad news for those who hire them and employ them, as the purchaser of those services. It costs the building and construction sector enormously. Anything that can in fact drive down the cost to industry generally has got to be a good thing. Anything that can improve the working conditions of people on the tools in this industry has my complete support, but not the puffery of saying, ‘If it’s not the union training them, it can’t be any good.’ From our point of view there has to be a sense of trust in the workplace. Under the government’s Workplace Relations Act that is exactly what you have in Australia today. There is an opportunity for individual workers with quality credentials and experience to trade those credentials and experience, and gain a larger pay packet. As we will find in legislation introduced today, and which is up for debate in the next parliamentary sitting, people will be able to go forward instead of backwards. They will be guaranteed that their circumstances can only be improved upon—a further example of the sort of prestige that we attach to people with trade skills in this country. Changes under this bill are designed to streamline administrative processes for engaging and appointing federal safety officers. The current process, as originally prescribed, is inefficient. We want to see an end to the system whereby a person first has to be engaged as a consultant by the secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations before the Federal Safety Commissioner can actually appoint them as a federal safety officer. The amendments in this bill will allow the Federal Safety Commissioner to engage consultants for the purposes of appointment as FSOs and determine the terms and conditions of their engagement. So, again, this will allow them to be proactive in every possible way. The engaging of consultants will still be subject to standard Australian government procurement processes. One of the things we will not require is that they have to be a member of a union to be an FSO. If the Australian Labor Party forms government later in the year, it will be: no ticket, no start. You will not see an FSO in a workplace anywhere around Australia unless they are a member of a union—that would be the way the Labor Party would run it—because, unless they are involved with a union, they cannot be trusted. We will see that impact right around Australia in every small business. Union officials will be standing by the till deciding who is hired and who is fired, who is working safely and who is not working safely. These sorts of matters are of grave concern to the people of Australia today. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The member for Moreton has referred to the bill only twice in 17 minutes. It is about time he went back to the bill. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I am sure the honourable member for Moreton knows the requirement of being relevant. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —Of course, it is not surprising that those opposite would take a point of order the second I start talking about their ‘no ticket, no start’ ambitions. I have constantly been working my way through the various stages of the bill. I am surprised the member for Gorton has not realised that I have, in fact, constantly been dealing with the way in which the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Federal Safety Commissioner will be operating and the way in which the administrative arrangements will ensure a better deal for the construction industry and the workers within it. I am just surprised that the member for Gorton should take that point of order. It can only be because he is so concerned about the point I make—that the Australian Labor Party’s clear ambition is very simple: no ticket, no start. Unless you are a member of a union, you will not get a start in a building and construction workplace anywhere around Australia. A painting contractor that I was talking to the other day said that when he walks into a building workplace in Brisbane he will find the union official standing at the gate saying: ‘You’re a painting contractor. You can’t come in here unless you’ve got the union ticket.’ The painting contractor says: ‘Buzz off, mate. I know exactly what my rights are and I’m coming to do a job.’ This is a bloke who has a business which he and his brother started 10 years ago, and he now has 10 people working for him—10 extra mortgages being paid in Australia—and we have a union official standing at the gate saying, ‘No ticket, no start,’ regardless of how safely this man may operate in the workplace and no matter how professional and capable he is. He is being judged only through the prism of his union membership and his union membership alone. The Australian Labor Party should stand condemned for the fact that they put occupational safety second to union membership; they put occupational safety second to whether or not the unions are actually running it. The occupational safety of workers is down the list if there is not a union person involved in this. If the Labor Party have their way, for Kevin Reynolds and people like him—people who have gone to 10 Western Australian construction companies and demanded they hand over $397,935.48 to the CFMEU for casual union tickets—it would not just be ‘no ticket, no start’; even if you do not want a ticket, you would have to pay to keep the unions away. That is the sort of vision that the Australian Labor Party have for Australia. They should stand condemned. I think you will find that big and small businesses and their employees around Australia are genuinely concerned about the way the Labor Party want to run Australia. (Time expired) 126 20:55:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —The more this government attempts to move legislation the more we see amendments before this place. Quite frankly, the government has become a serial offender in that we have regularly seen tax bills before this place, but it seems that this legislative sloppiness, if you like, has come down to industrial relations. We saw the mother of all amendments come into this place today which is likely to be debated sometime during the course of this week. When you think about it, this takes away a lot of the need for the government to actually come up with ideas. The government is bereft of ideas when it comes to change. It is certainly bereft of ideas when it comes to having a decent legislative program. Quite frankly, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 is just another example of that. Quite frankly, amendments to their own legislation must be a welcome sight when they come to the cabinet table, because it means that ministers do not have to come up with new ideas; it means that ministers do not have to try and take money away from their taxpayer-funded re-election campaigns to invest in things such as infrastructure, health or the provision of further education and training. I digress. In terms of the contribution we just heard from the member for Moreton, it would be remiss of me if I did not make some comment. I have to say that I and, I suppose, every other working Australian would take umbrage at the way they are demeaning the health and safety issues of workers on sites. I and every other worker in this country place a lot of truck on having safe workplaces. It has been simply trivialised. The member for Moreton is not the first to do that and will not be the last. I have to say, putting health and safety as low as that in this debate is a fair indication of the standing of a lot of members opposite. This bill is not opposed by the Labor Party, but I would like to make certain comments in terms of commending Labor’s second reading amendment to the House. The bill before us amends a bill that was passed by the House in August 2005. Fewer than two years have passed since we debated amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. I might add that this is not the first time that this bill has been amended. Prior to the original bill being put before this House, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations introduced about 30 pages of amendments to the original bill. He did not get it right then and it seems that he has not got it right now, as we are here debating further amendments today. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005, extending the application of the Australian government’s building and construction industry occupational health and safety accreditation scheme, administered by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, to cover the situation where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority and to ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for the building work funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, and that the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth— Debate interrupted. 127 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 127 127 21:00:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —As you are aware, yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the referendum conducted on 27 May 1967. Yesterday I was also honoured to be asked to be the keynote speaker at a gathering organised by the Shellharbour council, one which involved a lot of Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens in a celebration of commemoration and reflection on those events of four decades ago and some of the difficulties that continue to face our Indigenous communities. This weekend’s event was preceded by a very important event on Friday night where the elders in my community presented themselves at what they referred to as a debutante ball. It was great to see many of the local female elders being presented to the gathering at the WIN Entertainment Centre and in a lot of cases being accompanied by their grandchildren. It was important to see that the generational issues of concern to Indigenous communities and the importance of their culture was being passed down from the elders to the younger people in our community. It was four decades ago that the Australian people overwhelmingly voted to give the federal government the power to legislate for Aboriginal people and to count them as citizens in their own country. It is hard to believe, isn’t it, that it took until 1967 for the first peoples of our nation to have their citizenship rights recognised in that very important referendum. The overwhelming support for those constitutional changes—and, as history records, more than 90 per pent of Australians voted yes for those changes—was a national expression of hope: hope that the injustices, the disadvantages and the legacies of historical wrongs would be righted in the decades after the referendum. These changes in 1967 were a big step on the road to reconciliation. As history records, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people were involved in gaining support over many years for the petition that led to the referendum and in the lobbying that urged for a bipartisan approach to the changes sought by the Indigenous community. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, FCAATSI, was an important component of the campaign and that organisation embraced a number of high-profile Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. One in particular stands out in my memory—that is Faith Bandler. I was really heartened to see interviews with her last weekend and to recognise the important contribution that she has made to the cause of justice for Aboriginal people, her own people from the Torres Strait, and other islands. The campaign for justice for Indigenous communities in our modern era probably dates back to 1938 when Bill Ferguson and 1,000 Aborigines protested in Sydney on the day they refer to as the ‘day of mourning’. At this protest, they loudly proclaimed their concern about the loss of their lands, the loss of their culture and the denial of citizenship rights. With the changes in the referendum, a lot of hopes were realised but, then again, I think people understood that there was no guarantee of action to remove the legacy of disadvantage and discrimination. While over the last four decades there have been advances in Aboriginal legal and land rights and laudable achievements, particularly by noted Aboriginal actors, athletes, artists, academics, doctors and lawyers, the appalling state of living conditions for many remains a blight on Australia’s standing in the international community and shames us all. The commemoration of the anniversary of the referendum has been an opportunity to speak the truth and to find common ground among Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples so that we can work together to eradicate the disadvantages we are all so aware exist in many Indigenous communities. As it happened, this weekend was also very close to the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report into the stolen generations. I think we should acknowledge the deep, personal grief inflicted on many children and their families and, to that end— (Time expired) 128 128 21:05:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to comment on a matter of concern to my constituents in the grain industry. Silo Bags is an innovative and successful technology which is revolutionising the way that grain is handled, stored and traded around the world. From its humble beginnings in Springhurst, just north of Wangaratta in my electorate, Silo Bags has come as something of a revolution in the grain industry by effecting considerable savings in freight and handling costs for grain growers across Australia and, indeed more recently, overseas. The Silo Bags technology is of enormous benefit to grain growers. If at harvest time there is no storage capacity on their farms, farmers can utilise Silo Bags to ensure the optimal preservation of grain in a convenient and flexible manner through Silo Bags’ airtight, large storage capacity on their farms. Its very success as a godsend for wheat growers at harvest time has, however, been seen by the large grain traders and bulk handlers as representing a real commercial threat—this is where the Australian Wheat Board comes into the equation. Under the guise of a joint venture, AWB approached Silo Bags. Under the process of due diligence undertaken at AWB’s request, an offer was made to my constituents which would have given the AWB full and total control of the Silo Bags technology, leaving my constituents no income or control in this joint venture, despite it being their business and them owning 75 per cent of the shares—in other words, a total acquisition of a possible threat to AWB’s market share. The AWB saw an emerging threat to their lucrative market that was being taken up by a fast-growing number of grain growers, and they immediately sought control of it through a boorish takeover. This, however, was the tip of the iceberg in terms of what was to come. Silo Bags, which has had success in many overseas markets, looked to India for trade. My constituents were approached by AWB India in this regard and given an assurance by AWB that Silo Bags’s foreign market rights and commissions would be respected. This was blatantly not the case. Silo Bags sent machinery and bags to India, only to be left in the lurch by the AWB who, after initially agreeing to the shipment, then engaged in taking commissions and sales belonging to Silo Bags. AWB India claimed that, for Silo Bags to retain ownership of their shipment, Silo Bags would have to allow AWB to pay them for the shipment and then Silo Bags would have to buy it back from AWB. Silo Bags were then informed that they would have to alter an invoice and change the amount if they wanted payment for this transaction. This potentially illegal request from AWB remains active because my constituents did not alter the invoice as it was a breach of international trading law, as they understood it. As such, they still await payment from the AWB. When quizzed on this matter, the AWB hide behind their legal teams and provide an elaborate subterfuge in any way possible to hide their responsibilities to local grain growers. Through their behaviour in this whole tawdry episode, the AWB have been shown to be the very authoritarian bullies that Commissioner Cole alluded to in his report last year. Silo Bags has unfortunately been a pawn in the game of AWB brinkmanship. Unfortunately, time tonight does not allow me to delve more deeply into the matter here, but it is a story of fear, intimidation, blackmail and collusion. It is a sorry tale of a local Australian innovation being sidelined by the unethical vultures at the AWB. As Commissioner Cole stated in his report: A government grant, by legislation, of a monopoly power confers on the recipient a great privilege. It carries with it a commensurate obligation. The starting point is an ethical base. At AWB the Board and management failed to create, instil or maintain a culture of ethical dealing. Indefinitely keeping the AWB’s monopoly powers over Australia’s single desk wheat marketing system is akin to making Dougie Cameron the shadow minister for small business. That is why I look forward to the changes the government has foreshadowed in the wheat marketing industry. In written correspondence to the AWB, my constituents sum it up when they say: You cannot hurt myself or my team any more than you lot have. We believed in what we were told, and we believed in the AWB. We are now paying the consequences. Against the odds of the powerful AWB, my constituents have displayed the tenacity and determination that exemplifies the Australian farming spirit. I pay tribute to them and I ask that the AWB remember the very people they are said to have represented—the grain growers themselves. 129 129 21:10:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —As I was indicating, it is also the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report into the stolen generations. As a nation, we should acknowledge the deep personal grief inflicted on the individual children and their families and, to that end, make a formal apology. A formal apology is the just and decent thing to do. If we acknowledge wrongs and assess honestly what needs to be done, we can, as a nation, move forward. If reconciliation is to be achieved, we must deal with both its symbolism and its substance. Saying ‘sorry’ is a very powerful symbol. But symbolism without substance is without meaning. That is why, as a nation and on a bipartisan basis, we should commit to righting the wrongs that still face our Indigenous communities. Above all else, I would point out that it is shameful that in a modern, prosperous society like ours an Indigenous child born in Australia today can expect to die 17 years before a non-Indigenous child will. We need to recapture the spirit that led to the outcomes of the 1967 referendum and recognise that unfinished business and disadvantage still need to be redressed. 130 130 21:11:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —On 15 May in my electorate of Hasluck I assisted the Cancer Council to raise money for cancer research by hosting one of Australia’s Biggest Morning Teas. I also took this opportunity to pay tribute to the many volunteers and to the volunteer spirit of the Western Australian community celebrating Volunteers Week. I invited a group of committed community-minded people to celebrate both events. A room full of volunteers is a great place to be. The enthusiasm, camaraderie and positive attitudes of those present ensured the day was well celebrated. Australians have a deep sense of helping others. It is one of the determining characteristics of our Aussie nature. We are a great volunteer people. The number of volunteers in this country continues to rise. In 2004, there were some 6.3 million Australians donating their time and energy to others. Personally, I expect that the figure is much higher as most people provide volunteer support without realising it—whether it is driving the elderly, reading with primary school students, supporting the school through P&C activities or assisting volunteer organisations to provide valuable services to others such as guiding and scouting. These are vital organisations that have made a significant contribution over many years, providing the basis of a strong and healthy community. And let us not forget the many thousands of mums and dads who give up their weekends to coach our junior and senior sporting teams. I met people from all over the electorate whose commonality is their compassion to assist in the growth and wellbeing of others. Amongst those was Marilyn Hall, a fantastic lady who has given 18 years of service to the Kalamunda Scouts Association. She is the Kalamunda scout leader and has scouts enrolled in all levels of scouting, from Joeys to Venturers. Her group is the largest and most successful in the district, having won the district award for the past five years straight. When Marilyn is not at the scout hall, she is busy volunteering her cooking skills at the scout training venue. Judy and Bill Stewart also received recognition for almost 20 years of dedicated service to the People Who Care Agency. People Who Care initially started with eight people in a small house in East Perth. They have since grown and moved into new premises in Guildford. They provide vital services to aged and disabled people who choose to live independently. Their valuable assistance enables those people to get on with living their lives where they choose rather than being placed in nursing homes. Bill and Judy both joined as volunteers with People Who Care by taking people to their doctor and hospital appointments and shopping. As with all volunteering, once you become involved there is a natural progression to continue to do more and more. Judy has now progressed to the op shop, which is part of the premises in Guildford, where she has become an important member of the op shop committee. I had the privilege earlier this year of officially opening the newly relocated op shop. It was a fantastic morning celebrating the opening of the shop, which had been moved to a more prominent position to enable passing trade. I cannot speak highly enough of this organisation. They continue to come up with new and innovative ways in which to encourage volunteers into their service. Our ageing population will require more and more people to step forward and play vital roles within the community. Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea was all the more successful thanks to many other people from my Hasluck community. My colleague Senator Judith Adams was my special guest on the day and I wish to thank her for her assistance and her candid speech regarding her personal battle with cancer. She also helped to reinforce the enormous impact that volunteers have within the community. Eddie Williams of the Meals on Wheels organisation in Kalamunda organised volunteers to assist on the morning with endless cups of tea, which was very much appreciated. Geraldine Smailes, a Kalamunda resident, and Bruce Harwood of Crabbs IGA kindly provided 200 pink cupcakes, which went down well with the cups of tea. Community spirit in Hasluck is thriving and I am very pleased that this is the case because communities where people care for each other are always stronger, healthier and happier places to live. 131 131 21:15:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I want to talk about one of the most frustrating issues which probably happens not just in my electorate of Oxley but right across the country. There are many issues that affect ordinary people but I have to say that the provision of decent broadband services is shaping up to be one of those key election issues. It is something which I know distresses a lot of people. To put it really plainly, it frustrates you to absolute tears when you try to get a connection for the first time, you have a connection and you try to improve the speed, you try to go from a dial-up service to broadband or you realise that the cost is just too high and you are left with few options. The reality is that in Australia today over 100,000 people a year who have applied for broadband have been turned down because Australia has a second-class telecommunications infrastructure. The government has known about this second-class infrastructure for quite some time but refuses even to admit that the problem exists at all. I can assure the government here tonight without any question or doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who are demanding something better than what they have today. I was surprised by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, who recently said: ... no one is complaining about the speed of broadband in metropolitan areas ... It is almost a quirky, bizarre quote for a minister for communications to say, ‘no one is complaining’. Clever or tricky, maybe, but perhaps she has not been speaking to anybody, because you do not have to go far for people to complain to you continually about the state of broadband in their local area. In fact, Australia’s ranking in the world is not very good. We are ranked 25th in the world in our broadband speeds. I will not go into the detail of which countries are in front of us but there are a whole heap of less developed and less fortunate countries with fewer mineral resources than we have coming into government coffers within those countries which are ahead of us. Australia has also fallen behind the rest of the world in broadband usage. We are ranked only 17th in the world. This is the 21st century; broadband connection is almost a given part of life. It is not a lifestyle choice or issue any longer; it is about quality of life, delivery of services, being able to do business and providing better healthcare services. It is about people being connected to the rest of the world. It is about older people in their homes having that window outside when they often might not have the mobility. It is about finding new friends and new ideas. It is this whole big world that is out there that connects everyone to everybody else. But if you do not have the speed, if you still have dial-up, if you do not have the infrastructure in your local area, you simply miss out. That is the stark reality. In my electorate of Oxley, we have the fastest-growing region in Australia: the western corridor in south-east Queensland is a fantastic growth area but it is not being matched by the provision of telecommunications infrastructure, particularly broadband services in new and old areas alike—for example, Forest Lake, where they are still struggling with broadband black spots; Springfield, which suffers particularly with broadband provision, and older suburbs such as Sinnamon Park, in new areas in that locality. It is just incredible that these areas are not fully serviced and some areas are not serviced all. People are not really given the choices or options, they are just told that it is bad luck and that they are going to have to go to some sort of a satellite dish system or basically it is just too costly. In one of the newer estates in my electorate, Windermere Estate, houses are even sharing phone lines; they are being pushed onto dial-up services and left with very poor choices. Labor, on the other hand, are committed to developing a national fibre-to-the-node broadband network in Australia, something we will deliver for all Australians. Government can do this; government can do it in partnership with private enterprise and with industry. Labor will also make available $4.7 billion to ensure that the network reaches as many Australians as possible. I think that is a good investment in Australia’s future and it is a good investment in ordinary people. This multibillion-dollar infrastructure investment will deliver a minimum 12 megabits per second to 98 per cent of Australian homes and in a lot of areas it will be much faster. There will be huge leaps forward from where we are today. This is something that people not only need but deserve. This is something our economy needs. This is something that will deliver for Australia way into the future. It is something that this government ought to realise and they should stop saying that people are not complaining. The reality is that people are complaining and they need a government that listens to them. 132 132 21:20:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise to draw the attention of the House to the running this month of the Annual Combined Service Clubs’ Dinner in Gawler. The reason I bring this to the attention of the House is that so often we hear that we do not get cooperation in communities and that we do not see communities really looking outside of themselves. But the service clubs in Wakefield are made up of a fantastic group of people. In Gawler in particular this annual event is something to be applauded and it should be replicated around the country. What happens is that once a year all of the service clubs come together for a dinner where they can share information about the programs they are running, the activities they are doing, needs they have and opportunities that arise so that they can be more effective by working together. The Country Women’s Association hosted this year’s dinner. Linda Bertram as the president welcomed us to the evening and invited each of the clubs to have a representative, either their president or another member, give a report about the club’s membership and the activities that were undertaken. The thing that really struck me was that, whilst we tend to think of, say, your typical Lions Club project as being perhaps a shelter at a park or something, what I am seeing through the service clubs in Wakefield, particularly the ones in Gawler, is a real focus on communities. We are seeing a real outreach to communities, not just locally but internationally, that are worse off than our own. There is a real intention to reach out and help them, from Apex and its help for the Westmead Craniofacial Clinic activities through to the local Lions Club, who have restored the train at the Gawler railway station, particularly through their use of the Work for the Dole scheme, which has seen a number of people come and be involved in the restoration of the building environs and the train—and the creation of a real centrepiece for the Gawler railway station. There is the Gawler View Club, and Pauline LaRoche spoke of the many women involved in that locally as well as on a broader basis, and their involvement with the Smith Family—again, looking to support young people and families not as well off as ours. Barry Stewart spoke on behalf of the Rotary Club of Gawler, which has very generously made me an honorary member. We heard about Alison Russell and Zonta, which is involved in advancing the status of women around the world in areas such as health and through combating things like trafficking. Interestingly, people like Naomi Arnold have been involved in Zonta not just at the local level but also at an international level. That says a lot for the quality of people in our community who step up to the mark and are prepared to take on leadership roles within these service groups. Martin Monument spoke on behalf of the Rotary Club of Gawler Light. I have been very pleased to be involved in some of the activities that this Rotary Club has run, such as the mental health forum in Gawler, where they were endeavouring to bring together people who have an interest in mental health, people who are engaged in supporting people with mental health issues and people who suffer from mental health issues, to bring an awareness of the help that can be provided and of gaps in services that we need to fill. They also have an active role in supporting the Gawler Health Service, as well as things like the Variety Club. Monika Klopas spoke on behalf of the Gawler Para branch of Apex and highlighted the 12 years that they have been running the Christmas light display along the riverbank. She bemoaned the fact that, with a couple of members moving on, their membership is now quite small; but, typical of the function that evening, one of the other service clubs offered to come on board and actually take over that role to make sure that the Christmas light display, which is so welcomed by the families of Gawler, continues. Bruce Townsend spoke on behalf of the Kiwanis and highlighted the fact that, whilst there is much need in the world, the Kiwanis approach is to change the world one child and one community at a time, and he gave examples of the things that they are doing to support people in East Timor. Lastly, we heard about the work of the Country Women’s Association in providing baby packs to needy mums, emergency accommodation to families in need and even reaching out to people like the Fiji Cancer Society through the provision of things like sewing machines. All this just brings into sharp focus the outward-looking nature and community-mindedness of these people in Gawler, and on behalf of all Australians I thank them for the time and effort which they volunteer. 133 133 21:25:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I would first like to acknowledge the cooperation of the member for Casey in facilitating the adjournment debate this evening. Tonight I seek to address an issue of critical importance to all members of the House this evening—that is, the unfortunate number of Australians killed each year in road accidents. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau figures show that more than 1,600 people died on Australian roads in the year leading up to April of this year. This is barely an improvement on the number of road fatalities from five years ago. Earlier today in this chamber, I supported the motion standing in the name of the member for Ryan going to the support of the National Road Safety Black Spot Program. The federal opposition support the government’s black spot program and AusLink 2. Labor would retain the black spot program through to 2014, the end of the AusLink 2 period, if we were fortunate enough to be elected to government in the election this year. Federal Labor want to see an improvement in the numbers of people dying on the roads. We need to commit ourselves to seriously pursuing endeavours to reduce fatalities on the road. Throughout this year, I have expressed my concern that the money being spent on the black spot program is not targeted effectively enough. I reiterate, from my speech in the House earlier today, that the black spot program is too important to be pork-barrelled by the Howard government, as has occurred over the last couple of weeks with the AusLink Strategic Regional Program after heavy influence from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on behalf of his National Party caucus members. The forthcoming Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics report will evaluate the success of the program. I hope to see the black spot program continue to target areas that have the highest rates and risk of accident. We have a long way to go to achieve the target of reducing accidents, by 2010, to 40 per cent below the 1999 benchmark. Currently we are well behind on meeting that target and we are also performing poorly compared to other OECD countries. The action plan for the National Road Safety Strategy 1999-2010 reflects poorly on Australia’s progress to reduce road deaths and accidents. The action plan reports that there has been, firstly, little reduction in deaths for vehicle occupants in single-vehicle crashes; secondly, a 15 per cent increase in the deaths of motorcycle crash victims; and, thirdly, a 20 per cent increase in deaths from multiple-vehicle crashes. While we are trying to reduce these targets, Australians are dying and families are affected by tragic losses from fatal road accidents. These deaths, I contend, are preventable, and the number of deaths on Australian roads, as we all accept, is too high. The opposition want to see a change in the number of people dying on Australian roads—and I also accept that all members of the House support such an objective. In 2007, Melbourne was successful in reducing the number of accidents and number of fatalities, with the Victorian road toll below the national average. However, this sadly changed at Easter, which is a time when a lot of people are travelling on the roads and fatigue often sets in. In this period, greater Melbourne experienced 10 fatal road accidents, three fatal accidents within 24 hours. In my own electorate of Batman, three lives have been claimed on the roads during 2007. I can only imagine the impact that this has had on the families and friends of the crash victims and I extend my greatest sympathies to them. This evening I would also like to briefly touch on an important local function I attended yesterday with the Italian community, to celebrate and recognise the 89th anniversary of the Battle of Piave, which was a significant battle of 1918 in World War I. This was organised by ANSI, a local organisation in my electorate, to mark the importance of this battle and the pride of the Italian people in what is considered to be, in World War I history, a bloody and determined battle that revealed the strength of Italy and the pride of her people. It was symbolic of the people’s determination to defend their country and maintain their way of life. The battle has the equivalent meaning to Italy that Gallipoli has to Australia. Folklore says that, in the war, the Piave River changed from clear blue to run the colour of blood. I simply say to the Italian community in my electorate, which is very significant in size, that I was pleased to be a part of this recognition of the sacrifices made by the Italians, including civilians, during the First World War, and I really appreciate the importance of continuing this annual function so as to acknowledge the struggles of the past and keep alive the memories of lost loved ones. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the House this evening. 135 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 2007-05-28 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4.00 pm. 136 Committees 136 136 Debate resumed. 136 16:00:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I commend to the chamber the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory, entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory. I commend the work of all of the members of the committee secretariat, particularly Ms Joanne Towner. The secretariat has done a first-class job. As members are aware, the recommendation of the committee’s findings in this 130-page report is that ‘the Australian government update and refine its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommence work on unresolved federal issues’. In my view, it is important to identify the milestones of colonial and post-colonial history of the Northern Territory in order to appreciate the constitutional significance of this report. Of key importance is the fact that the issue of granting statehood by application of Commonwealth legislative power will be the first such exercise of those provisions of chapter VI of the Commonwealth Constitution titled ‘New States’. Members of this House and the public are reminded that, since Federation in 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia has never had a new state added to those founding states of Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. The state of Western Australia was not an original state within the meaning of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act but became a state of Australia by proclamation on 17 September 1900. The Northern Territory was originally a nameless part of the state of New South Wales. In 1908 the government of South Australia passed the Northern Territory Surrender Act, which enabled the transfer of the Territory from the government of South Australia. In supporting this report, I raise my heartfelt desire that the right reason will prevail in the deliberations of what are the well-founded reasons for enabling an existing Territory of the Commonwealth to become Australia’s first post-Federation state to be admitted to the Commonwealth. As members of this House are aware, the capacity of the Commonwealth to admit a new state to the Commonwealth is primarily founded on chapter 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. Within chapter 6 lies section 121, which is titled ‘New states may be admitted or established’. Section 121 states: The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit. I cite section 121 of the Constitution as it wisely anticipates the necessity to grant express legislative powers to the Commonwealth legislature for the purpose of determining the extent of representation in either house. In practical terms, this means that the founding fathers of the Commonwealth Constitution did anticipate that there may be, at a time in the future, the opportunity, if not the necessity, to admit new states to the Commonwealth. This provision reflects the model upon which our Constitution is based; namely, the constitution of the United States of America. Not surprisingly, it is a relevant factor as to the number of representatives both the people and the proposed state should have. As this House knows, we as members of the House of Representatives represent constituents in particular electorates. In my case, that is the electorate of Lowe. The Commonwealth Senate, by comparison, is known as the states house, in that senators do not represent constituents but their respective states. In the case of the Northern Territory, there is much debate concerning the proposal for the Northern Territory to become a state, with specific analysis at pages 65 through 70 inclusive of the report. My chief concern is that the change from a territory to a state will result in a disproportionate representation of voters in the Northern Territory compared to the relative voting power of the other states. My concerns are summarised well by the report where it concludes—in my view, wisely—at paragraph 6.35 that: As the granting of five seats to the new State— of the Northern Territory— would further increase the uneven distribution of voters in electorates, or malapportionment, in seats among the states in the House and potentially undermine an argument for equal treatment, the Committee considers that it is appropriate for the Northern Territory to retain two members of the House of Representatives upon statehood. The question of representation of the new State in the House should then be considered by the Australian Electoral Commission at an appropriate time. With respect to the Senate, I equally concur with the recommendations expressed at paragraph 6.36: The Committee also considers that it is not appropriate for the Northern Territory to gain an additional 10 Senators— from the existing two senators— immediately following statehood. An allocation of 12 Senators from a new state with a population of around 200,000 would present an unacceptable level of malapportionment and would be unlikely to gain the support of the Australian Parliament. I am sure the member for Lingiari would agree with that. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —No, I don’t. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I note in passing that the following local government areas in New South Wales all have populations approaching, if not over, the 200,000 population mark: Fairfield City Council, Bankstown City Council, Parramatta City Council, Liverpool City Council, Campbelltown City Council and Canterbury City Council. I could possibly add many more of the estimated 145 local government areas in New South Wales, many with populations comparable with the population of the entire Northern Territory. Given that there are likely to be further anomalies of this kind, I would encourage further elaboration on and examination of the means by which proportionality may be preserved. I now turn to the material provision of this report, which deals with the motivation behind the moves towards statehood. As this House is aware, the people of the Northern Territory voted, in the referendum of 1998, against the proposal that the Territory should become a state. I am not one to immediately fall for arguments of populism on the one hand or of tyrannical rule on the other. As I said earlier, the reasons why we would make a new state for the purpose of admission into the Commonwealth must be based upon well-founded reasons. When reading this report, examples are given that compare the differing standards between the powers, rights and duties of a state compared to those of the territories. Great play is made of the implied assertion that section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution is somehow unfair because it grants a right to the Commonwealth to overturn a territorial law. I refer, for example, to the Commonwealth’s Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which amended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to overturn the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Examples such as these are quoted throughout the report in a wide range of jurisdictional issues from environmental laws to exploration, fishing and mining rights and so forth. To my mind, however, the only objective source of determination of whether the Northern Territory is at a point where it may become a state is to be found in the intrinsic governance of a territory compared to that of a state. Nothing, in my view, will be achieved from pointing to spot issues and drawing out extreme examples that test the boundaries of any laws, and then seeking to justify such cases for or against the debate as it unfolds. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —What! Where’s this crap come from? 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Lingiari should be very careful, if he wants his chance of rebuttal, instead of 15 minutes in the sin bin. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —In the ensuing discussion on this debate, much recourse will be had to the arts of persuasion and rhetoric—more, I fear, than recourse to commonsense and right judgement, in determining the right model of governance. We only need to look at the report, as does the member for Lingiari, to see what calumny and politicising of the agenda was latent in the debate during the Northern Territory’s public debate on the referendum to vote on the question of whether the Northern Territory ought to become a state. Accusations flew, recriminations were made and taunting reached fever pitch. None of this is helpful in an objective assessment of the questions of ultimate good ends if the Commonwealth were to give a very small area in population terms the status of a new state. Finally, I bring the House’s attention to the provisions on Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island, which is another territory administered by the Commonwealth. Paragraphs 8.40 to 8.45 inclusive suggest that this territory ought be disannexed from the Northern Territory. This raises the notion that there are other territories which may validly be absorbed into the states of Australia. One may see no difficulty about that, but what would our view be of the Australian Antarctic Territory or the Australian Capital Territory becoming states? Let us remember that on the populist basis of authority, the people of the Northern Territory voted against becoming a state in 1998. To my knowledge, those supporting this inquiry for statehood are to be found in the Northern Territory Chief Minister’s office. However, there are serious national and public interests to be considered, to say nothing of significant jurisprudential and moral questions to be answered. These questions go to the heart of what is good governance and why the parliaments of South Australia, New South Wales and the Commonwealth decided to make this parcel of land a territory in the first place. The ongoing administrative costs and benefits of remaining a territory or becoming a state must be fully realised. The methodology to answer such questions is founded on guiding moral principles rather than the mere populist vote in time and space. Populism is not the only determinant of whether a territory becomes a state. In conclusion, let me say that we must have recourse to the right reason, the common good and common sense, as properly understood. I now look forward to hearing the member for Lingiari’s contribution. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is a matter that I wish to raise before I consider whether to give the member for Lingiari the call. I would ask that the member for Lingiari apologise to the committee for the tenor of his outburst. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —I apologise for the tenor of my outburst. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the document be noted. 139 16:10:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I will use a lower tenor. I did singing once and was a base tenor. I am not certain whether that is the cadence with which you wanted me to address the meeting this afternoon. Let me just say to the member for Lowe that whilst a lot of what he said was interesting, a lot of it was also bunkum. He knows next to nothing about the Northern Territory or the processes, and he has learnt very little out of this report. I was in the Northern Territory in 1998 and was part of the process. That referendum failed because of the stupidity of the CLP administration in the Northern Territory. That was the reason. Whilst I accept that you can have all sorts of views about whether or not the Commonwealth should have the right to intervene in the Northern Territory, it should not. You would not tolerate the intervention in New South Wales that has been tolerated in the Northern Territory. It is inappropriate for you to stand up in this chamber and say to me that, as a representative of the Northern Territory community, I should accept the proposition that the Commonwealth, using its powers under section 122 of the Constitution, should have the right to intervene in the way you say they have. Not only do I think it is unreasonable; I think it is unfair. You ought to apologise to the people of the Northern Territory. I invite you to come to the Northern Territory and we will have this debate up there, because it is totally unfair and totally unreasonable. Nevertheless, I— 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari will withdraw his remarks. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —I recognise his right to express himself. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —What about 12 senators? IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —I have never asked for 12 senators. That is not the issue. What I was attracted to, however, was the contribution of the member for Solomon this morning in this debate. He, like the member for Lowe, showed not only a lack of understanding of the processes that have been undertaken in this committee report but an absolute disdain for the people he represents. Not only did he say in his contribution that really the Northern Territory government was doing nothing, when in fact it is doing a great deal more than you—that is, the member for Lowe—care to tolerate or admit, but he said that this all comes out of the chief minister’s office. That is just not the case. You need to understand that there is a genuine interest in the community about addressing this particular issue over time. Not only is it totally uninformed; it just displays ignorance. The member for Solomon raved on about one matter and one matter only, and that was the repatriation of the land rights act to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Let me say to him, as he ought to know now, that the reason that the referendum failed on the last occasion was the potential desire of the then CLP administration to interfere with Aboriginal rights. If that is what the CLP wants in the Northern Territory, if that is what the government in this place wants—to somehow or another intervene and override the interests and rights of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory in the way which is being proposed by the member for Solomon—then the next referendum will be defeated as well. It is worth noting that the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, which has been established and operating for some time under the auspices of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has among its members a number of MLAs, including the CLP MLA Terry Mills. I have to say to Mr Mills that he ought to actually counsel the member for Solomon because of his lack of interest in advancing the cause of the people of the Northern Territory and the people of his own electorate of Solomon in this discussion. He ought to understand, as should the member for Lowe, that there are a range of activities which this committee has been undertaking publicly over a long period of time involving the community in discussion—not prejudging an outcome, not presuming an outcome, but having a discussion with the community. Since last year, the committee has undertaken over 25 community presentations or briefings on statehood with a range of Territory organisations and individuals. They included professional development workshops in February for teachers to discuss how the stated materials fit into the civics and citizenship aspects of the school curriculum and provide advice on the resources that the committee has developed to assist teachers. The committee has also travelled to Hermannsburg, Santa Teresa, Amoonguna, Alice Springs, Wallace Rockhole, Katherine and the surrounding communities to host community awareness sessions on statehood in the Central Australia region. One of the most interesting things that the committee is doing is in conjunction with the Australian Electoral Commission—this might even attract the attention of the member for Lowe. On 18 May the committee announced that it had entered into an arrangement with the Australian Electoral Commission—indeed, the member for Solomon might be interested if he opened his eyes and actually cleaned the wax out of his ears for a change—to increase awareness of and participation in voting on the statehood issue when the time comes. It has joined with the Australian Electoral Commission to run a mock referendum on statehood during the 2007 Northern Territory show season. For those people who are not aware of the show season in the Northern Territory, it is a very important time. It is where the community gets together to applaud the pastoral sector and the rural industries of the Northern Territory, but at the same time they have a mighty fine get-together. During the 2007 Territory show season, in a simulated voting exercise, Territorians will be asked to vote yes or no to the following three questions: (1) do you agree that the Northern Territory should become a state under the Australian Constitution? (2) do you agree the Northern Territory as a new state should have the same powers as existing states of Australia? (3) do you agree that the Northern Territory as a new state should have the same number of senators as the existing states of Australia? People have an interest, and, if they participate, they can vote yes or no and give an indication of what they think. In the mock referendum on statehood, Territorians under the age of 18 will be eligible to cast a vote, all mock referendum voters 17 years and over will be asked to ensure that they are on the electoral roll and younger voters will be provided with information about why enrolling to vote is so important. Another significant difference is that the polls will open on day one of the Freds Pass Rural Show, which is on 19 May. I have had the pleasure of attending the Freds Pass Rural Show, unlike the member for Lowe or the member for Solomon, neither of whom were there to express their views to the Northern Territory community. I will take the member for Lowe to the Northern Territory and I will front him up to a few of these meetings and, if he expresses the views to them that he expressed here in the parliament this afternoon, he will get run out of town in very short order. Another significant difference is that the polls will open, as I said, on day one of the Freds Pass Rural Show and will not close until the end of the final day at the Borroloola show in August— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —What does the member for Solomon say? IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —but voters will still only be able to vote just once. He says nothing; that is the point. 00AN4 Tollner, David, MP Mr Tollner —He cannot be a Territorian. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —That is the point. He expresses total ignorance as to what is happening in the Northern Territory about statehood. He is not aware, does not understand and has no interest in the operations of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee. Whether or not you agree with the prospect of statehood, in the Northern Territory they are undertaking a very broad ranging community consultation and getting an expression of views from people—unlike the member for Lowe, who is keen to express his own view in this place about the rights and interests of the people of the Northern Territory in a way which I would not about the rights and interests of the people in New South Wales. It is inappropriate behaviour on his behalf, as far as I am concerned. Secondly, in the case of the member for Solomon, he ought to know better. He actually lives in Darwin. You would expect him to express a view which supports the views which are currently being discussed by the people of the Northern Territory—that is, that there is an active process of participation by the people of the Northern Territory in a discussion about statehood. The only recommendation of this committee report says that the Commonwealth should do something about it. That is not a bad view to express. The committee recommends that the Australian government updates and refines its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommences work on unresolved federal issues. In paragraphs 3.59 to 3.62, this report says that the Commonwealth should take an active role in trying to isolate those issues of contention and have discussions with the community of the Northern Territory, through the Northern Territory government, about those issues and try to find some resolution to them—not in the way that has been expressed by the member for Lowe or, indeed, by the member for Solomon. Well, what do you say about him, frankly? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Did he say anything? IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —He did not say anything worth noting. In fact, he says very little about anything that is worth noting. Paragraph 3.61 of this report says: On balance, the Committee considers that there is a role for the Commonwealth Government to play in assisting the Northern Territory work through some of the unresolved issues of statehood, without driving the agenda. I fully understand that there are contentious issues here, like the proportionality issue about the numbers of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the Northern Territory should have—and I have a particular view about that which is probably closer to the views of many in this place than others might think. But they are issues which need to be legitimately discussed with the people of the Northern Territory and they should be assisted in that discussion by work being undertaken by the Commonwealth government. I commend the report to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 142 Business 142 142 16:21:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded? 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —I second the motion. Question agreed to. 142 Committees 142 142 Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Mr Jull: That the House take note of the paper. 142 16:22:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —I rise with a great deal of pleasure to discuss this report. My speech will be somewhat overshadowed by that very passionate contribution by the member for Lingiari on the previous report. It is one that a very close relative of mine who lives in the Northern Territory would probably endorse. The member for Lingiari is a very passionate Territorian and one who is very committed to his electorate and to the Northern Territory and, as my very close relative would say, he is a person who represents his electorate splendidly. In rising today to note the report of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security titled Review of the re-listing of Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—or the TQJBR—(the al-Zarqawi network) as a terrorist organisation, I would like to raise a few points. As deputy chair of this committee, I would like to acknowledge this bipartisan report and the efforts of the committee members, including the chair of the committee, the Hon. David Jull, the member for Fadden, and particularly the hardworking secretariat. I would like today in particular in this chamber to acknowledge the incredibly hard work of the retiring committee secretary, Margaret Swieringa, whom we will all miss. As outlined by the chair of the committee in his statement to the House last week, this organisation was considered for listing in 2005. This committee reviewed this regulation and reported to the parliament on 25 May 2005. It did not recommend disallowance of the regulation at that time. In reaching its recommendation, the committee concluded: It is evident from the Attorney-General’s statement of reasons that TQJBR— the al-Zarqawi network— has committed violent crimes in pursuit of their objectives. The group has kidnapped and murdered civilians and attacked Multi-National Forces and members of the Interim Iraqi Government. The Committee strongly condemns the violent acts of TQJBR. The proscription of TQJBR in Australia is potentially useful insofar as it prevents Australians from assisting the organisation either financially or personally. The recent relisting inquiry was advertised in the Australian newspaper and by other electronic means in February 2007. There were no submissions received from the public but a private hearing was held in Canberra on 23 March 2007. That hearing was attended by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At this juncture, it is important to note that this committee sought a contribution regarding the relisting of this network from the Office of National Assessments. As the chair noted in his contribution, the reason that the committee was looking forward to this contribution was that the strategic analysis and the type of information that it supplied to senators in Senate estimates or was supplied by the director in his public speeches might assist the committee in reaching a deliberation. Members of our committee, however, were disappointed when this request was refused on the grounds that the ONA apparently plays no role in the listing process and was unable to share the contents of assessments as it is apparently prohibited from doing so under the Intelligence Services Act. That particular decision has two interesting facets. The first one is that, within it, it has an open source unit which is utilised by other forms of government. The second point is that the committee feels that the interpretation of the relevant section of this act—section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act—by the director of the ONA needs to be evaluated by the committee itself, given its implications for the capacity of the committee to exercise its statutory responsibility of parliamentary oversight of the ONA. If you look at the extension of the interpretation provided by the director in this particular instance, it could, if you followed its natural extension legally, prohibit an inquiry like the one that was conducted on the weapons of mass destruction, which the committee reviewed in a previous incarnation in 2003. If it does so, in my view, and if that legal opinion was upheld, it provides a direct threat to the committee’s capacity to oversight the ONA, and that is a cause for concern. Thus, I believe the director’s opinion needs to be examined, and will be examined, by the committee independently. With respect to the reassessment of the listing of the organisation, it is clear that, on the statement of reasons and other open source information, this organisation has used and does use extreme violence in pursuit of its objectives and that, with respect to its activities in Iraq subsequent to its proscription on the first occasion—and I will detail some of them in terms of reports such as attacks on mosques, the killing of two soldiers, and four Russian diplomats who were taken hostage and executed—there is a very clear case for the proscription of the organisation. Additionally, Australia and Australians are seen as a target by this organisation. This was demonstrated by its claim of responsibility for an attack against an Australian defence convoy in Baghdad on 25 October 2004, and an attack near the Australian embassy in Baghdad on 19 January 2005. Additionally, the committee believes that there appears to be no amelioration of its activities and, notwithstanding the death of its leader, al-Zarqawi, it has not lessened its operations, notwithstanding that, at least in a public sense, it has been subsumed into a larger coalition of groups. I would like to briefly touch on some issues which have arisen consistently when the committee examines the listings and relistings of organisations for proscription under the Criminal Code—that is, basically, concerns about the consultation and the period of time that it consults with the state and territory governments, the method of informing the community of a proscription, and the publicly available information which is put forward to justify a proscription. In some cases, in some of the proscriptions there is a belief that some of the material put forward is fairly scarce, particularly when trying to justify publicly the proscription of an organisation. In considering this, the committee believes that, in justifying the proscription of an organisation, ASIO itself has used benchmark criteria to justify it, and it has done so publicly. I refer to the engagement in terrorism, the ideology and links to other terrorist groups or networks, links to Australia, threats to Australian interests, proscription by the UN or like-minded countries, and engagement in peace and mediation processes. In this particular case, it is abundantly clear that this organisation should be proscribed, although I would note, in terms of the more recent material provided to the committee regarding the proscription, that there is a small amount post its initial proscription in terms of its activities that is publicly sourced and a lot about its previous activities. I think what the committee deserves, rightfully, is more open source information that is germane to this listing rather than the fairly scarce amount that has been provided, particularly in this report. The key concern is this: the public must have a measure of confidence in an organisation like ASIO when an organisation has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. There needs to be some process so that the public can believe that there is enough information to justify its proscription. In fact, the issues surrounding proscription and the use of the proscription power are being evaluated by the committee, and a report on this matter will be tabled later in the year. This committee, as I said, is a good, hardworking committee that is reviewing a number of legislative items. In closing, I would like to again acknowledge the work of the retiring committee secretary, Margaret Swieringa, and I commend the report to the chamber. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 144 144 Debate resumed. 144 16:31:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —I thank the committee. I thank the member for Hinkler for his courtesy. It demonstrates what a fine gentleman he is. Perhaps in State of Origin season there is a bond between Queenslanders that is more powerful than some people imagine. But sincerely, Paul, I thank you for that. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Northern Territory statehood is a timely reminder to us about an issue that has been on the federal political agenda now for more than 30 years. I think it was Malcolm Fraser who, during the 1975 election campaign, promised statehood for the Northern Territory, and it has clearly been on the minds of people in the Territory as a serious issue from that time forward. I am aware that the Northern Territory government have put in place a program over about a 10-year period to raise this issue with the people in the Northern Territory to look at the various matters that make this a complex issue, but also to put the threshold question to people in the Northern Territory as to whether they believe the Northern Territory should change in status to become a state. I understand that at fairs, carnivals and other community gatherings around the Northern Territory, Northern Territory administration stalls provide information packs and even an opportunity for people to cast a vote, much as they would in a real referendum. The committee’s report makes a couple of important observations that are worth noting. It reflects poorly on the federal government as a partner in this discussion. The report notes at paragraph 3.44: One of the clear messages emerging from the seminar was that people wanted to know more about the Commonwealth position ... The difficulty is that the Commonwealth position has been virtually non-existent since the referendum in 1998. Elsewhere in the report, paragraph 3.49 reads: The Committee understands that the Commonwealth Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Transport and Regional Services have not undertaken significant work on statehood issues since the failed referendum of 1998. Furthermore, the Commonwealth has not updated its position on Northern Territory statehood since 1998 ... That means that for the best part of the last decade the Commonwealth has shown no interest whatsoever in the issue of statehood in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government are properly going about a system of consultation and education with the Australians who live in the Northern Territory and it is time that the Commonwealth became a partner in that process. It is time that the Commonwealth engaged constructively with the Northern Territory government and with the Northern Territory people so that this issue can be pursued. I am not sure what the view of people in the Northern Territory ultimately is on this question. But once the threshold question is determined there are clearly a lot of matters of detail that need to be determined, and the report canvasses some of those. No-one suggests that this is a quick or speedy process. The fact that the Northern Territory government have embarked on a 10-year program is an indication of the sorts of time lines that are needed even in the eyes of those who I suspect are very keen for the Territory status to be changed to that of a state. It makes it all the harder though for the Northern Territory government, but most particularly for the people in the Northern Territory, when the Commonwealth just does not engage. This report tells us that, since 1998, the Commonwealth has dropped the ball. The Commonwealth has not been a partner in this process and that needs to change. I trust the committee’s report will be a useful reminder to those in the government with responsibilities in these areas—in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in the Attorney-General’s Department and in DOTARS—that they should shoulder their fair share of the responsibility in furthering this debate. It is a debate that has been on our plate in the national parliament for about 30 years. It has not been a high-profile debate and, apart from the referendum in 1998, I guess it has not been a high-profile, level 1 issue in most parts of the Northern Territory either. But the people of the Northern Territory deserve to have this important constitutional question pursued fairly and reasonably. That cannot be done unless the Commonwealth becomes a partner in that process. The Commonwealth was a partner in that process in the 1970s. It was again a partner in that process leading up to the 1998 referendum. It has dropped the ball since 1998. Now is the time to pick the ball up. I hope the committee report encourages the government to do just that. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 146 Bills R2770 146 Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Costello: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that: despite record high commodity prices from surging demand from India and China and rising levels of taxation, the Government has failed to secure Australia’s long term economic fundamentals and should be condemned for its failure to: address Australia’s flagging productivity growth; stem the widening current account deficit and trade deficits; attend to the long term relative decline in education and training investment undercutting workplace productivity; provide national leadership on infrastructure including a high speed national broadband network for the whole country; expand and encourage research and development to move Australian industry and exports up the value-chain; and reform our health system to equip it for a future focused on prevention, early intervention and an ageing population; the Government’s failure to address the damaging consequences of climate change is endangering Australia’s future economic prosperity; the Government’s extreme industrial relations laws will lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity, participation or economic growth; and the Government’s Budget documents fail the test of transparency and accountability”. 146 16:37:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 0 Dr JENSEN —These businesses have struggled under the burdens of higher taxation and ridiculously onerous industrial relations systems under previous Labor regimes. These businesses, such as those in the light industrial area in Willetton, are benefiting from the reduction in small business taxes and compliance costs. They will be even better placed to expand and improve their businesses, feeding into the overall national economic wellbeing of the nation. There is only one thing that could destroy all this hard work: a future Labor government. These small businesses will also benefit from the Skills for the Future package. When I have been speaking to both managers and business owners, and young people seeking training, this initiative has been very well received. As well as reducing unemployment, how else have families benefited? Tax cuts, again. Members opposite might need subtitles for this message as it is a foreign language to them. The Labor Party has a long history of raising existing taxes and imposing new ones without the balance of reducing income and company taxes. Taxpayers in Tangney who earn $80,000 or less will now have an income tax rate of 30 per cent. Families in Tangney will also benefit from the additional support for child care; more than 2½ times the amount spent when we came to office. From the next financial year, childcare benefits will increase by 10 per cent, as well as families receiving the childcare tax rebate as a direct payment. There are around 20 childcare centres in Tangney plus many playgroups. On a recent visit to the Rossmoyne Community Playgroup, I met with grants coordinator Louise van den Einden and saw the excellent work she and her group are doing. The budget will provide more funding for community groups such as this, through the Local Answers program. These projects will help local communities in Tangney by funding local, small-scale projects that identify opportunities to develop skills and support children and families. All the playgroups and other eligible community groups in Tangney will benefit from this initiative. Health is an extremely vexed subject, especially in Western Australia. We have a state government and a health minister who are in denial about the state of health in WA. Tangney is the supposed location of a new major hospital, which is supposed to replace the hospitals Labor is currently running down or closing outright. The date of completion of this hospital in Murdoch has been put back and back by a Labor government either unwilling or unable to come to grips with responsible economic management in providing the necessary services for people. What a contrast to the Howard coalition government. The federal budget is helping bail out these incompetent state governments: firstly, by continuing the excellent vaccination program to ensure fewer people need hospitalisation; secondly, by tax rebates for Tangney residents who have private health insurance, again lessening the pressure on the public health system; and, thirdly, by providing a risk assessment and treatment program for those at risk of developing diabetes. I drew attention to this insidious condition in my winter 2006 newsletter, so I am particularly pleased that the constituents whom I spoke with who have diabetes will know that, in future, suffering should be reduced by early detection and treatment. A large percentage of my constituents are retired. There are more than 20 nursing homes and aged care and retirement complexes in the Tangney electorate. When I visited Regents Gardens in Bateman for a tour and morning tea, I was extremely impressed with the level of care. This budget is especially good for the residents of this complex and others in Tangney. There is a bonus payment for all my constituents who are receiving the utilities allowance or the seniors concession allowance. Tangney seniors living in aged-care facilities such as the Howard Solomon Hostel in Ferndale, Joseph Cooke Hostel in Rossmoyne and Bull Creek Village will also benefit from the commitment to increase the Medicare rebate for GPs attending aged-care facilities. My electorate contains the RAAF Association Estate in Bull Creek and some very active RSL branches, which are all to be congratulated for the differing work they do with ex-service men and women. Tangney has a significant number of veterans and their families, of whom over 3,000 are DVA pensioners or treatment card holders. Those who are disabled will benefit greatly from higher fortnightly payments and better support services when coming home from hospital. The continuing defence medals program, which has been very well received by all the veterans to whom I have presented medals, is most worthy and highlights this government’s appreciation of our ex-service men and women. The attitude of the WA Labor government to our public schools is a scandal. Not only is the Carpenter government not providing this much needed funding; it is also siphoning off federal funding before the schools even receive it. On this issue and others, such as road funding, I am told by state colleagues that federal funding is covering up for the disgraceful inadequacies of a state Labor government which is awash with taxpayers’ money but which is hoarding it until the next state election. This is exactly the opposite of the Howard government’s careful financial management, the strategic expenditure adhering to well understood, coherent and longstanding philosophical positions. And excellent programs are able to be funded as a result. (Time expired) 148 16:44:00 Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP XS4 Fremantle ALP 0 0 Dr LAWRENCE —I think that a measure of any government or society is the way that it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens. We can see what a government thinks of various groups of people by the way it responds financially and in policy. Perhaps similarly, the measure of a man or woman is at least in part how he or she responds to and considers the needs of those experiencing disadvantage, regardless of the obligation to do so or indeed of the rewards for such behaviour. The Christians in our midst might think of the parable of the good Samaritan. The key test of decent leadership, in my view, is whether leaders appear to consider and care for people who have disabilities which adversely affect their ability to function and participate in our society, and whether they put energy and thought into devising policies which reduce disadvantage and the impact of disability. These are critical questions that we can ask of any government. I was curious about the Prime Minister. What had he said over his more than 30 years in politics about peoplewith disabilities and government responsibilities for such people? I searched the Hansard record for any indication that the Prime Minister had previously shown an interest in people with disabilities, and I have to say that I turned up a very sorry record. He has often talked about disabilities in the economy as people with disabilities. In fact, if you look at the record, in 1982 he mentioned veteran disability pensions in his budget speech. In 1983, in a debate on an income tax bill, he mentioned exemptions for foreign pensioners with a war related disability. There was then a big gap until 1997, when, in a condolence motion, he referred to the fact that Lance Barnard had sustained permanent disabilities in war service. In 2002, when opposing a bill on embryo stem cell research, he mentioned disability as one of the roles of a committee to which he referred. In 2004 he referred to Betty Cuthbert’s ‘cheerful disposition in the face of that disability’—referring to multiple sclerosis. In 2005, in a ministerial statement on the Fair Pay Commission, he referred to their role in adjusting junior, training and disability wages. And that is really about it. He has never once spoken about policy or programs for people with disabilities in this parliament in all of those 30 years, let alone the discrimination that such people might face or the quality of their lives. To me, that says a lot. Perhaps it is not surprising then that successive budgets tell a story of neglect for people with disabilities and their carers. I have spoken on previous occasions about the especially scandalous neglect of Indigenous people with disabilities. But I think it is important that we recognise, despite all the rhetoric about this budget, that if the Commonwealth had matched the states, whose performance is not perfect by any means, over the life of the last agreement with the states, for instance, on the average rate of indexation, we would have seen an additional $86 million available to maintain existing services. If it had matched them in percentage growth, there would have been an additional $232 million for services across Australia. If it had matched them in growth dollars, there would have been an additional $1 billion in funding for disability services in Australia. I think we have seen a disturbing willingness on the part of this government to use people, particularly in negotiations with the states—people with disabilities—as pawns in disputes with the states about program responsibilities and funding. Despite the Senate inquiry recommending additional funding to meet unmet need, the government pre-empted consideration of the report and said point blank that there would be no additional funding, and they have been true to their word in this budget. The provision in the budget in comparison to the need is, frankly, scandalous. We have seen minor increases to partially reflect service cost inflation—not adequately—and growth in the cohort, in the number of people needing services, but there has been a dismal failure to grapple with unmet need, either in this budget or in the negotiations with the states. That unmet need is very visible to anyone who has worked in this sector or talked to a parent or, indeed, to a person with a disability—in accommodation, respite and day services, appropriate employment and occupational services. I am told that the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report—a draft version is yet unpublished—indicates that in 2005 unmet demand for accommodation and respite services was estimated at 23,800 people being without those services. They estimate further that the demand for accommodation and respite services is expected to increase by 34,600 people between 2006 and 2010—the life of the next agreement—and yet the government has said that there will be no growth in funding to meet that unmet demand. The budget does virtually nothing to address the critical unmet need in the disability sector overall. Only 48 of every 1,000 people under 65 with a severe or profound disability get accommodation support of any kind under the current agreement and we are told that is not going to improve. Indeed, if we look at those figures, it is only going to get worse. The budget also failed to indicate any real support for critical new Commonwealth-state disability funding, as I say, to be part of that agreement due to be finalised by 30 June 2007. As one disability advocate put it: Despite the Senate Committee report released February 2007 showing massive shortcomings in previous funding arrangements and 29 key recommendations, Costello— and he might have said Howard, the Prime Minister— has snubbed the 200,000 Australians with serious and multiple disabilities depending on the new CSTDA agreement for quality of life. The Commonwealth’s budget forecast of funding indexation at just 1.8 per cent, with no additional funding for enhanced CSTDA, I have to say, left the disability sector in shock at what appeared to be a callous lack of compassion and fairness by this government. It is interesting that on talkback radio, the day following the budget, the PM got a call from Robert, a 47-year-old disability support pensioner. This budget, which supposedly had something for everyone, as Robert said, ‘had nothing for me’—a position the Prime Minister confirmed in that radio interview. Sadly, that neglect by the government is actually mirrored in the media coverage. It was pretty hard to see anyone in the media picking up this point. There was practically no mention of the government’s performance in this area. Apparently, most of the newspapers, radios and television were dazzled with all the giveaways. I think we should look at the situation of people with disabilities—that so many of them were overlooked. People like a woman who contacted me—I will not use her name, although she gave permission to do so, because I think it is better not to—after I gave a speech some months ago about the whole need for the CSTDA to be completed before the election and properly done, following the budget. She said she has two disabled adult children, one with schizophrenia and the other with autism and a mild intellectual disability. She said something that so many of these people tell me: I am exhausted from the continuous battle to get appropriate assistance for them. I am 62 and I hoped I would have a few years retirement of peace to pursue activities of my choice. Last year my daughter found an appropriate form of accommodation but she hasn’t been able to find anything at all for her son who is 37. I have been serving on committees in the area for the past 20 years. I have also worked four days a week to subsidise my children and I am separated ... That is something that often happens to families with disabilities: they are blown apart. Life is physically and emotionally exhausting for many of these people and I give credit to the West Australian for covering the fate of two young retirees—if you can be a young retiree—Rosalie and Tony Sexton, whose story is very public so I feel I can mention their names. They are Mount Lawley residents, 64 and 65, who should be enjoying their new free time, but they are actually struggling to cope with caring for their son, Peter, who has Down syndrome, while sharing the responsibility of ageing parents and helping their daughter, a first-time mother. They are self-funded retirees on a pretty modest budget and they had hoped for increased funding, especially for disability services. They said: We would like funding so we can find independent sustainable supported accommodation for Peter. That is their son. The Sextons said they would then provide recreational and social support for their son but would be relieved of the exhausting primary care. But instead, as they found: There’s no recognition of the unmet needs identified by the recent Senate inquiry. Extra dollars to families do not provide services, only band-aids and sweeteners as vote-pullers. In other words, we are disgusted. They are not alone in that regard. There are a great many others. Mrs Sexton knows what she is talking about because she is a former registered nurse who worked for the Cerebral Palsy Association, and they wanted more support from the federal government after years of paying taxes. As they said, on the carer allowance, they will get the $600 one-off payment but they were bitterly disappointed. As Mrs Sexton said: It shows utter contempt and disdain and a complete lack of understanding of the most marginalised in our community. We have both given our life to service—me at work and Tony fighting in Vietnam—and we just want help to more adequately support Peter’s needs. That is what she said in that newspaper report. I have heard stories like that over and over again. As the Senate committee said when looking at the CSTDA, the weight of responsibility on countless families is a crushing and unreasonable one, and much greater community assistance in that task is urgently called for. What does the government say? No more funding, nothing in this budget, nothing in the CSTDA. In that negotiation, they have shown a belligerent attitude, the classic tactic of issuing ultimatums and refusing to negotiate sensibly. They offer, for instance, dollar for dollar matching with the states for accommodation needs but refuse to take account of recent expenditure by the states, which has grown much faster, by the way, than expenditure by the Commonwealth. And there have been reports in recent days that if the states do not respond to the current offer by the Commonwealth by 8 June there will be unspecified consequences, including the possibility that the very limited offer they have made will actually be withdrawn. I remind members that the purpose of this agreement, the CSTDA, is to enable the states and the Commonwealth to work collaboratively—to work together, in other words—to develop and implement strategies to improve the social and economic participation by people with disabilities in the community and to provide access to appropriate support which best meets their needs and abilities. Instead, the Commonwealth is trying to negotiate one by one with the states and break up the CSTDA. The Senate committee, amongst other things, recommended: equitable funding on a per capita basis; indexation that was actually in line with increases in the cost of service delivery—something the Commonwealth will not deliver; they want outcomes based reporting; we all agree about that—and, importantly, growth funds for unmet needs and specialist services, to which I have already referred, particularly those in accommodation and support. The Commonwealth appears determined at the moment to reinterpret the original intention of the CSTDA, which was to share administrative responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states and share financial responsibility for funding services and to work towards equality of funding between the states—something which has not yet happened. I think it is clear to anyone who fairly looks at this field that people with disabilities and their carers are not getting a decent deal. The government should heed the calls of the national CSTDA Community Alliance, which is a coalition of provider and advocacy groups, that, as they put it, are taking a stand for people with disabilities and their families, and they want cooperation between the governments, not stalemate. Some members would have been visited in recent weeks by many families with members who have disabilities, although I noticed that some were rebuffed by their local MPs, including the Treasurer. I want to draw attention briefly to a number of other additional failures before I move to another matter. I am very disappointed, for instance, that the ABC is axing Talking Books, which means that thousands of people with visual impairment will lose access to recreational reading. The ABC says it is not profitable and, since the board members are mostly friends of government, I assume that reflects the priorities of the government. We have also seen a failure by the government to develop a comprehensive response to the HREOC report on employment for people with disabilities. They are just ignoring the recommendations. We have also seen a failure to table draft standards for access to premises for people with disabilities, and we have seen the recent notorious example of people with restricted mobility being unable to gain access to job capacity assessment centres, part of the so-called Welfare to Work requirements. And of course we have got no indication yet of the government’s intention to ratify the UN disability convention, which would put it on the spot in relation to a lot of these failures. I want to turn briefly now to another area which is often overlooked by this government—that is, the protection of heritage in Australia. There is a very important site on the coast of Western Australia which I have spoken about before in this parliament, the Burrup, the Dampier Archipelago. At least two areas have been nominated for inclusion on the National Heritage List. It is a fascinating area and without precedent both in terms of its prehistory and in terms of its significance for Indigenous people. It is of world significance, as indicated by the fact that globally now there is a campaign called Stand Up For the Burrup. People outside Australia appear to know more about the Burrup than Australians do, and certainly they seem to care more than this government appears to care, as indicated by people standing up outside world monuments to indicate their support to protect this very important site. They have demonstrated their support in Seville, in Spain, outside the Opera House, outside Carnegie Hall, outside the university campus festival in Grenoble, in Amsterdam, in Lyons, in Brussels, in Cape Town, and so on. Yet this government still cannot move itself to list this very important site. Indeed, the minister refused a request for emergency listing and has continued to delay the decision to list. More damage, unfortunately, is done to the site every day. There are alternatives, as many people have pointed out, particularly at Onslow. We do not have to further damage this very important site. The reason I wanted to mention it again today is that I have had the good fortune to get access to a further report to the minister and to the department from one of the consultants, Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management. I hasten to add that the report did not come from her. It has not yet been publicised, but it certainly should be because it reinforces the strong advice that has already been given to the government that the archipelago in its entirety is of extremely high significance. Amongst other things, the report says that ‘no one area of the archipelago can necessarily be considered to be representative of the whole’. Successive governments, state and federal, have tried to carve out bits, saying that there is a whole lot more left, but the point about this site is that ‘no one area is representative. It is highly varied and it is cumulative’. The other point that I think is worth making, and that is made in this report, is that only a portion of the archipelago has been intensively surveyed. We are destroying this without knowing what we are doing. The report also points out that industrial development has affected approximately 14 per cent of the entire landmass so far. This research report undertook some very extensive additional work which had never before been done. Part of the problem here, as I have indicated, is that too little of this site has been properly surveyed. I want to read into Hansard some of the conclusions of that extended research program and the use of existing data. The report looks at each of the National Heritage List criteria and presents the data that support them. For instance, one of the criteria is that the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance in the course or pattern of Australia’s natural or cultural history. The conclusion here is that the archaeology of the Damper Archipelago provides an outstanding and arguably unique example of long-term Aboriginal occupation of an arid littoral landscape for Northern Australia and that the art provides unique evidence of Aboriginal occupation and persistence within a desert landscape, including the transition to a maritime landscape. On the second criterion, that the place has outstanding heritage value because of its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history, I think it is very important to recognise the conclusions here. The report states: The cultural heritage values of the place are endangered. …            …            … It is estimated that there are well over one million engraved motifs on the Dampier Archipelago. They are without peer. If you have not been there, you should. The report continues: A significant number of valleys and foreshore pavement complexes contain many tens of thousands of individually executed motifs. There is a significant superimpositioning of motifs. The density of stone arrangements is also at the highest end recorded within Australia for such site types— That is well in advance of anywhere else. It goes on to say: ... the area has operated as an aggregation locale for groups from widely dispersed areas over a long time period. We are talking tens of thousands of years here being destroyed, apparently without regret. The report goes on to say: The current footprint of industry on the Burrup Peninsula, and its anticipated spread, present both direct and indirect impacts which place cultural heritage—and the art of the Archipelago—at high-risk of being endangered. The government needs to know that when it moves to list this site, as it now must, and it should not delay longer. There are other criteria which the data clearly indicate that this site meets. For instance, the spectacular rock art of the archipelago is said to be as well known at the local, regional, national and international levels. Rock art specialists have either visited or worked on the archipelago and they have been unanimous in declaring it is one of the most aesthetically spectacular and information-rich art provinces they have ever witnessed—and yet we are busily chopping it up. The researchers were also asked to comment on the value of the place in its creative and technical achievement over a particular period of time, and again these are exceptional recommendations. The report says: The rock art of the Dampier Archipelago demonstrates extremely high diversity in theme, style, mode of execution, dynamism, level of naturalism and abstraction and depiction of recognisable economic and social behaviours. The language is perhaps a little off-putting, but the important thing here is that this is a site without peer. This deserves World Heritage listing; do not worry about National Heritage listing. I would say, frankly, that it perhaps deserves priority over the Flemington racecourse, which has already been listed. 153 17:04:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —There is not much in this place less uplifting than 20 minutes of doom and gloom from the member for Fremantle. I have a different view. I have a view that this country has a bright future. I have a view that, because of the strong economic management of this government, we are taking this country forward. I do not want to destroy the illusion of the alternative Treasurer of this country, the member for Lilley, but economic management is not found in a cornflakes packet. You cannot just take some sort of ‘me too’ policy and believe that somehow economic management will magically take care of itself—because it will not. Economic management takes a lot of hard work. Economic management is not any one budget. Economic management is all the things that government does to drive this country forward, to create opportunity, to reform. It is quite amazing that the member for Lalor, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is now saying that today economic policy in this country is bipartisan. They have opposed every measure we have put forward to reform this country—they opposed reform of the waterfront, they opposed tax reform and they opposed reform of industrial relations—yet somehow, magically, economic management is bipartisan. Perhaps I have in my mind a different meaning of bipartisanship than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s idea of a small business policy is to trash small business—to trash the owners of the Lilac City Motel, to destroy their business. That is how she helps—she opens the phone book, picks a business and trashes it. I am sure the employees of that establishment are not overly pleased with her efforts. I have to say also that economic management is not only not found in a cornflakes packet, as the alternative Treasurer might think; it is not found at an ACTU meeting or among union delegates. Economic management takes hard work. Economic management takes commitment. Economic management takes decisions that are not always popular but are for the good of the country. Some many years ago in the early nineties, before I came into this place, on the streets of my electorate—in Coffs Harbour, for example—the young people felt despair. There were no jobs. There were few opportunities. There were virtually no apprenticeships. The plight of the youth was very bleak in those days. What chances did they have? One option was to leave town to find a job in the city. That is changing: we are creating jobs, creating opportunities and creating apprenticeships. We had 20 per cent unemployment in those days and it is now less than half of that. Small business likes the sorts of measures we have put in place. Small business likes the removal of the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws. Small business now has the confidence to employ. Small business now has the confidence to take a chance with an employee who might not work out, because they know that, if it does not work out, they have some redress. They know they are not going to be hauled down before some tribunal and forced to spend a day in the tribunal wasting time and effort. They know that they will not have to pay $5,000 in ‘go away’ money, because this government has taken decisions in the interests of the wider economy, in the interests of employees and in the interests of employers. It is very important that we get the settings right, and this government is doing that. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are saying that economic policy is bipartisan. If you believe that, you would have to believe in the tooth fairy. This government has created jobs; this government has reduced the unemployment rate. It has created opportunities. It has created an environment of lower interest rates. It has created economic growth. It has created prosperity. People out there know that. They realise that this government has a strong suite of economic measures and it is very strong in the area of economic management. Members opposite opposed the introduction of the workplace relations legislation; yet 320,000 jobs have been created in a little over a year. It is really a spectacular performance. Members opposite are opposed to AWAs, the very instrument that provides employers with the flexibility to enter into the sorts of arrangements that make their businesses grow and make this economy grow. Economic growth occurs very much through a marginal process, and you cannot tie the economy in a knot and somehow expect it to grow. We have to get the settings right to allow the economy to grow, and this government does that. Members opposite claim to be a party of the future, but they are very much a party of the past. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on these appropriation bills. This budget forms part of an ongoing process of strong economic management, part of an ongoing process of reform and part of an ongoing process of creating opportunities. Through the growth that has occurred in this country, through the opportunities that have been created and through the jobs that have been created we are now able to hand back to the people of Australia the benefits and the dividends of that growth and prosperity. This budget is doing that. This is a surplus budget, which is better than a balanced budget, that is handing back to the people what they very much deserve—a share in the prosperity of this nation. It does this in a number of ways. The first that I would like to comment on is tax cuts. In the budget the Treasurer announced tax cuts worth $31.5 billion over four years. This builds on the $36.7 billion of cuts in previous budgets. More than 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to face a top marginal rate of 30 per cent or less. The increases to the 30 per cent tax threshold and the low income tax offset will create an effective tax-free threshold of $11,000. That is great news because it encourages people to get into the workforce, and it makes it more worthwhile for them to go out and get a job because they can keep a greater proportion of what they earn, and that is what we want to see. That is what this government is about: it is about creating opportunities, it is about encouraging people to help themselves and it is helping them to do that. I think that is a very important point. This budget also gives an extra $2 billion for increased childcare assistance. Spending on childcare assistance will be 2½ times the amount spent in 1996-97. We are encouraging stay-at-home parents to get out into the workforce by assisting them with child care—a most important factor. This government also aims to assist the elderly and our senior Australians. My electorate of Cowper has a high proportion of elderly residents, and this government recognises that they should share in the dividends that have been achieved through strong economic management. There is the $500 bonus for those receiving the utilities allowance or the seniors concession allowance. There is the $1,000 bonus for those receiving carers payment and a $600 bonus for those receiving the carers allowance. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the great work that carers do in our local communities right around the country. I think carers are very much the unsung heroes. Carers are climbing mountains every day to look after their loved ones. They do it with very little recognition, if any recognition at all, and I am pleased that these payments in some small way can be at least some recognition for the great work that they do. Those eligible for the senior Australians tax offset will pay no tax on income up to $25,867 for singles and $43,360 for couples. There will be an extra 7,200 community aged-care packages to help older Australians who wish to continue living at home. There will be $93 million for better medical treatment in aged-care facilities and an improved income test for self-funded retirees going into aged care. Some 45 per cent should pay less as a result. These are great measures that are ensuring that our older Australians share in the economic growth and prosperity that this nation currently enjoys. Infrastructure is vitally important. I know that in my electorate the Pacific Highway is of great concern. It needs to be upgraded to dual carriageway standard for its entire length as quickly as possible. We have certainly been investing in the highway to date. Some $1.3 billion is invested through AusLink by the federal and state governments until 2008-09. These latest budget announcements of $22.3 billion allow that process to continue and allow for a further concentration on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. But we are not just focusing on the highway system; we are also focusing on rail. It is very important, if the road system is not to become clogged, that we aim to move as much freight from road onto rail as possible. This AusLink package makes that possible. It continues the great work that is already underway with a substantial boost in investment. These are huge sums that are being poured into much-needed infrastructure and much-needed highway systems which will be very much appreciated by the people in my electorate. Many small businesses depend on the Pacific Highway as their lifeline not only for receiving goods and shipping out the goods that they produce but also because there is the very important tourism industry which depends on the free and safe flow of traffic in order to prosper. It is vitally important infrastructure. Education is another very important area. In my electorate we have a campus of the Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour. It has been doing a great job in training our young people. We have got some very specialised courses in aged care, nursing, teaching and hospitality. The university is doing a great job. I know that the university will benefit very much from the very visionary $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund—a visionary idea put forward by this government that is leading the way in education. It is not just about rhetoric and hot air; it is actually leading the way and is providing the sort of education system that this country needs in order to lead the way in the 21st century. In Coffs Harbour we also have the Rural Clinical School, another visionary idea—education in regional and rural areas, training our local doctors in the region. Not only do we get a better healthcare outcome by these doctors training and then hopefully living in regional and rural areas but we have the opportunity of an education facility that is providing economic and educational benefits to the region. Education is so vitally important. I would also like to turn to some of the measures in a little bit more detail. In doing so, I would like to comment on just a few: $556 million for the increase in university funding, which will simplify university funding structures and provide additional funding for key disciplines, particularly in the area of skills needs; $211.2 million over four years for the Allowing More Responsive Universities program, which will give universities the ability to adjust student numbers and course mixes to respond to student demand and address skill needs; $208 million for the diversity and structural adjustment fund; and $77 million for increased funding for practical experience for teaching, a vitally important area. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, I note that we did an inquiry into teacher training and one of the findings of that inquiry was that we need to invest more in practicum, in giving our teachers practical training in the schools. This budget provides $77 million to do that. And there is $220 million for Commonwealth scholarships. These are great measures—great measures indeed. With regard to schools, there is $457 million for the National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program and $101.7 million over four years for the Australian government summer school for teachers program. That is a great program indeed, giving our teachers ongoing professional learning. One of the things that is vitally important if we are going to turn out great teachers is that we have to keep training them. Teacher training does not end at university graduation. It is an ongoing, lifelong project and this program will go a long way towards providing an incentive to teachers to conduct or participate in further training and it will provide them with a financial reward for that. It is vitally important that we reward quality teachers in our schools. There is $53.2 million for rewarding schools to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes—a great program—and $127 million for intensive English as a second language tuition for students entering Australia under a range of visa categories. There are a range of measures in this budget which strengthen education and it is all made possible because of the economic strength of this country, an economic strength that occurs largely because of the strong economic management of a government that takes the lead, a government that takes the tough decisions, a government that is willing to go that extra yard to make this country more efficient and put the right settings in place. I would like to also comment on some community measures. Volunteer Small Equipment Grants is a very well received program in my electorate and I am pleased to see that this will be further extended to sporting clubs under this budget. Great measures—I know they will be really welcomed by the community and by the people of Australia. As I said, this budget is part of an ongoing process of economic management. Economic management is basically a marathon. It is not something that you can do on budget night. It is a much bigger picture than that. As I said, it takes hard work. We need to keep striving to make this country more efficient. This budget is part of that. It is offering incentive. It is looking at education. It is improving infrastructure. It is a very good budget. It has been very well received out in the electorate and I know that the people of Cowper will certainly welcome the measures as implemented. 157 17:18:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I am surprised that the member for Cowper did not use all his time to comment on the so-called positive matters that were dealt with in the budget. I want to say before he leaves that economic management does take a lot of hard work, but I noticed in his contribution he failed to mention at all any of the remarkable changes to the economy undertaken in the years of Hawke and Keating, because they were certainly fundamentals that this government has been able to build on. But it never fully appreciates that it was under a Labor government that we were able to break the back of inflation, that we were able to move from a highly centralised system of wage-fixing to an enterprise based system of bargaining based on productivity outcomes. None of that, of course, is mentioned. Nor did the member for Cowper mention that his government has been incredibly lucky to be presiding over international economic good fortune. I think the outcomes that we saw in this year’s budget owe much to that. A lot of it was very welcome—the one-off payments to a range of groups and people are well deserved. The carers and the pensioners are very thankful that the largesse in this year’s budget did extend to many people facing very bleak times in terms of the financial pressure on their household budgets. The tax relief and the one-off payments were to be welcomed. But I think the budget is marked by a very obvious failure to put in place the underpinnings that we need to meet some very important challenges in the decade ahead. In the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget this year there were a couple of statements that I want to repeat because I think they set the context for the remarks that I want to make on this debate about appropriations. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith, made it clear in his budget response that budgets should not be just about the next election but about the next decade and the decades beyond that. One could certainly characterise this year’s budget as one that was very carefully marketed and targeted to groups that the government saw as important vote changers potentially in the coming election. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that we could anticipate many challenges and that we should act on those challenges while there is still time, or we would fritter away the opportunities before the nation and squander the opportunities in meeting those challenges. Now is as good a time as ever, as he said, to fix the roof while the sun is shining. I think the budget really relied on the good fortune and the good luck that comes with a huge resource and mining boom that is not just evident in Australia but evident internationally. It relied, I think, on a lot of that good fortune rather than painstaking work to ensure that the future constraints on economic growth were adequately dealt with. Our economic growth path owes much to the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era, but we have known for at least a decade—the time that this government has been in power—that the Australian economy would come up against capacity constraints, that it would come up against infrastructure backlogs and that there would be a day of reckoning about the skills crisis and shortages which are so endemic in our economic system. Despite knowing of these capacity constraints and other challenges, complacency has been the order of the day under this government. We needed to see in the budget economic policies that were directed to the supply side of the economy because the supply side constraints are important in helping to build the nation’s productive potential. Unless we address the supply side of the economy, a lot of the good fortune that we are relying on will slowly come to a grinding halt once the boom years are over. The budget papers concede that the world economy is enjoying the fastest rate of growth for over 30 years, but there are few countries benefiting as much from the boom as Australia because of our traditional reliance on high volumes of mineral commodity exports. At present, we are enjoying the highest prices for our commodity exports on record and the highest terms of trade in 50 years—although, as each monthly figure shows, we are not capitalising on the terms of trade because we still have very high levels of imports, which are not being matched by any coherent import replacement policies or any long-term views about how you underpin the necessity for even higher volumes of manufactured exports into the future once the days of the mining boom are over. There is no doubt that, particularly in the last five years, changes to budget parameters have been driven by the soaring terms of trade that come as a result of the mining boom, which has added over $300 billion to the budget and, in a very short space of time, a $53 billion increase since mid-year budget forecasts. The budget papers describe an economy which is being driven by a tidal wave of revenue from the mining boom. If you look at the papers carefully, you see the analysis contained within them in fact pours cold water on the government’s claim that it is their extreme industrial relations agenda and their legislation that have positive outcomes for employment. They are back-pedalling on the name of the legislation—which as of today has no name, even though the community at large understands the name and the impact of the words Work Choices very clearly. Just weeks ago they were claiming in the parliament that the positive employment growth outcomes were directly attributable to the impact of the Work Choices legislation. The Treasurer should look at his own papers, because they confirm a quite different picture and the papers say that the employment growth has in fact been driven by the mining boom and not by the IR legislation. We can see that with employment growth of 7.6 per cent in the construction and mining sectors in the year to March 2007. The budget papers confirm that the mining boom is driving growth across the whole economy, highlighting: ... continued stimulus to household income and wealth from high commodity prices. This is not just from jobs growth but also from record share prices being led by mining companies, and you see that every night if you stay up and watch the Lateline program and beyond, which shows the mining sector reaping windfall profits as share prices go through the roof. The budget falls short of comprehending the scale of the challenges that face Australia in preparing for improved living standards beyond the mining boom, and it is some of those issues that I want to deal with in the comments tonight. I think the biggest failure of this year’s budget was the failure to put in place measures that would secure and build long-term economic prosperity beyond the years of the mining boom. As we all know—and that is why we put such a singular importance on the issue of productivity—it is only by continuing productivity growth that we can bring about long-term economic prosperity through sustained economic growth, through more jobs and higher living standards without unleashing inflation. That is why I made the point earlier that it was under a Labor government that this country in fact moved to a system of enterprise bargaining centred on productivity outcomes that has provided the underpinnings for the good fortune that the Howard government has been able to capitalise on. But the trends of productivity growth are very worrying and our recent record has been very poor. From averages of around three per cent, to 3.2 per cent productivity growth in the mid-1990s, to about 2.2 per cent at the turn of the decade, the current estimate for the current decade is just 1½ per cent productivity growth. In fact, even this figure is very much under challenge by independent analysis. I refer to a recent article by the economics correspondent for the Australian in which he argues: Treasury is counting on the best productivity performance in seven years to lift economic growth in the year ahead. However, an analysis of the budget by the Parliamentary Library shows Treasury does not expect any productivity growth at all in 2006-07, and says the poor performance makes the target— that is, a lifting of economic growth in the year ahead— a tall order. The report from the library says: Poor recent productivity performance, and the limit it may place on growth, remains an area of risk in relation to forecasts of improved growth in the coming year. In 2007-08, Treasury expects productivity to rise again to 2.25per cent. This assumes that the spectacular rate of jobs growth comes to an end, while economic growth accelerates. The report goes on: Given the recent poor productivity performance in Australia, these growth rates are likely to be more of a challenge than they might once have been … Treasury then expects productivity to slip back to an annual growth rate of 1.75 per cent. One of the problems with poor productivity is that any wage increases flows directly to inflation … If productivity languished at recent levels, such pay rises into the future would threaten the Reserve Bank’s target for inflation, bringing the prospect of further interest rate rises. I want to state that point again. I think the budget fails to understand the importance of productivity growth as an essential component in ensuring our long-term economic prosperity beyond the days of the mining boom. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and our party have placed such importance on lifting productivity in this country. One of the ways we can do that is by placing substantial importance, as we have, on investment in the education, skills and training of our people. We see that reflected in a number of the major policy announcements that have been made by the shadow minister outlining our vision for an education revolution. All of that vision is predicated on investment in education, skills and training of our people as an essential component in lifting productivity in this nation. We believe that Australia must aspire to becoming the most highly educated and skilled nation, and investment in public education—which continues to cater for almost 70 per cent of our students—and that increased investment in vocational and TAFE training are critical issues that we need to address as we look at the challenges of the decades ahead. Alongside the importance of productivity growth, beyond the stalling that we have seen in recent years, there needs to be an emphasis on workforce participation. In my view, the measures outlined in the budget this year do not adequately target those groups that are currently not participating in the workforce. We need to remind ourselves that our participation rates in key areas are low in comparison with other OECD nations. What do the budget papers themselves reveal? They show that after 11 years of Howard government complacency Australia is ranked 25th out of 30 OECD countries for prime-aged male workforce participation. Our ratings are incredibly poor for the participation of women of child-bearing age, where again we rank 25th out of 30. We rank only 13th in workforce participation rates for people nearing retirement age and 10th in overall rates of participation. So there is a huge participation challenge facing our nation and we need to address the areas of shortfall. Those groups not currently participating in the workforce need to be targeted to reach the levels of participation that we see in comparable OECD countries. There is little effort made in this budget on tackling the major reasons for joblessness. One of those reasons is, of course, a lack of relevant skills among jobless Australians. By the government’s own admission, Australia faces a shortage of 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. At best, all the budget does is add another three Australian technical colleges to the previous list of 25. When you look at the outcomes you see that through the Australian technical colleges initiative we will see fewer than 10,000 trained students and apprentices graduating by 2010. It is a drop in the ocean when you consider the magnitude of the skills shortage that exists and that will grow in years to come. The Howard government’s Australian technical colleges are simply too little too late after a decade of underinvestment, which has resulted in the current skills crisis. Could you believe that this same government, knowing of the impending crisis, slashed its investment in vocational education by 13 per cent in the three years to 2000 and, between 2000 and 2004, increased its investment by only one per cent in real terms? It is no wonder there was so much unmet demand in the TAFE and vocational training sector, and it is no wonder that the government’s response to the growing skills crisis has been totally inadequate. In response to that fundamental challenge, the Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply that Labor was committed to a 10-year $2.5 billion trades training centres plan, aimed at the one million students in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Australian secondary schools. Unlike the meagre response through the Australian technical colleges program, Labor’s plan will provide all secondary schools with up to $1.5 million to build or upgrade their VET facilities in order to keep students at school. It will enhance the profile and quality of VET in Schools and provide ongoing real career paths in the trades and apprenticeships for our students. By making VET a viable option for all secondary students, Labor’s plan will make a real and significant dent in the current skills shortage. The longer the government minister pretends that a few technical colleges will make up for more than 11 years of complacency and neglect, the more damage this will do to the prospects of our children in the future and our economic wellbeing. As I said earlier, the government’s plan is a mere drop in the ocean when it comes to addressing the skills crisis. The government’s own figures estimate that we will face a shortfall of 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. Infrastructure is another major challenge which the budget did little to address. We have known about our infrastructure shortfalls and bottlenecks for a long time, but what did we see? We saw very little by way of improvement to our roads, ports, transport systems, water supplies and broadband speeds. The BCA estimates our infrastructure shortfall to be to the value of about $90 billion. After the budget, the business community, through the BCA, said: . . . the key issue still appears to be the lack of long-term integrated planning to drive investment to address ongoing bottlenecks. They are the words of the business community, not the words of people on the opposition benches. Hear what the business community is saying. It is amazing that the government has, 18 months after its tabling, failed to respond to the recommendations of the bipartisan committee report on sustainable cities. It is amazing that this government has no national infrastructure coordinating body. It is amazing that its AusLink transport policy neglects city transport infrastructure. It is amazing that its so-called National Plan for Water Security is restricted to rural water issues and does nothing to address the crisis for many of our cities in terms of security of water supply. And it is not surprising, but it is amazing, that the Howard government has no plan for a modern national broadband network. I could go on, but I think I have made my point, and my point is this: the government has relied on the good fortune that has come with the mining boom, but it has done little in the budget to underpin the challenges that this nation faces into the future. (Time expired) 161 17:38:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I am very proud to be able to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills and to say that Treasurer Peter Costello’s 2007-08 budget is very good news for Australia and very good news for Northern Tasmania and the people I am proud to represent—the people of Bass. The budget provides benefits for diverse groups of people, including working families, seniors and veterans. I note that every taxpayer in Australia will receive a tax cut. The budget is also about being able to afford to fund projects in regional Australia because of the government’s ability to properly manage the economy. I was listening just now to the contribution from the member for Throsby, in which the comment at the tail end seemed to imply that the government was able to fund what I interpret to be positive initiatives from her point of view only because of ‘good fortune’. A little luck goes a long way, but hard decisions go a lot further. When one reflects on the challenges the Australian economy has faced over the last 11 years and some of the reforms that have had to be made, one would have to say that this budget is not about good fortune but about the government in the past making very difficult decisions and setting up the Australian economy in such a fashion that it was able to afford good initiatives in the future. One need only be reminded of the state of the economy when the Labor Party was kicked out of office in 1996. I remember well that the national debt—that is, the debt carried by the government—was $96 billion. The ledger showed $96 billion in debt, borrowings from the Keating years which at some point had to be repaid. For every year that debt was carried, an interest payment on top of the principal had to be found. That has been calculated at some $8 billion every year from the annual recurrent budget just to meet the payments owing on that debt. It is also worth noting that in 1996 the Howard government found—surprisingly, because this had not been disclosed—that its budget was in deficit by $10 billion. That does not sound like good fortune to me. The first Costello budget had to be the hardest and had to confront some difficult challenges. Yes, as the member for Throsby acknowledges, we are enjoying good times and a strong economy—an economy where more people than ever feel as though they are part of it and feel as though they are being recognised. So many people, a record number, are able to enjoy the dignity of work, in many cases for the first time. So it is a good budget—it is not about good luck at all—and I compliment the Treasurer for the excellent work that he has undertaken. One of the highlights of this budget for the regional community of Northern Tasmania is a $13 million contribution to the upgrade of Launceston’s flood protection system. I have been saying for a very long time now that, because of the importance of addressing this issue and because of the cost of the repair bill for this project, there has been a case for federal government assistance. This has been primarily a matter of state government responsibility, which for many years has been fobbed off, but due to the persistence of the council, in particular our mayor, Alderman Ivan Dean, it has been raised as a matter of priority. Having spoken about the flood levees for a long time with both the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Jim Lloyd, and the Prime Minister, I am very pleased with this outcome. While the dishonesty and manipulation from the Labor Party in Tasmania in order to play politics on this issue has been very disappointing, it did not distract me from fighting for the interests of the people of Invermay and, indeed, the wider community. It is well known that, if a flood of the dimensions of the 1929 flood revisited our city, the flood levees are not in sufficiently good repair to hold back that flood. It would devastate our community and it would paralyse the city. I am also pleased to note that the budget contains $10 million of funding for the Scottsdale Industry and Community Development Fund, of which $6 million relates specifically to a merit based grants program and $4 million is a contribution to the $9 million bill for the upgrade of the roads leading to Musselroe Bay. Organisations with a project that can create or retain long-term employment opportunities can apply for grants from the Industry and Community Development Fund. This, of course, is in response to the crisis that we faced in the north-east community when two softwood sawmills, which were the major employers in that community, were facing shutdown because they were not able to secure softwood resource in the longer term. That is very gratifying for me—we have worked very hard for this fund—and I look forward to taking part in announcing the successful recipients of that fund. Our agenda is quite simple: it is about creating and retaining employment in that community in a way that helps it to survive probably the hardest time in its history. Also I draw the attention of the House to the provision of the remaining $1.1 million to complete the Australian government’s $10 million contribution toward upgrading the Scottsdale to Lilydale Road. Northern Tasmania is a grateful recipient of road funding from the Commonwealth, and I would like to note that in 2005-06 the Australian government paid a total of $135.2 million to Tasmania. This included the one-off payment of $60 million for the AusLink listed East Tamar Highway and $10 million for improving local roads. Coupling that with the Commonwealth’s contribution in 2006-07 of $74.9 million, I believe I can quite rightly say that the Australian government invests more in roads in Tasmania than the Tasmanian government does. I am advised that this is the only state of Australia where this occurs. The merger of the Australian Maritime College and the University of Tasmania will go ahead. This will see the federal government gifting the AMC’s assets, which are valued at $61 million, to the university to facilitate integration of the AMC into the university. The merger will be effective from 1 January 2008. It will be necessary for legislation to come before the parliament to give effect to that transfer. The college was established in 1978 as Australia’s national institution for maritime education and training. It is one of the world’s best-equipped maritime training institutions. It had 740 full-time equivalent students last year, and the merger will ensure the viability of that institution as Australia’s national centre for maritime education, research and training. I pay tribute to Malek Pourzanjani, the President of the AMC, as well as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Professor Le Grew, for the wonderful way in which they have been able to work together for the benefit of all of Tasmania. The AMC is a world-class organisation and the merger will ensure that it can continue to lead the way in maritime training, education and research. There has been another challenge locally in Northern Tasmania. One of our industries, the ACL Bearing Company in Launceston, has been facing an enormous challenge. It is part of the automotive components manufacturing industry, and times are tough. Times are very tough, and it has been forced to move to make redundant 90 of its workers. I am very pleased to have been able to lobby successfully for assistance to the ACL Bearing Company’s workers—not to the company but to the workers themselves—who face retrenchment. The assistance package which is funded in this budget will be directed at the workers of ACL to help them to retrain or to move into new jobs. When news of the ACL redundancies was announced, I coordinated consideration by three Commonwealth ministers and the Prime Minister’s office of this issue. As part of this package, the Australian government has provided up to $1,000 per worker to assist with costs associated with looking for work, such as training, job interview clothing, equipment, travel or moving house, depending on the individual’s circumstances. This is provided through our Job Network. Northern Tasmanians, in particular, will benefit in a very important way, in their weekly budgets, from the decision to provide tax cuts to every Australian taxpayer. The federal budget is a clear demonstration of the, I think, now proven fact that only a Liberal government can deliver responsible economic management for the nation, which results in a better standard of living. That is what this is all about. It is not about spending the surplus. It is not about a federal budget which does nothing other than to spend in some areas which have been designated as politically useful. We can bellyache about this all we like, but a federal budget is not just about spending the winnings. It is about making the decisions which allow us to have winnings at all. It is about balancing the budget. It is about paying off debt. It is about treating the budget much as you would treat your household budget. You make sometimes difficult decisions. You do it for the longer term interest. This budget, Mr Costello’s 11th budget, does just that. Despite what the Labor Party would have us believe, this is about much more than just spending a surplus. It is about planning for our future as a nation. It is about rewarding initiative, which history has shown us is something that Labor has been unable to do. Any current poll will tell us that the Australian people are currently flirting with the idea of a federal Labor government. I would say to the House today that if the Australian people would like to go out on a date with Labor, they will end up paying for the meal. A decision like that would have dire consequences for the Australian economy. It would have dire consequences for the federal budget and those consequences would flow into every household in our country. As we reflect back on the last two Labor governments that were replaced by coalition governments, in both cases it was like a bad room mate, as the Treasurer put forward. In every case, it was the coalition that had to come in and mop up the mess. I say again to the House that only a Liberal government is in a position to make the hard decisions, to do what is right, to make strategic investments in our economy and to provide tax cuts after all of its responsibilities have been discharged, and that has been a wonderful benefit for our economy. The Tasmanian community in general will benefit from this very sensible budget as well. Taxpayers across the state will receive around $780 million in tax cuts over the next four years. The new tax cuts are on top of the $86 billion worth of tax cuts nationally which have already been implemented by this government since 2002. For example, a Tasmanian single income family on $40,000 with two or three children will be $1,100 per year better off from 1 July this year. A Tasmanian dual income family on $50,000 with two or three children will be $1,250 per year better off. While every taxpayer in Australia will be receiving a tax cut under this budget, from 1 July this year the most significant savings in tax will be made by those people who earn between $30,000 and $40,000, which I believe is absolutely appropriate. Total payments as a grant to the Tasmanian government have increased by a massive seven per cent to a new total of $2.413 billion. This is including GST payments of $1.64 billion, which is a staggering $117 million more than what the state government would have received under the pre-2000 tax-sharing system. This is tipped to rise to represent a bonus of $152 million in just a few years from now, 2010. This is the new tax system at work in conjunction with an economy which is doing extremely well. As I have consistently argued during this contribution, it is the benefits of good economic management which are felt not by the government, not by politicians, but by everyday Australians in every home around Australia. That is if you do it right, and that is what we are witnessing. In addition, the entire state of Tasmania will benefit from increased funding for roads—even more than we have heard—health and education. In key budget measures for Tasmania, our local government authorities will receive increased financial assistance grants of 3.9 per cent, representing $57 million; and tied grants for state government programs such as schools and hospitals have increased by 12.9 per cent to $767 million. The funding provision for the uncapped Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme and the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme has been increased to $130 million. These two schemes working together underpin passenger and freight movements across Bass Strait and give great strength and comfort to the Tasmanian economy, and have been a significant contributor to the increase in tourism and industry that we have witnessed in Tasmania in recent years. I also observe from the budget that the average low-income Tasmanian family will be some $20.50 per week better off through reimbursements and improved payments being made available for child care. The budget demonstrates that the Howard government is extending the benefits of a strong economy to those outside the workforce, including older Tasmanians whose working lives have contributed to building our economy. This paves the way for a stronger Tasmanian community into the future. Bonus and recognition payments will be made to our older citizens by the end of June. These payments are also being made available to our veteran community. On behalf of my veteran constituents, I feel extremely grateful for such significant support being provided to our very valuable veteran community, and I know that this view is shared by both sides of the House. In the moments remaining available to me, I want to touch on one component of the budget that gives me enormous satisfaction. Realising Our Potential, which has been crafted by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, along with the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, is a massive and comprehensive investment in the education and vocational training sector in Australia. It is part of an astonishing investment of $5 billion that will be paid immediately to a new Higher Education Endowment Fund to provide an ongoing source of funding to our higher education or tertiary sector. It will be a source of funding into the future for capital works, which have been greatly diminished and greatly criticised by the Labor Party. But no-one can be anything but impressed by the size of this payment, which will be perpetual. It will be there for future generations and be managed by the guardians of the Future Fund. Along with this increased funding to universities, there will be increased funding to students, rent assistance for tertiary students and an extra 3,500 Commonwealth scholarships. There will also be more assistance for apprentices and those in the VET sector. Apprentices in their first and second years in areas of identified skills shortages will be very satisfied with a wage top-up of $1,000. These young people, as we know, struggle with the low income that they receive during their early years of apprenticeship. I know that apprentices in my electorate in Northern Tasmania will be very pleased with this payment. I also note that the extra payment of $500 per year toward training fees for first- and second-year apprentices will be gratefully received. There is additional funding in this budget for teachers—those people who are given the responsibility of implementing curriculum in our schools. I am very gratified to see that the Commonwealth has continued its $700 tutorial voucher to help students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 meet literacy and numeracy standards—as opposed to just students in the early years, as it was previously. It is great to see that there is real funding for a genuine national curriculum, which the Commonwealth and the states will work on. I look forward to it being implemented by the first day of school in 2009. There are a lot more things that I could say about this budget. It is excellent for Tasmania, it is excellent for Australia and it is excellent for my community in Bass. It again reminds me of the value of responsible economic management and of making difficult decisions. It shows that only a coalition government can continue to provide the good economic times that so many people are beginning to take for granted. I thank the House. 166 17:59:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —In dealing with these appropriation bills, I want to first of all turn to a press release put out today by Alan Griffin, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs and shadow minister for defence, science and personnel, entitled ‘What are you hiding, Mr Billson?’ The press release states: The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Bruce Billson, appears to be trying to avoid public accountability of his Department by refusing to respond to a number of questions on notice from the last Estimates hearing. I have been advised that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is the only Department to not have submitted at least one response to questions from the last estimates round. These questions were due on Thursday 29 March 2007 and are now nearly two months overdue. I have advice from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that the majority of the responses have been sitting with the Minister from at least 13 April awaiting his clearance. This is not the first time Mr Billson has taken excessive amounts of time to respond to questions on notice. It would appear that he is more interested in playing ‘clever’ political games with these responses, rather than answering legitimate questions asked of his Department. I would have thought that the Minister would have been very keen to have the questions answered considering they covered topics such as; Casualties arising from the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor Mental Health Programs and Research Suicide among Veterans The time taken for the Department to process claims The handling of complaints and correspondence by the Department The fact that Mr Billson has not even responded to one question shows an utter contempt of the Veterans’ community who deserve answers regarding these very important issues. The question should be asked—is Mr Billson hiding something or is he just failing to handle the workload of his portfolio? That is the press release by Alan Griffin, who is doing an excellent job. I am pleased with the way he is out there communicating with—talking to and listening to—the veteran community. The minister said on 23 May in responding to some things I had said on a veterans’ bill: The member for Cowan purports to represent the veterans community by circulating and re-parroting very selective parts of information. He referred to a tragedy … To see parts of a psychiatric report read into Hansard and to then accuse the department of not being responsive is unfortunate. Somehow the report ended up in the hands of the member for Cowan, yet those representing the individual did not see fit to actually share that information with the department. It is that last part of what the minister said that I want to respond to. I understand from very senior members of an ESO that this issue and the issues that I raised here were referred directly to the department and the same issues were raised at either the minister’s or the department’s own mental health forum. This minister needs to get on top of his brief. He needs to know what he is talking about. It is unfortunate that members from our side of parliament have no option but to raise these issues in the House, because the minister, for some reason or another, as has been clearly pointed out in this press release by Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, seems to be reluctant to answer questions or respond to correspondence. If the minister took these issues a bit more seriously and if he responded to the issues that are raised with him not only by members of parliament but by members of the veteran community then we would not have to go to such lengths to draw attention to these issues. The circumstances I raised in that speech a couple of weeks ago were a tragedy, but the point is it is a tragedy that has been repeated too often through the lives of Vietnam veterans since they have returned home. If the minister does not understand the depth of this problem then perhaps, unfortunately, it is a tragedy which will continue to occur with the younger veterans who are coming back from East Timor and who have come back from Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq. No-one wants to see that happen. I really do not need any advice from this minister as to how to deal with veteran issues. I have been involved in the veteran community since the early seventies. I have worked for the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. I have dealt with suicidal veterans, sometimes at 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning. I do not need this minister to come into this place and tell me how I should represent the veteran community. Representations that have been made by people like me and people in the veteran community have led to change. I know that if some of the issues that have been put before ministers for veterans’ affairs had been allowed to be swept under the table, they simply would have been. The veteran community is entitled to good representation, and I am in a position to provide it—and I intend to. I was a veteran before I came into this place and I will go back into the veteran community when I finish in this place. On the other side of the coin, ministers come and ministers go. I think this minister’s brief is to get on top of his responsibilities and to truly understand the issues of the veteran community, particularly the issues that individual veterans confront with post-traumatic stress disorder. Abusing me in this House is not going to help rectify those issues. I call on this minister to address the issue of mental health within the veteran community a damn sight more seriously in the future than he has in the past. I understand that the states are either currently about to negotiate or in the midst of negotiating a new Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. I understand that the states want to negotiate this agreement—it is an agreement that they all support—but I call on the states to be cautious in the way that they do negotiate this agreement. I also call on the Howard government to stop playing politics with the disabilities sector of the Australian community. It absolutely sickens me to see the Commonwealth pitting state against state and disability sector against disability sector. I believe that this is an area that should be well above politics. I look to Minister Brough to find within Commonwealth and state agreements the same level of political bipartisanship which exists within the states. I think the level of bipartisanship within the political parties, for instance, in Western Australia in recent years has been excellent. I hope Minister Brough takes a lead from the states and injects some bipartisanship into his dealings with the states. I understand that the money that Western Australia has been offered for the next few years of this agreement, in 2007, is exactly the same dollar amount that was put on the table by the Commonwealth in 2004. In other words, what they are offering in 2007 is money that is basically three or four years old. This offer does not take into account the incredible growth in demand and the incredible growth in cost in this sector over the years. I want to talk about the state budget. The state budget in Western Australia saw an increase in funding to the disabilities sector to about $294 million. It is a lot of money—I understand that—but there is still a hell of a lot that needs to be done. The point is that this represents an increase over last year’s funding of some 7.3 per cent. It is also interesting to note that since 2000 the disabilities sector has seen increases of some 116 per cent allocated to it by the Gallop and Carpenter governments. As I said, it is a lot of money, but there is still a lot of unmet need out there. It is incredibly important that the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister and the minister recognise this unmet need and put some money on the table that will help the states deal with these issues. I want to refer to a briefing note that was brought forward by the minister in Western Australia. It was actually a briefing note for federal parliamentarians. I understand that all members of parliament from Western Australia were invited into this briefing and this briefing note was made available. It is on the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement and it goes back into some of the history of this agreement. But the report makes this point: 16 years later, funding is still provided on the basis of population data from 1993 and Western Australia, along with a number of other jurisdictions, receives a much lower share of the CSTDA funding than our population warrants. Western Australians with disabilities represent 10.2 per cent of all Australians with disabilities but this state only receives 8 per cent of CSTDA funding. It goes through a funding chart and it shows that per capita funding in the Northern Territory for people with disabilities is $610, in the ACT it is $563, in Tasmania it is $1,175, in Western Australia it is $675, in South Australia it is $1,279, in Queensland it is $820, in Victoria it is $835 and in New South Wales it is $864. We can understand why there is a concern about the amount of funding coming into Western Australia and it is for that reason—the lack of equity in funding—that I urge our state to be cautious in the way in which they negotiate this agreement. As I have said, it is an agreement that I understand the states want but, importantly, the minister must recognise that it must have some equity and must recognise the incredible growth in costs that the states have incurred over the years. For that reason I was very disappointed to learn that the increase in the federal budget was only about 1.8 per cent. I came across a media release from an organisation called Dignity For Disabled, put out on 9 May under a big heading ‘Federal budget’, which stated: The Federal Budget announced by the Government yesterday does virtually nothing to address the critical unmet need in the disability sector. Treasurer Peter Costello has failed to indicate any real support for the critical new commonwealth/state disability funding agreement due to be finalized by June 30th 2007. Despite the Senate Committee report released February 2007 showing massive shortcomings in previous funding arrangements and 29 key recommendations, Costello has snubbed the 200,000 Australians with serious and multiple disabilities depending on the new CSTDA agreement for quality of life. The commonwealth’s budget forecast of funding indexation at just 1.8% and no additional funding for an enhanced CSTDA agreement where the states and the commonwealth agree to address what is fast becoming Australia’s greatest social injustice ‘Disability Services will leave the disability sector in shock at the callous lack of compassion and fairness of the Treasurer and this Government. They are fairly harsh words but there is a great deal of concern within the disability community over the lack of funding. People with disabilities do not want to see the blame game played. They do not want to see politics played on this issue. Their needs are too great. We also do not want to see state pitted against state. We do not want to see disability sector pitted against disability sector. We want to see fairness and some equity in funding across the states and across the whole disability sector. I call on this minister to start to respond to the cry of the states and to the cry of people with disabilities and to put some reasonable funding in place. For heaven’s sake, we are seeing millions upon millions upon millions of dollars thrown into public advertising by this government—a government that is in desperate straits and a government that intends to try to spend its way out of the predicament it has got itself into. I think it is a fair comment that perhaps if this Howard government had been less tricky, more up-front and more forthcoming with the disability sector and other groups in our community who do need a fair go, it probably would not be in the circumstances that it is in at the moment. I also want to refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs which was released earlier this year. It was a very good report and I commend all members of the House to read this report—particularly those members who come from Western Australia, because I would be urging Western Australian members from all sides of the political forum to get behind the recommendations of this Senate committee. Our committees in the House and in the Senate do some great work, and it is a pity that more notice is not taken of the great work that our committees do, particularly when you have a strong, bipartisan report like this one from the Senate community affairs committee, in its inquiry into the CSTDA. The committee recommended a number of things, but three of the most important were these: they recommended an equitable distribution formula of Commonwealth based funding; an indexation level in line with the actual costs of delivering services; and substantial additional funding to address identified unmet need. The things that Western Australia was crying out for were per capita funding equity, appropriate rates of indexation and growth funding for unmet demand. I commend this Senate report to all members. I think it is an excellent report. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this report. It is a bipartisan document and I think it might be of benefit to members on both sides of the House to read it. Leave granted. 83R Edwards, Graham, MP Mr EDWARDS —I thank members opposite for granting leave, and I commend the bill to the House. 169 18:18:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —The 2007-08 budget brought down by the Treasurer was very much about locking in the gains of the past 11 years and ensuring the right economic settings for the future prosperity of Australia and Australians. An important aspect of this is education and training. Realising Our Potential invests an extra $3.5 billion in education and training over four years. It provides additional funding of over $1.7 billion for universities, $222 million to improve access to tertiary education, $638 million for vocational education and $843 million for schools. The government is also financing unprecedented new investment in universities through the Higher Education Endowment Fund, with initial capital of $5 billion, achievable because of the 2006-07 surplus. The government is committed to assisting apprentices to invest in their future. Skills for the Future committed $837 million to support skill creation. Realising Our Potential builds further on this and will attract new apprentices with wage and fee support and shorter apprenticeship while increasing the status and availability of quality technical training. These measures are part of the government’s plan to restore the true value of technical and vocational training that declined under Labor. In the current economic environment young people can often earn more by casual labouring than by entering an apprenticeship. This can discourage potential apprentices, even though there is no doubt that having a qualification will stand them in better stead in the long run. It is important that our young people are trained and qualified for times beyond the current boom. Should there be a downturn, those who have chosen to labour for short-term cash gains will be disadvantaged. We cannot afford to let this happen to our young people. Therefore, first- and second-year apprentices under 30 in skill shortage areas who have struggled with low incomes will greatly benefit from the announcement of a tax-free $1,000 wage top-up and up to $500 per year which can be used towards training fees. This will provide an effective wage increase of up to 10 per cent for some apprentices and will undoubtedly relieve the financial pressure which can act as a disincentive for those wanting to enter trade training. Both apprentices and registered training organisations will benefit from the $58.5 million allocated to working with industry and local employers to develop and implement fast-track apprenticeships based on competency based achievements rather than time served. The $50,000 on offer to individual registered training organisations to work with industry partners to further develop innovative and flexible training arrangements to fast-track apprenticeships is sure to be well received by both employers and apprentices. The commitment to a further three Australian technical colleges, at an investment cost of $83.6 million, is a further step in the right direction to ensuring that Australia is effectively addressing its trade skills needs of the future. Even before this announcement, I had been a strong advocate for the establishment of an Australian technical college on the old railway workshop site in Midland, in the electorate of Hasluck. With industry support and its historical ties to apprenticeship training, it is a perfect location. Australian technical colleges have provided a fantastic opportunity for young people with the interest, commitment and ability to develop the skills they will need to succeed in their chosen trade career. It will continue to be essential that we provide a vocational education and training framework that allows the young people of Australia to discover and achieve their full potential across a range of rewarding careers. Australian technical colleges are proving to be an integral part of that framework. It has been heartening to see the way that local business, industry and the community have embraced the Australian technical colleges. By the end of 2007 a significant number of Australian technical colleges will be up and running, providing an opportunity for young people to access practical vocational education pathways and careers in traditional trade areas in specialist trade schools. I have been pleased by the success of the Australian technical colleges such as Perth South, which has been established using a model developed and driven by local industry and the community. The college has enjoyed strong support from key industry associations, including the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, the Automotive Industry and local employers. As in all Australian technical colleges, the proactive contribution from industry and local communities is ensuring that the skills students obtain meet the needs of local businesses and employers. They are providing an integrated year 11 and 12 curriculum which includes academic, business and trade skills that set the students on the pathway to a career and apprenticeship. TAFE has often been touted as a panacea to Australia’s training needs. This may once have been the case; however, under successive state Labor governments, TAFE has changed its focus to trying to be all things to all people, reducing its industry involvement and focus on trade training. This has in large part led to the current shortage of skilled tradespeople. Under a federal Labor government, apprenticeship numbers in traditional trades dropped from 151,000 in 1991 to 122,600 by 1993. There are now more than 400,000 Australian apprentices in training compared to 154,800 in 1996. While the TAFE system still delivers approximately 70 to 85 per cent of all publicly funded training programs, it very much needs to refocus on trade training requirements, addressing the skill needs of industry and providing effective employment outcomes for its clients. Until the TAFE system is reviewed with a much stronger focus on flexibility and responsiveness to industry, employer and student needs, it will not have the ability to effectively meet the future skill needs of Australia. Likewise, while some schools such as Southern River College and Thornlie Senior High School in my electorate of Hasluck have done extremely well in introducing effective vocational programs, many schools have struggled. Why? Because they need specialist technical and industry specific skills and resources beyond the scope of the academic budgets of most high schools. The simple reality is that it costs more to deliver effective vocational training than to deliver English or geography. State Labor governments need to realise this and do something about it. Australian technical colleges are showing the way in developing industry specific opportunities for the 70 per cent of high school students not going to university, focusing on both academic and technical skills needed by students to develop successful careers in a trade. They also provide an excellent learning environment for those who learn by doing. These budget announcements build strongly on other training initiatives implemented by the Howard government. For example, late last year the Prime Minister announced a number of initiatives in the $837 million Skills for the Future package, providing more opportunities for Australians to gain new skills and develop an entrepreneurial workforce. In announcing these measures he said: It responds to demands from employers for a higher level of skills, a broader range of skills and more frequent updating of skills. It helps more Australians wanting to take up a trade apprenticeship in mid-career, as well as assisting apprentices to acquire the necessary skills to run their own businesses. The budget initiatives and those announced in Skills for the Future are far-reaching and really demonstrate the Howard government’s understanding of the need to continually upgrade skills and for some to develop new skills no matter what their age. In contrast, I found that the Leader of the Opposition’s budget response demonstrated a lack of real understanding of Australia’s training and skill needs and what really needs to be done to achieve successful outcomes for industry and the Australian workforce of the future. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that he will introduce VET—vocational education and training—to 2,650 schools around Australia. This initiative is simply not sustainable in the long term, has obviously not been properly thought through and is underresourced in every possible way. It is unrealistic to expect all schools to deliver trade training. It will spread resources too thin, producing mediocre results. This will not give Australians the skills or careers they need in the long run. This view was strongly supported by Mr Brian Toohey in his column in the West Australian on 14 May. It is not every day that I agree with Mr Toohey’s commentary; however, here he has got it right. He noted: Kevin Rudd has made a bad policy mistake by promising to give every high school in Australia a trade training role. The job is much better done in specialist technical and vocational colleges where the money can be concentrated on producing fully skilled graduates. Mr Toohey went on to say: Rudd promised $500,000 and $1.5 million per school to build and equip workshops and computer laboratories—and no money for staffing them. It must be a long while since he has looked at building costs let alone the price of equipment needed. It is ironic that on the day the Leader of the Opposition made his budget reply I was meeting with a delegation from the Australian Education Union, who raised the issue of the lack of skilled industry trainers and equipment in TAFE. How Mr Rudd’s 2,650 high schools are going to provide quality hands-on skills and technical training with a limited budget and limited staffing in underresourced workshops is an issue that Mr Rudd has conveniently overlooked, especially when state Labor governments around Australia cannot manage the TAFE sector or schools sector. The general public has raised similar concerns, as evidenced by many letters to the editor published in the Weekend Australian on 12 May. I quote: Kevin Rudd’s proposal to place industry-standard training facilities in high schools has merit ... but from where does he intend to get all the staff? TAFE colleges have been experiencing considerable difficulty in recruiting suitable lecturers, so what is Rudd’s strategy for sourcing the hundreds of skilled staff which will be necessary to provide industrial-level training in schools? 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—I remind the honourable member for Hasluck to refer to members by their seat or title. E0L Henry, Stuart, MP Mr HENRY —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quoting from a newspaper article. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —It does not make any difference, Member for Hasluck, whether the quote is made directly or indirectly; a member must always be referred to by their seat. E0L Henry, Stuart, MP Mr HENRY —Or his title? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Or their title. E0L Henry, Stuart, MP Mr HENRY —My apologies. The letter to the editor that I was quoting from went on to say: Many of the existing manual arts and other skills teachers do not have industry-standard skills. That was a letter from a Mr T Smith of Sorrento in WA. J Morrissey of Hawthorn in Victoria wrote: Kevin Rudd’s rediscovery of the need for technical education is welcome but there is an incredible irony in this change of heart. It was Labor ideology which destroyed technical schools in the past 20 years and replaced them with one size fits all secondary colleges. This process cut the links with industry in the governance and direction of technical education in schools, and phased out teachers with trade experience. It was based on the delusion that a distinction was between high schools and ‘techs’ was elitist and that all students should be oriented towards university. Rudd denounced this delusion in his budget response as if he had reached some brilliant insight. Perhaps it was—for him. I could not have said it better myself. They make excellent points. The quality of trainers and teachers has a direct impact on student achievements and outcomes. If schools cannot be appropriately staffed with qualified and experienced industry trainers, the injections of funds into this initiative will be a waste of taxpayers’ money. In my first speech, in 2004, I noted that the challenge of how we skill and train ourselves and our people for the future world of work was an issue particularly close to my heart. It has therefore pleased me greatly to see the improvement in the number of people taking up vocational education and training. In 2006, around 1.6 million publicly funded students undertook vocational education and training. Approximately 405,000 people undertook an Australian Apprenticeship. Employment through group training is on the rise, with over 40,000 trainees and apprentices employed through this model. The statistics prove that the Howard government’s policies with respect to VET are working. This does not mean to say that there is still not more for us to do or that it cannot be done better. The ongoing concern with the quality of TAFE’s training and the need to create an effective alternative has been evidenced by the continued development of industry-specific training centres and private registered training organisations. I believe that in addition to TAFE reforms there should be a continued focus on establishing more specialised industry based training centres, which, like the Australian technical colleges, have strong employer involvement. New initiatives such as FEE-HELP will assist private providers to compete with the TAFE sector and increase the numbers of students in training at private registered training organisations. With my background of over 18 years experience in an industry based association and training centre, I have witnessed firsthand the benefits these specialist training centres have offered to individuals, communities and businesses and the employment opportunities they have offered for young people. Unlike the current TAFE model, specialist private registered training organisations have the ability to keep their finger on the pulse of employer needs and can achieve better employment outcomes. With a direct involvement from industry, these registered training organisations have the flexibility and resources to deliver the sorts of training needed for industry to grow, develop and innovate, ensuring Australia’s future prosperity. Similarly, the Australian technical colleges that are feeding the registered training organisation system should also be specialising in the key trades such as electrical, plumbing, automotive, construction, hospitality and other trade areas from some of the 40 qualifications listed on the skills shortage list. By specialising in an area, Australian technical colleges can become just that: specialists at training in their chosen trades creating topnotch tradespeople by addressing the needs of industry today and in the future. With the rate of changing technology and growth in our economy, there is a need for government to actively manage our apprenticeship system. Around Australia, state Labor governments have taken their eyes off the ball in favour of union driven initiatives. Labor does not get it. Labor governments do not understand or appreciate that vocational training has to be developed to suit industry and employer needs, not based on some academic concept. There also needs to be further consideration of how we bridge the gap between trade and university qualifications. There is no reason why a qualified plumber, for example, cannot apply or should not be able to apply for a recognition of prior learning in order to obtain an engineering qualification. To date we have only tinkered around the edges of this issue, and I am pleased by the Realising Our Potential initiatives in this year’s budget, which recognise that the university and vocational education and training sectors are becoming increasingly interlinked. I strongly support the proposal for a new trade diploma which will provide an excellent stepping stone from trade qualifications to university qualifications. By breaking down the barriers we will provide our students with a greater choice of qualifications and better quality training, giving Australians and employers better outcomes. With projects carried out by universities in conjunction with registered training organisations and government, I am sure we can create a model where these qualifications enjoy equal value in the eyes of students, training institutes and employers. Taking a trade pathway should not be a barrier to university but rather another pathway. So, on trade qualifications—whether there are diplomas involved or licensed qualifications associated with that trade—it seems to me that, for those people who wish to take advantage of developing their skills and their qualifications beyond that, there should be pathways directly into university. Those qualifications should be recognised as entry-level qualifications to universities. This will provide the opportunity for those who decide, after having a trade career, to go on to expand their qualifications in such trades as engineering et cetera to do so without having to go back and do some academic based training to gain entry to university. The 2007-08 budget will continue to make a major impact regarding the skilling of our workforce by investing today’s wealth for the benefit of Australia’s tomorrow. The 2007-08 budget has my wholehearted support and I commend it to the House. 174 18:36:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —Labor welcomes the tax cuts and one-off payments in the 2007 budget because many Australian families, and carers in particular, have been under enormous financial pressure. It is clearly a very clever election year budget in terms of these giveaways, but it is a budget that fails the future test. The 2007 federal budget has squandered a unique opportunity to use the once in a lifetime $300 billion mining boom to secure Australia’s long-term economic future. Australian families care about their children’s future and, while these families desperately need the tax cuts and one-off payments in the budget to pay for their rising petrol prices, childcare costs, mortgage repayments, higher rent, and higher health and education costs, I believe that ultimately Australians also want the federal budget to address the long-term challenges that face the nation. Some of the biggest challenges include the need to boost productivity to make us competitive over the long term and to lock in future economic growth. Tackling the environment and economic challenges caused by climate change and the national water crisis is, of course, another long-term challenge, and keeping our workplaces fair is the third. The budget delivers little or nothing in any of these areas. The challenge of the budget was to invest some of the capital generated by the resources boom for the future and not squander it, but as I say this budget does not do that. Housing affordability is one area that this budget does not touch at all. The budget was extremely disappointing for anyone who is interested in housing and housing affordability, particularly for the quarter of a million Australian families who are now paying over 30 per cent of their income in rent, a figure which NATSEM expects to rise to almost 400,000 households by 2010 if we continue on the current path. The budget is also extremely disappointing for the one in two adults and nearly two out of three children who are turned away from emergency accommodation in our towns and cities every night. It is also disappointing for first homebuyers, for whom average monthly repayments now stand at an all-time high of $2,300, which is more than 30 per cent of the average disposable income. It is interesting that in Sydney now a family needs an income of $100,000 to afford an average mortgage. Indeed, all families entering the housing market or who need to move to a bigger family home now need this six-figure income to keep up with the mortgage repayments for the median priced home in many Australian cities. Austudy students were given some help by the government when it extended Commonwealth rent assistance to students receiving Austudy—of course, Labor has been arguing for this for many years now. We also cautiously welcome the $293.6 million in additional Indigenous housing funding for remote communities. But of course we have seen in recent media reports over the last week that the success of this initiative is far from guaranteed. It is also worth saying that it seems extraordinary to me that much of the money that is currently spent on disadvantaged urban communities to providing housing for Indigenous Australians is being moved to disadvantaged remote communities. While I think there is a desperate need for greater investment in housing in remote communities, frankly it seems bizarre to take that money from some of the most disadvantaged Australians living in urban communities. We know for sure that Aboriginal communities are facing a shortage of about 18,000 homes over the next few years, and the budget announcement funds about 730 new homes in remote areas, if we are lucky. As I say, there is nothing additional for Indigenous people who live in urban areas. In fact, many will actually see funding taken away. The recommendations of the review into the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, CHIP, completed by PricewaterhouseCoopers in February 2007, were adopted by the government and funded in this budget. That means that the government will now abolish the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, and that means the loss of funding for Aboriginal-specific community housing. These Indigenous community housing organisations manage about 21,758 houses across the country, according to a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics report, and the loss of CHIP funding puts these organisations at grave risk. The implications of the funding loss will also have knock-on effects over the wider social housing system. Obviously, if Aboriginal-specific organisations are closed down or have to reduce the housing stock they have available, their tenants will be looking for housing either with state public housing departments or with other community housing organisations. Those organisations are already overburdened. Over the last three Commonwealth-state housing agreements, including the current one which is set to run out in June next year, the federal government would have ripped a total of $3.1 billion out of public and community housing; you cannot do that and not have dramatic effects. Over the last few years, the state housing authorities have therefore been faced with funding the shortfall or cannibalising their existing stock. Either way the people who are suffering, obviously, are those who need affordable housing. Without funding to compensate for the federal government’s so-called mainstreaming agenda for Indigenous housing, it is difficult to see how social housing providers will cope with the increased demands for their services. As I say, it simply does not make sense to shift funding from disadvantaged Aboriginal people living in urban areas to disadvantaged Aboriginal people living in remote areas. There are surely better ways of handling funding for those communities who desperately need it. Beyond the lack of spending in Indigenous housing, there is no plan here in the budget to deal with the issue of housing affordability. The government’s simple answer is to say that the issue of housing affordability is something for the states, that the federal government has nothing to do with it at all and that the market will solve it all anyway. Well, that is plainly not the case. In the last 10 years the average home price has gone from three times the average annual income to seven times the average annual income. So the market is not fixing that problem. Even giants like the Housing Industry Association are calling on the federal government to tackle housing affordability. They say: It’s time for the Federal Government to provide leadership in this area and convene a national summit to look at measures to restore affordability. …     …         … The Federal Government has the capacity to provide more assistance to state and local governments in meeting the cost of urban infrastructure, new homebuyers cannot continue to fund what are government obligations. That comes from Dr Ron Silberberg, Managing Director of the Housing Industry Association. Labor agrees. We know that people who are struggling to save a deposit and trying to get into the homeownership market are really tired of hearing the federal government say that it is all the fault of the states. Obviously, a problem like housing affordability needs to be dealt with by all three levels of government in cooperation, and that is what Labor’s national affordable housing strategy will do. It is plain, too, that there needs to be some government involvement in encouraging investment at the affordable end of the rental and home purchase markets. We have seen that a lot of investment in rental properties is at the higher cost end of the market, and that does not help people who are struggling to afford the rent. The budget spends not one single additional cent to make housing more affordable, despite the fact that the proportion of first home buyers has declined dramatically from 21.8 per cent in 1996 to 17.5 per cent in February 2007. Home repossessions are soaring. In one month recently there were more than 5,000 repossessions in Sydney. That was 1,000 more than at the same time the year before. Rent is rising faster than inflation, and nearly 100,000 people each night are homeless in Australia. Nearly half of those are under the age of 24. The federal government has a role in making housing more affordable, and this budget was another squandered opportunity to help people who are struggling to pay the rent or struggling to get into the housing market. The Prime Minister admitted recently that rental prices were too high and that they were causing many households pain. The Deputy Prime Minister was so concerned by the government’s neglect of the issue of housing affordability that he reportedly raised the issue at a recent party room meeting. Likewise, there is uncommon and across-the-board agreement from groups such as the Housing Industry Association, industry groups, developers, affordable housing lobby groups and the Australian Council of Social Service that there needs to be some leadership from the federal government to stop housing becoming a luxury item. This budget demonstrates a complete unwillingness to show the leadership that is necessary. As I say, we need all three levels of government to work together on housing affordability and, to that end, a Rudd Labor government would replace the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement with a new national affordable housing strategy which would bring together those three levels of government to work on affordable housing. We also believe that all elements of housing policy should go under that agreement. Base grants to the states for public housing, community housing support, the first home owners grant and the Commonwealth rent assistance program would be all bundled together so that we can make sure that those programs are not working at cross-purposes with one another. We are also looking at a variety of other innovative proposals to tackle the housing affordability crisis, including examining ideas like helping low-income families into homeownership through a federal government backed shared equity scheme. We are looking at ways of encouraging private investment in the affordable rental market, increasing public housing stock. We are looking at boosting the community housing sector and improving services to the homeless. All of these need to be part of a broad strategy to address the issue of housing affordability and homelessness in Australia. To do all of that of course we need a housing minister, and currently there is no-one in the federal government who seems to take responsibility for housing as a policy area. I want to turn my comments now to the missed opportunity in this budget when it comes to workforce measures to help parents, particularly mothers, returning to work after they have had children. This budget attempts to do something around child care. Any improvement in this area is welcome, but this budget does not contain enough support to genuinely help those women who are finding it tough to find child care or afford child care so as to get back into the workforce. Our future prosperity depends on lifting women’s participation in the workforce. As far as that goes, there is nothing in this budget that will do that. Certainly, there is nothing here that would support a fairer industrial relations system; there is nothing here that supports parents who want to take extra time off when their babies are very young or who want to work part time when they return to work when their children are young. It does not offer, as Labor does, the right to request an extra 12 months unpaid parental leave or the right to request part-time or flexible work when returning to work. It does not do anything about the quality or availability of child care. It does do a few things about the cost, but I will return to that later. It does not invest in preschools or primary or secondary schools and it certainly does not have any plans to support the retirement incomes of women, which are still falling way behind men’s. Australia’s future economic prosperity depends on making it easier and more rewarding for parents with childcare responsibilities to be in the workforce. We have low participation rates by international standards. We are ranked 23 out of all OECD countries, behind New Zealand, the US, the UK and Canada. The main reason is that, while many women would prefer some paid work or more paid work, a lack of child care, high costs of care and working hours that are unsuitable for family life contribute to a lot of women just throwing up their hands in despair and giving up. Of course families should not have to rush back to work when children are young just to pay the mortgage, but it should be a little easier for those people who want to go back to work to do so. The increase in childcare benefit is welcome, although it is worth noting that childcare costs have been going up by 12 per cent per annum for four years, and the 10 per cent increase in childcare benefit is a one-off increase. So we are not even keeping pace with the CPI over recent years. It is also worth noting that, with the childcare tax rebate, we are now making parents wait one year instead of two—it simply enacts the original election campaign promise when it came to child care but it is still making people wait a year and it is still very difficult for some families. It is also worth noting that the figure that the government likes to bandy around—$4,000 per child—is quite different from the actual average payment, which is about $813. I want to contrast that with Labor’s investment of almost half a billion dollars for early childhood education, which will give every four-year-old the right to 15 hours of early childhood education a week for up to 40 weeks a year delivered by a qualified teacher, and our proposal to spend $200 million building up to 260 new childcare centres on school grounds and other community land. I want to finish by speaking for a moment about disability support pensioners. There were a number of one-off payments for carers, for example, and for age pensioners. The payment to carers was $1,000; the payment to age pensioners is $500. Of course Labor welcomes these payments because, in an environment where people are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, any little bit of cash helps. When you think about it though, it seems a pretty unprincipled thing to collect vastly more tax than you need and then hand it out in dribs and drabs to the people who you have squeezed so mercilessly over previous years. It seems a little unfair to me as well that the many people who have phoned or emailed my office who are disability pensioners have missed out in this round of one-off payments. It is plain that this government does not believe that disability support pensioners are as worthy as other types of pensioners or other recipients of payments. It is plain that the government has prejudged these people perhaps as unworthy or perhaps, even more cynically, as unlikely to vote for the government whether they get the money or not. It is worth remembering that this is the same group that were punished so harshly in the 2005 budget when they lost $77 per fortnight. We remember the 2005 budget for the incredibly unfair tax cuts and harsh Welfare to Work measures. So those same people who were suffering in 2005 cop it again in 2007. As I said from the beginning, this budget fails the future test because it fails to invest the $300 billion mining boom windfall in measures that will enhance our productivity and enhance fairness and opportunity for Australians into the future. 178 18:56:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 0 Mr RICHARDSON —I rise today in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. These bills outline the spending of the federal government associated with the federal budget for the 2007-08 financial year. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer on delivering yet another exceptional budget for this nation, which will lock in the gains of the past as well as invest in the future of this nation. I would also like to congratulate the team behind the Treasurer, specifically Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration; the member for Dickson, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer; the member for Aston, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer; and Senator Colbeck, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration—the team. Together this team has guided the nation to a period of economic strength and, instead of widely spending, as history shows us our colleagues across the chamber would have done, this team has put together a responsible budget which will build on that prosperity and strengthen the future of our nation. It places us in a position to still address areas of state Labor responsibilities, which we have done and will continue to do into the future. The first matter I would like to talk about is the introduction of the dental program. The Howard government’s decade of strong economic management has enabled the federal government to fund a number of programs which are not technically its responsibility but which, nonetheless, are desperately required, and there is no better example of that than the dental program. When it became clearly evident that the South Australian Labor government were not going to live up to their responsibilities in relation to the dental health of South Australians, I canvassed my electorate to determine the level of concern about the lack of public funding for dental treatment and the impact it was having on people’s quality of life. I was overwhelmed by the response and raised the matter with my colleague the Minister for Health and Ageing. I also wrote to the Prime Minister, as well as raising the matter in the coalition party room. I was thrilled to see this item included in the budget: $2,125 per year for dental treatment for every patient whose dental health is impacting on a chronic medical condition. This is a huge relief for many Australians who have suffered too long because of state government inaction and it is a huge relief for many in my electorate of Kingston. Another initiative in this year’s budget which is to be commended is the $1,000 wage top-up for first- and second-year apprentices aged under 30 who are training in a trade in an area of skills shortage. I have two young boys who are apprentices and I can assure the House that one of the biggest problems they face in completing their apprenticeship is the fact that in their first few years they are earning significantly less than their friends who are working full time in jobs which do not require apprentice training. This wage top-up payment will go a long way to encouraging young people into trades where there is a skills shortage but it will also provide in the early years of their trade an incentive to remain in that trade and complete their training. This is yet another initiative which, but for the strong and disciplined economic management of the Howard government, would not have been possible. This government recognises the important contribution senior Australians make to our nation and we recognise the importance of doing all we can to assist them. That is why I was pleased to see included in this year’s budget the $500 non-taxable payment to senior Australians who are eligible for the utilities allowance or the seniors concessions allowance. Senior Australians have already given so much to this fine nation and yet they continue to give in their senior years. The Australian government is proud to provide this support to senior Australians and I am very pleased that this will assist so many in my electorate of Kingston where I have been overwhelmed by the response from senior constituents of mine calling to say ‘thank you’ for this initiative. I have spent a considerable amount of time since I entered parliament advocating for the rights of the disabled and their carers. I was exceptionally pleased to again see a reward for carers included in this year’s budget. This year, those carers on carers payment will receive a bonus of $1,000, and those Australians receiving carer allowance will receive $600. No government and no amount of money can ever adequately thank carers—those people who give so much of their lives to caring for and defending those who are tragically less fortunate than themselves. Carers do not undertake this task for the money or the one-off payments from the government. They undertake the task purely because they love and care for the individual. The Australian government is proud to recognise that very selfless commitment and we are proud to be in a financial position to provide this financial relief to Australian carers. This budget saw a massive increase in the Australian government’s funding for roads across the nation. The safety of Australian road users is dependent on good quality roads. Put quite simply, the upgrading and maintaining of roads to an appropriate standard saves lives, and the Australian government has once again increased its commitment to that cause. Being a former police officer, I know firsthand the carnage that can be caused by poorly kept roads, and the grief that can engulf a family or an entire community when a young life is cut tragically short. That is why I am so pleased to see the increase in this year’s budget for Australian roads. I can stand here today and assure the people of Kingston that I will fight very hard for their share of that increased funding. The South Australian Labor government has neglected the southern suburbs of Adelaide. It has refused to fund significant projects in the south. Despite spending millions of dollars in projects which have had massive blow-outs across the rest of the state, the state government has refused to live up to its responsibility to road users in the southern suburbs. The Labor candidate for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, decided to attack the fact that I did not get the same amount of funding for my electorate of Kingston as was received by the northern suburbs seat of Wakefield. I will put aside for the moment the fact that the Labor Party were whingeing about pork barrelling when it came to this funding everywhere else in the nation but somehow the candidate for Kingston was complaining that the Howard government is not in the habit of pork barrelling in Kingston. I will leave aside the fact that the City of Onkaparinga, my local council, in fact got every last cent they asked for. The thing that really annoys me and my constituents is that if the Labor candidate for Kingston had lived in the electorate for more than five minutes she would have been all too aware that since my election to the parliament I have delivered many millions of dollars in road funding. Maybe Ms Rishworth should stick to commenting on the road-funding arrangements in the seat of Port Adelaide, where she has actually spent most of her time. Southern suburbs residents will not tolerate being fooled. They deserve someone who actually knows their area, knows how it ticks and knows the constituents’ concerns as I do, having lived in the area for over 20 years—and I still live there. They want someone to represent them who actually cares, who has a vision of security and direction for the south, to stand up and deliver as I have done in just two years—in comparison to the Labor candidate for Kingston, who proved how little she understood or knew about the southern suburbs when commenting on the budget. I am proud to be a part of the Howard government team, and this budget is yet another fine example of what we can achieve because of the depth of talent within our ranks. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance and Administration, Leader of the Government in the Senate, have served this parliament and their nation with honour and have delivered nothing but positive results for the last 11 years. I am proud of this budget and this government, not just because of the hard work and talent of one man but because of the hard work and talent of an entire team—an entire team of individuals who are here purely to fight for what they believe is right for their nation. Sadly, we cannot say the same about the members opposite. It is fitting, given my former SANFL football playing career and the Treasurer’s love of AFL football, that we put the performance of these two teams in context. I liken the Howard government to the Adelaide Crows, a group of individuals with finely tuned skills who come together and take the field as one, fighting not for themselves but toward one ultimate goal: the taking of the premiership flag. Conversely, I liken the Australian Labor Party to the current state of the Richmond Football Club, plagued by inconsistency, all playing for their own careers and desperately searching for a free kick, a one-man team with no team to provide substance and, most importantly, yet to win a game. This is the Rudd and, dare I say, the Rudd-Gillard team. But there is no ‘I’ in team, and that is a most significant aspect of the Howard government team versus the Rudd one-man team. The joy for the Richmond Football Club is that at the end of the year the AFL will hand them a lifeline with some priority draft picks. They will be back; that is how the game works. Sadly, that is not how politics works. That is not so for the Australian Labor Party either, whose benches will be so full with union hacks they would not have room for a star recruit if they were handed that all-important first draft pick. I commend these bills, I commend this budget and I commend the Treasurer. I commend the budget for its commitment to the future of our nation, I commend the Treasurer for yet again making the tough decisions and I commend these bills for locking in the gains and planning for the future. I commend these bills to the House. 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—I would remind the member for Kingston that some of the greatest football teams come from Western Australia. 181 19:07:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I will not get into the conversation about football teams on the day after my beloved Newcastle Knights, unfortunately, took the biggest pounding in the history of the club, but I can guarantee the House that when they overcome their injury woes they will be back. It is a pleasure to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills. This is the Treasurer’s 12th budget and my 12th budget. I have been here just over 11½ years, having been elected in March 1996. A strong global economic environment, record terms of trade and an unprecedented resources boom continue to make the work of the Treasurer easier than it has been in the history of Federation. It is a dream come true to be in government and to be Treasurer in these buoyant economic times. This coming financial year the Howard government will officially collect some $247 billion. We throw the term ‘billions of dollars’ around in this place with gay abandon, but in anyone’s language it is a huge amount of money. In addition, the Treasurer will collect about another $37 billion in GST. He does not like to count that on his books, even though the accounting standards the government is expected to adhere to demand that he does. The government’s orphan tax is the GST. It is a big tax take that demands enormous responsibility. Unlike the days before the former Hawke-Keating Labor government’s restructure that opened up the Australian economy, the biggest challenge for Peter Costello on budget night was to determine how best he could spend this richness of money without making his political intentions too obvious in this important election year, and how best he could spend the riches without putting too much pressure on the Australian economy—in other words, without stimulating the Australian economy too much. Of course, the question for the rest of us was: has it been spent wisely? I should begin answering that question by touching on some of the good things in the budget first, some things that we welcomed. We do of course welcome the tax cuts. They are an appropriate dividend paid out to those who live and work in this country in these good economic times in this resource-rich nation. And they are also welcome on the basis that, for a change, they are largely targeted at lower and middle-income earners, unlike recent budgets, where most of the proceeds of tax cuts have gone to those on higher incomes. So we welcome that point. We also welcome the $22 billion or so for road and rail infrastructure announced under AusLink 2, although I note the government’s refusal so far to announce where that money will be spent—no doubt that information is being held back until closer to the election, and on that basis it is very difficult for us to determine whether that money will or is likely to be spent fairly and efficiently. One aspect of the budget which exposes it as the most poll-driven document I have seen in my 11 years in this place is the range of one-off expenditures. For example, there is $500 for pensioners as a one-off payment. There is $1,000 for carers, those people who do such a magnificent job in our community, as a one-off payment. It really does pose the question: if these people are deserving of additional payments, why is it only a one-off payment in an election year? If the member for Dobell is able to answer that question, I would welcome it. This must be breeding increasing cynicism and scepticism in the electorate about this government’s intention when it is handing out cash grants to pensioners and carers as a one-off payment only in an election year. Nothing causes the 2007-08 budget to stand out as a political document more than the bringing forward of some $250 million under the strategic regional roads program, money that should have been spent after the election but will now conveniently be spent prior to the election. This is a quarter of a billion dollars which can be flushed straight into the system by virtue of the fact that the money will go to applications that were denied in the last funding round. So, no documentation is required, there are no cumbersome and time-consuming processes. Bang; $250 million is spent on regional roads, no doubt mainly in key marginal electorates. But there will be exceptions to that rule because, with many of the projects, like those in my electorate that were denied funding the first time around, the government will be forced to fund them because they were in the round and it is going to be impossible for the government to spend money in areas where applications had not been lodged previously. So there is some good news for my electorate, as just over $2 million will be spent on roads in or around the vineyard districts in my local area. That is very welcome news. I have to say, though, that just over $2 million is a very small amount of money. Cessnock council, for example, has indicated that at least $10 million is required to bring the road network within the Hunter Valley wine country up to anywhere near an acceptable standard. Why shouldn’t the federal government be more heavily involving itself in this road network? As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Hunter Valley we make the world’s finest wines, we are the state’s largest tourism destination outside Sydney, we are a real draw card for the state and we are a key economic driver for the state’s economy—and therefore for the national economy—so why wouldn’t the Commonwealth government be investing in that all-important road network? It has been ignoring it for too long and it is about time it started to invest; $2 million is a good start but we need much, much more. On the question of spending wisely, the big test in this budget was for the government to demonstrate that in these good economic times it was prepared to astutely invest in our future. We are still involved in a very long economic growth cycle and we are very fortunate to be locked into that process. But the good times will not last forever. No qualified economist would argue otherwise, and we really do need to be taking the proceeds of the good times and investing in the future to insulate ourselves from tougher times. There is little evidence of that in this budget. As I mentioned, we have seen a significant injection into AusLink 2 and a promise of funding in the future, but again we have not seen the detail. We still live with a lack of funding in preschool education, in skill education and, of course, in higher education. I know I will hear from government members saying, ‘You can’t talk about higher education. We put $5 billion into a Higher Education Endowment Fund.’ This is no more than a promise to pay some surplus into university infrastructure in the future. There is no real commitment from the government. We have seen a theoretical hypothecation—which is unusual for any government—of future tax revenue into a higher education fund. Whether it is banked with the Reserve Bank, banked in the Future Fund or delineated out into a higher education endowment fund means nothing at all. It is nothing more than a stunt. The reality is that we live with crumbling university infrastructure, right now, as a result of underfunding in years gone by. Our public schools are struggling. Of course, the Prime Minister has shown a bent away from public schools in funding terms. Working parents still cannot get child care. In the budget there was a 10 per cent increase in the childcare rebate, but what is the point in doing something on the demand side if you are not working on the supply side? You potentially make the situation more difficult, and it is a huge issue in my electorate. All these problems contribute to undermining Australia’s future economic prosperity. We have to be investing heavily in education for our children to make sure they are the leaders of tomorrow. We have to provide them with quality teachers, quality infrastructure and a whole range of opportunities all the way from TAFE to university to make sure that they maintain the living standards that we have enjoyed over the last decade or so. 00ANF Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP Mr Ticehurst —What about the coal loader? 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —I would be happy to talk about the coal loader in Newcastle, as the member for Dobell interjects. I have some views on the coal loader in Newcastle that would not quite be consistent with the views of many others in this place. The reality is that coal loader in Newcastle is privately owned by a cooperative of coalmining companies. What is happening at the Newcastle coal port is a great tragedy. More than 60 ships are waiting offshore to collect their coal to take to our, mainly Asian, customers. That is a national disgrace and an international embarrassment. There are a few bodies responsible for that international embarrassment, and I would nominate three groupings. The first is the coal companies that run that coal loader. In my view, they have abused their monopoly status and have attempted to maintain capacity at just the point of full utilisation. No company or firm facing competition can ever hope to maintain capital at full capacity utilisation. It would not happen in a competitive market, but that is exactly what has happened at Newcastle. There has been no incentive whatsoever to expand that port in the absence of competition. That is a big red mark against the coal companies. A second red mark is against the New South Wales government—and I am happy to say it—for not showing more urgency in approving the expansion of the existing coal loader, run by PWCS, and in approving the application for a third coal loader by a second identity right next door. That lack of urgency on the New South Wales government’s part has held back the development of the third coal loader and taken the pressure off the existing coal loader to expand in the lack of competition. The third big red mark goes against the federal government for removing the urgency to action by both the coal companies and the state government by giving imprimatur to a quota system, authorised by the ACCC, which has removed that urgency. At the end of the day, that authorisation is the right to immunity from prosecution for an anticompetitive practice, and that is exactly what the quota system is at the port of Newcastle. It is an illegal practice that should never have been allowed and has exacerbated the situation at the port of Newcastle. So there is collective responsibility on the part of the coal companies, the state government and the federal government; they should all collectively hang their heads in shame. Now that approval has been given to the third coal loader and to the expansion of the existing coal loaders, let us hope that we will see some eventual relief at the port of Newcastle. But it will be too late for the 300 or so miners who have already lost their jobs as a result of that bottleneck at that port. The coalminers are asking how they could possibly lose their jobs in the greatest coal boom we have experienced in at least the last 30 years, if not in the history of our Federation. It is a ridiculous situation. As I said, they should all collectively hang their heads in shame. I want to say something about the defence aspects of this budget. A lot of fanfare has surrounded the additional defence spending, which is always welcome. Defence spending now represents some $22 billion—right on two per cent of GDP. That is a lot of money to most people, but it is certainly not the peak of our spending. Back in the peak of the Vietnam War we were spending in excess of four per cent of GDP on our defence needs. Of course, when operational tempo is high, the requirement will be to spend more money. We currently have some 3½ thousand members of the ADF deployed overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor and other places and therefore the demands for spending on defence will increase. The question remains as to whether, in this time of high operational tempo, that money is enough. What we certainly cannot afford to be doing is wasting that money. We have seen too much wastage of defence dollars in recent years. Every defence dollar wasted is a dollar not spent on our strategic national interest, and that is the great tragedy of this budget. We welcome the extra money, but we would like to see the money spent more efficiently and more effectively. I do not have time this evening to go through all the examples, but most members of this place are familiar with the long list of cost blow-outs and overruns that have been besetting the ADF in recent years, and much of that comes back to poor government planning, bad and inappropriate government intervention and general mismanagement. It is interesting to remind the House that in this year’s budget, at the same time as significant extra money was injected into the defence budget, money was again deferred. In other words, we are putting more money in but we cannot spend it because of the government’s mismanagement of the defence procurement program over recent years. We welcome the National Security Committee’s decision not to scrap the Seasprite helicopter project and flush $1 billion down the drain—a decision taken only late last week and taken despite Minister Nelson’s insistence that the project be scrapped and another $1.5 billion be found to start a new project. It has really been a mess and it is time the government lifted its game. Recruitment and retention are important areas. There is no doubt that recruiting and retaining skilled people are the biggest issues facing the Australian Defence Force at this time and therefore the biggest challenge facing our national security. We welcome the additional money spent on recruitment and retention, but we believe that the government has to get more innovative. You cannot just keep spending and throwing money at the problem. We need new paradigms and new methods to attract people to and retain them in the Defence Force. I want to wind up by saying something more specific about my electorate. Between 1996 and 2001 I was very proud and privileged to represent the area commonly known now as the Upper Hunter Shire. This included Merriwa, Scone, Aberdeen and Murrurundi, which were the large towns in that region. Sadly, in 2001 I lost those townships as part of the then redistribution. I picked up very large segments of the Maitland LGA. As a result of the last redistribution, I have again lost some parts of the Maitland local government area, particularly parts of east Maitland and areas like Medford, and they will now go into the electorate of Paterson and be represented by the member for Paterson. I have now picked up those parts of the Upper Hunter Shire again. So from election day in October—or whenever it might be—electorate willing, I will for the first time in many years be once again representing those towns that now fall into the local government boundaries of the Upper Hunter Shire. Last week I started to travel around those areas. I have deliberately not done so before now because they continue to be represented by the former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and there is a certain etiquette involved there, but I have—given that it is getting much closer to the election—decided to start re-establishing myself in those areas. I had a very nice afternoon tea in Merriwa last week, and next week I will be travelling to Scone, Aberdeen and Murrurundi to do the same to reacquaint myself with the people there and rebuild the very good relationships I had not only with local government there previously but with the various community groups and the many people who live in those areas. I look forward—again, electorate willing—to representing those areas once again and working with those community groups and the council in furthering economic development in the area for the benefit of all those who live in the area. I am sad to be losing those parts of east Maitland and those immediate areas which I will not represent after the election, win, lose or draw. I thank the many people who I have met and worked with in those areas for their support and wish them the very best in the future. 185 19:27:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise to address Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the cognate bills. As I do so, it is important to put this budget in some context by looking at Australia over the last couple of decades. I go back to some of the headlines from the times. For example, in August 1986 the headlines read, ‘Budget axe on welfare, jobs and wages’, ‘Health slashed by $300 million’, ‘Medicare levy up’, ‘Petrol and diesel up by 3 cents’, ‘New taxes’—a whole range of things. In August of 1990, a headline read ‘Slugger Keating: old, sick and jobless hit.’ An article began with, ‘Treasurer Paul Keating delivered a penny-pinching budget which left pensioners and families feeling punch drunk last night.’ These were headlines in 1993: ‘Rises in sales tax on thousands of consumer items’ and ‘Tax rates on annual long service leave rising up to 48.4 per cent’. Compare that with the headlines in the same paper for 2007: ‘Tax cuts for all, billions for education. The budget attracted widespread acclaim from business, family, environmental groups.’ That is quite a contrast. It is important that we recognise that that contrast has made a real difference for families in Australia because Australia is no longer struggling under the burden of $96 billion of Labor debt. Because we have paid off that debt, there is some $8.5 billion every year that was paid on interest that we can now invest in health, education, defence, roads, infrastructure and other things that benefit our communities. The broader economic policies—the things that have put downward pressure on mortgage rates and have seen them at historic lows—mean that the average rates under the coalition are down around 7.2 per cent versus the average rates under the previous Labor government of 12.75 per cent. In the electorate of Wakefield, which I am privileged to represent, I look at the large number of areas which are expanding rapidly with housing. As people take on mortgages, they have a dream for themselves and for their families. They are investing in the future and relying on having a government that will keep the economic settings for and focus on running an economy that will keep interest rates and inflation low. Inflation is at 2½ per cent compared to the average inflation under Labor of 5.2 per cent. People may think this is out of date because it is about old Labor governments. Despite record growth in things like the GST, from which every dollar goes to the state and territory governments around Australia, on a net basis the state and territory governments—which are all Labor—are in deficit again. They are spending more than they are bringing in again. So you can see that the leopard has not changed its spots and that Labor will still spend its way into deficit, which is in stark contrast to the coalition government. I will mention a few areas that I believe are important, such as health care for veterans. As somebody who served in the Defence Force for over 22 years, I believe we owe a huge debt to our veterans, and it is one that we have to honour. In 1996, the government then was spending around $1.6 billion on health care for veterans. This year in this budget, it is spending $4.7 billion. That makes a difference on the ground so that we can afford to work with the veterans at the Peter Badcoe centre in Wakefield in South Australia. Rather than condemning them to be itinerant residents of various buildings that are run down and leftovers from Defence, we have been able to invest in a new facility for those veterans so that they can have a counselling centre that not only helps Vietnam veterans but also increasingly reaches out to recent veterans from Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor, the Solomons and Bougainville. That is an investment. When people look at it and say, ‘That’s great,’ they need to make a link to the fact that the only reason we can afford to make those investments is that we have a government team, a Prime Minister, a Treasurer, a finance minister and other members of the cabinet who can take the hard decisions that put the economic settings in place to give us those budget surpluses. In direct funding for the environment, Australia was one of the first nations in the world to consider greenhouse problems and actually set up a greenhouse office. That is something most people do not recognise. This government put tens of millions of dollars into the Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project so that we can make better use of the stormwater that falls in the electorate of Wakefield by re-using it and taking demand off the Murray River. That is significant spending that we could not have had in the days when Treasurer Keating was slashing money from things like health. The Bolivar pipeline extension is another program we are looking at to re-use water in the horticultural sector, and programs continue right down to the community water grants that so many schools have benefited from in the electorate of Wakefield. In this budget, some $477 million is going to support the construction of new facilities in Wakefield for the Defence Force. Why are we doing this? We are doing it because this government recognises the importance of a viable and sustainable Defence Force and, in contrast to the previous Labor administration, which cut numbers, cut two battalions out of the Defence Force and decreased spending in 1996 to $10.6 billion, this year the coalition is spending over $22 billion on defence. This is about the only government that has ever consistently—for some seven years now—spent in excess of the three per cent of real growth that the white paper has called for in the Defence budget. We are seeing a growth in numbers, and the relocation of a new battalion to Edinburgh in Wakefield will bring benefits not only to our Defence Force personnel, who now have the opportunity for a rotation from their northern bases, but also the flow-on effects both in construction and in the broader community. The schools, the parents and friends organisations and the sports organisations will now have these defence families involved with them. We are seeing real work towards reconciliation with Indigenous people. We are seeing some very local examples, like the Salisbury High School Reconciliation Ball, which has been running for a number of years now with funding support from the federal government; through to very practical things like the Marni Waeindi lifelong learning project, which is seeing health outcomes for Indigenous people as they learn to work with their own communities and learn about health skills and becoming health professionals; through to the homework and support programs running in local schools, where Indigenous children are given the additional support they need to get the educational base so that they can make their own way and make choices to determine their own future—free from handouts—in our society. That is real reconciliation. Total spending on health has gone from some $17.9 billion in 1996 to $51.8 billion in this last budget. What does that mean? It means that in towns like Gawler in Wakefield we have seen over $500,000 put into the Gawler health service so that there is an after-hours GP clinic, after-hours accident and emergency health care and additional doctors. We have seen funding go into regional areas such as Clare to make sure that there are training opportunities for young GPs. We have seen mental health initiatives—things like Headspace, which the Northern Division of General Practice is running across the cities of Salisbury, Playford and Gawler in the electorate of Wakefield to connect our young people with mental health professionals and others who can assist them. In the vital area of apprenticeships, we have seen the number of apprenticeships grow from some 152,000 back in March 1996 to 404,000 today. Some of those are traineeships but the majority are traditional apprenticeships. The number of traditional apprentices has increased dramatically since 1996. We are taking more steps to encourage that—things like the Australian technical college; the Defence apprentice scheme, so that young people can join the Defence Force and take up an apprenticeship; and the Commonwealth funded Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, which is a group of industries that come together to engage with high school students to give them, and their teachers, an insight into what the manufacturing and advanced industry sector is about so that those young people have the motivation to hang in there at school. Rather than dropping out, they see a future. They see an employer who has an interesting workplace, who has an interest in them as young people, and who is investing—along with the Commonwealth government—in making that connection between our young people and the industries that want to employ them. What else does this economy do? It is not just about having surpluses; it is about having the capacity to invest in things like our infrastructure, like funding for roads, which has gone from $1.6 billion in 1996 to $3.4 billion in this year’s budget. That has meant that things like the Roads to Recovery program have been able to be extended. In Wakefield, it has meant that we have seen things like $5 million going into West Avenue, which is connected to the growing industrial area of Edinburgh Parks and Elizabeth West, so that we are seeing more investment, with companies like Hirotec coming in and investing in manufacturing plants in Wakefield, as well as a number of defence industries and other companies that are now diversifying into the mining sector as well as the automotive sector. We have seen a significant investment in Main North Road as a result of this last budget. The condition of Main North Road, which is a state road—running particularly from Gawler through to Clare—has been atrocious. Yet this budget has, for the first time, seen a significant investment by the federal government into this state road. I certainly call on Mr Rann and Mr Foley, as they lead up to the state budget in June this year, to at least match that $6 million to fix this road which is causing so many problems. We have seen investment in things like the corner of Angle Vale Road and Heaslip Road, where families were literally in fear for the safety of their children. I had an email today from a family who have actually sold up and left Angle Vale to move to a different town because of the atrocious traffic conditions in that town, and the state government has consistently refused to fund an upgrade to that intersection. I welcome the funding that has come out of the strong economic management of this government that has enabled us to partner with the council so that they can put traffic lights into that intersection and provide safety for that community of Angle Vale. Federal funding for government schools has gone from $0.9 billion in 1996 to $1.9 billion today. At Kapunda High School, we have funded the new science labs, and at Craigmore High School we have funded significant upgrades. As a result of the Investing in Our Schools program, some 62 schools have received nearly $7.3 million for 150 projects that have been put in through the Investing in Our Schools program. We have seen mandatory literacy testing for children. There was none in 1996; whereas now it is tested at four different points through a child’s education, which enables us to identify where additional resources need to go. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that it does not exist, we have put in place a structure whereby we can work with teachers through things like the Boys’ Education Lighthouse program, things like professional development for teachers, so that teachers can further develop themselves, and receive bonuses, over a Christmas period. All those things are properly the responsibility of the state government, but this government, through its good economic management and the fact that it has the resources, has now taken the initiative to put those in place. The $5 billion endowment fund for higher education is a significant investment. What that means on the ground is that we can now look with more confidence to things like Roseworthy Agricultural College, where we are working in partnership with Adelaide university to create a veterinary school to give the young people in South Australia the opportunity for the first time not to have to go interstate but to be able to train as a veterinary doctor in South Australia; to study in the agricultural sectors, including aquaculture; or to specialise in areas such as biosecurity, which is an area of growing need in Australia. We are also seeing a great amount of work put in to helping those people who are unemployed, not only through things like the Green Corps program but through Boystown, which we have funded to come down to Wakefield so that they can work with young people who are disengaged from school, perhaps in trouble with the law, and who no employer would touch with a 10-yard barge pole. Because of its economic management this government has the ability—it has the surplus—to put money into programs like that to make it possible for these people to re-enter the workforce. The decrease in the long-term unemployed has been a real plus; it is a really good outcome from this government. We have seen expenditure on child care. Because we uncapped childcare places, we have seen additional private providers set up in Clare and demolish the waiting list such that there are now vacancies in childcare centres there. In Kapunda we have seen viability subsidies of nearly half a million dollars so that in that small country town a childcare provider can set up on the hospital grounds and provide that service for people. We have also seen the number of aged-care places grow from 141,000 back in 1996 to 208,000 this year. In places like Balaklava and Gawler we are seeing Eldercare, ECH and others build large new facilities to make sure that we have good quality aged care for the elderly who have gone before us. I refer also to the respite carers program. We have put in money to make sure that carers can have respite from looking after those who have a disability. I think it is significant—as we come up to a deadline facing the state governments to step up and accept the offer made by the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement—that the good management of this government and its team has meant that we are able not only to match the previous money that was put up with indexation, but to put up an additional $400 million. And we are able to make the offer to the states and territories that if they are prepared to identify the areas of unmet need for people with disabilities, the Commonwealth will match it to 50 per cent. That has never been offered by the Commonwealth before. Why can we do that? We can do that because of the good economic management of this government. That economic management is not just because of the leader; it is also important to look at the team behind him. I think that is something that the Australian public really needs to consider going into the future. We have not just ridden on the back of a mining boom and a strong world economy. People forget things like the Asian recession and the US recession. They forget things like the SARS crisis. The Australian Treasury made the comment that SARS has severely disrupted the economies of some of Australia’s major trading partners in the region and that this is expected to reduce GDP growth in East Asia—and that has occurred in an environment where the global economy is already subdued. So when the Leader of the Opposition sits there in his bright, new, shiny TV ad and says, ‘Me too! I’m an economic conservative; I’d do what they’ve done,’ do not believe it. Remember back to Mr Latham, the man who signed the big cardboard cheque. How much credibility did that have? Look at the current Leader of the Opposition and his support team; it is completely made up of union members. Look at the people coming in, like Greg Combet, Bill Shorten, Doug Cameron, Don Farrell, Richard Marles and Kevin Harkins. All of these people are coming in to join people like Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean and Jenny George—all previous union secretaries and officials. What you can see is a team to which economic reform and the concept of economic conservatism is a complete anathema to the way they have conducted themselves over the last two to three decades in this country. As we come up to the election later this year people will look at the things that have been delivered in bonuses and support for the aged and elderly, in education, in defence, in roads and in a whole range of sectors. They have been delivered because of good economic management—the ability to take hard decisions and to reward the efforts of individuals. Let us not go back to the days of domination by a group who represent only 15 per cent of the private sector workforce. Why should a group who represent only 15 per cent of the private sector workforce dictate to the other 85 per cent how things should be run? They have opposed every significant reform that has enabled this country to see out the US recession, the Asian recession and the SARS crisis and still end up with record numbers of surpluses, record low unemployment and record low inflation. Why would you want to trust all of that and the future of your family and the wellbeing of your family to a team who have opposed all the changes that enabled that? The budget this year is a good example of the credentials of not only the Prime Minister but the team behind him. I welcome the budget and I particularly welcome the benefits it brings to the people of Wakefield. 190 19:46:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —The 2007 budget was hailed as a masterstroke by the commentators who spend their lives within the walls of Parliament House, but out in the real world the reaction was nowhere near as enthusiastic. It is hardly surprising given that, when it is all boiled down, the benefit to average working families is precious little. As one commentator in the real world who looked at the budget remarked: If you take the effect of the tax cut and wage increases since the last sandwich and milkshake tax cut, that average family has an additional take-home pay of about $85 a week, but out of that you have to take into account an extra $8 a week for petrol and an extra $50 a week in repayments on a $250,000 mortgage, and at least $30 a week to cover other price increases. That leaves your average working family just $5 a week better off. It is no wonder that the budget did not give the government a bounce in the polls. I am sure that everyone who filled their car the day after the budget saw just how far a $16 a week tax cut would go. By the time average income earners get their tax cut in their pay packets they may even see the whole lot swallowed up when they fill the tank of their car. If the Treasurer expected a grateful electorate to suddenly give the government a boost in the polls, he greatly underestimated the feeling of the electorate. It just goes to show how isolated he is from the real world of working families across Australia. In those homes, the only budget that really matters is the household budget. No matter how many statistics government members quote, they do not add up. Just a few years ago the Prime Minister was boasting that no-one had ever complained to him that the price of their home had risen. But now in some suburbs of south-western Sydney in my electorate of Fowler house prices have fallen by more than 10 per cent. We have seen four interest rate rises since the last election—the one where the government promised to keep interest rates low. It is one thing for families to meet mortgage repayments when they see the value of their home rising but another when the mortgage payments go up and the value of their home is going down. They have to wonder if it is worth the cost. The result we are seeing all too often in south-western Sydney is an increase in the number of forced property sales. For many families, the dream of homeownership has become a nightmare. The official figures for forced sales do not show the high number of distressed sales where families have abandoned homeownership before the lender moved in. In the real world household debt has climbed to 150 per cent of income, and interest payments now take up more of the household income than ever. So, while the Treasurer has an embarrassment of riches—thanks to the mining boom—households are going deeper and deeper into debt. But few of the commentators who applauded the Treasurer for his economic wisdom seem to appreciate that. I did, however, note one commentator who was critical of the Treasurer, Peter Saunders, the social research director of the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney—definitely not someone I would usually agree with. But Peter Saunders really did bell the cat when it came to his assessment of the budget. In a piece in the Australian on 10 May titled ‘Peter Costello is just like Santa on steroids’, Saunders warned that none of the Treasurer’s handouts makes economic sense. Saunders said: ... the Treasurer is so awash with taxpayers’ money that he really does not know what to do with it. A couple of years ago he set up the Future Fund to soak up his surpluses, but this fund is now expected to meet its target ahead of schedule, so he needs to find another mattress to hide our money under. That’s why he has come up with his universities’ endowment fund. As I said earlier, we have household debt at record levels, yet the Treasurer continues to rake in more tax revenue than is necessary to fund this year’s government’s spending priorities. Peter Saunders went on to say: But why take so much tax from us in the first place? Some economists say we may spend too much of our own money if taxes are reduced, and this can trigger inflation. But if that is why the Treasurer keeps collecting much more tax than he needs, he can achieve the same result by cutting taxes and requiring us to save the difference in our personal super funds. It would be far better for us to save our own money in our own accounts than for the Government to take it off us and put it in its own giant piggy bank. For once, I find myself in complete agreement with Peter Saunders—even though it is a shock to me. What a mockery it makes of the cries of government members that Labor would raid the Future Fund to build a fast broadband network. But that Future Fund contains the money that this government has looted from the retirement savings of ordinary Australians. To get some idea of how much the government gets from dipping into the piggy banks of the more than 10 million Australian workers we should look at the revenue and receipts forward estimates contained in the budget papers. For the 2007-08 financial year, this government will rake in $8.3 billion in total superannuation taxation. That revenue comes from the 15 per cent tax on contributions and earnings of every Australian worker with employer paid superannuation and a smaller amount from superannuation surcharge. For an average income earner, that is around $750 a year. That works out at $14 a week, almost exactly the same as an average earner will get in their income tax cut. Over the lifetime of a worker on average earnings that can add up to more than $100,000. It is no wonder that the Treasurer has such a smirk on his face, accusing Labor of raiding the government’s piggy bank when he is definitely the one who is raiding the piggy bank of every employed Australian. But we all know that the Treasurer is opposed to compulsory employer contributed superannuation. He has been against it since the last Labor government introduced it. In his time as Treasurer he has not only raided it by pocketing the contribution and earnings tax; the Treasurer was also the one who killed off plans for a government co-contribution for low-income earners. That was the same Treasurer who mocked Labor’s l-a-w law tax cuts which were planned to provide for a co-contribution. But what did we get instead? We got the doctors’ wives’ co-contribution which the Treasurer increased in this budget. I find myself asking: how many low-income earners in the Fowler electorate can afford to put aside $1,000 to attract the government’s co-contribution of up to $3,000 and how many have smart tax accountants to tell them how to get away with it? The government’s co-contribution is nothing but a rort. It would be much fairer to scrap the superannuation contributions tax for low-income earners rather than handing out cash to those who have a spare $1,000 after meeting the cost of living. Before any government members try to suggest that changes to superannuation, making it tax free at age 60, overcome the issue of contributions tax, I should remind them that the lump sums of average income earners are still below the tax-free amount. When it comes to statements from the Treasurer about the effects of an ageing population it is no wonder that he is silent about the one policy that is making a real difference to Australia’s future prosperity—our compulsory superannuation. This government treats the trillion-dollar superannuation investment of Australians in their own futures as a cash cow to fill up the Treasurer’s piggy bank—and then he brags about what a great economic manager he is! The only master stroke in this year’s budget is the pea-and-thimble trick that the Treasurer has pulled off—and, once again, the commentators have definitely been taken in. But if the polls are correct, at least the voters of Australia, the voters of my electorate, have not been so gullible. I will now turn to one measure that was announced in the budget which I have been closely involved in through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, of which you are chair, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, and that is the issue of child care. I note that the budget includes changes to the payment of the childcare rebate. One thing I do agree with the Treasurer on is the need for Australia to increase the participation rate of women in the workforce. Our participation rate for women is low by comparison with many European countries. Given the higher levels of education and skills of women, increasing workforce participation has the greatest potential to improve our rate of growth in the years ahead. I know that, while there is no change to family tax benefit B in the budget, the government seems to be going soft on the idea. It seems crazy to force single parents with an eight-year-old child out to work, while paying $3,000 a year to partnered stay-at-home mums with a 17-year-old child. But I will come back to the proposed changes to the childcare tax rebate. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services in its report on balancing work and family examined the issue of childcare funding in some detail. Regrettably, as Labor members of the committee—and I as deputy chair—stated in the dissenting report: The operations of existing child care programs, the Child Care Benefit and Child Care Tax Rebate, were not examined for improvement. Instead, the inquiry focused on tax deductibility for child care expenses as a cure-all for the problems faced by working parents. As clearly shown in the Econtech report commissioned by the committee, only families with individual incomes above $75,000 will benefit and there is no real incentive to encourage the bulk of working age women to increase work hours. Tax deductibility for child care is simply welfare for the wealthy. I am particularly pleased to see that the Treasurer shared the view of Labor members of the committee and, as we see in this budget, has decided to make changes to improve access to what is now known as the childcare tax rebate. I can only add that if the family and human services committee had taken a broader approach in its deliberations we might well have been able to make some constructive recommendations for improving the delivery of the childcare tax rebate. I am pleased to see that childcare support will in future be handled by Centrelink rather than through the tax system. I much prefer to see a payment identified as a benefit rather than come through the tax system. In the future we could look forward to dropping the reference to ‘tax’ in payments, such as in family tax benefits. Another point to consider, and one which was raised only in passing by the balancing work and family inquiry, is a link between the payment of childcare benefit and childcare tax rebate and work. As the committee noted, payment of the childcare tax rebate is only loosely linked to employment, with a family still qualifying even if the parent works fewer than 15 hours per week. One of the most common grievances I hear is from parents in full-time work paying high childcare fees when non-working parents receive free or low-cost child care. I know that there is more at issue, but if the objective in reforming childcare assistance is to increase workforce participation then it is time to reconsider eligibility for childcare assistance where a parent works very few hours or not at all. At least linking the childcare tax rebate to income earned meant that there was some test to ensure that the child care was work related. Again, regrettably, these matters were not the focus of the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services. What is important, however, is that working parents can look forward to receiving a benefit to assist with the cost of child care in a much more timely manner. I turn to local funding issues affected by this budget in the Fowler electorate. My biggest regret is the low funding provision for the freight-line extension through the Fowler electorate. Despite repeated representations from Fairfield City Council, from community representatives in the Liverpool area and from me, calling for more extensive noise mitigation and other work to relieve the impact of the line on local residents and businesses, the Commonwealth has placed an unrealistic very low cap on funding for these works. While the freight line will not be within the Fowler electorate at the next election, I know that the Labor candidates in the seats containing the freight line—Jason Clare in Blaxland, and an excellent candidate, Greg Holland in Hughes—will be pressing for additional funding for work to relieve the impact on residents and businesses. The Fowler electorate has gone from 47 square kilometres to 247 square kilometres, and I look forward to the challenge of representing over 30,000 new electors and taking up the many issues in need of Commonwealth government attention in those areas. The best thing that can be said about this budget is that it will definitely be the last budget of the Howard government. It will be the last budget which ignores the real needs of building a strong Australian economy. It will be the last budget to see Australia’s investment in education heading for the bottom of the OECD league table. It will be the last budget that pays lip-service to increasing the skills base of Australian workers. It will be the last budget that uses bandaid measures to assist Australians balance work and family pressures. It will be the last budget that plays a funding blame game with the states. It is time for the Treasurer to pack up his slide rule and make way for fresh ideas that will set the Australian economy on the path of future development while ensuring a fair go for all Australians. This budget has been the Treasurer’s swan song. 194 20:04:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise today, in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the cognate bills, to congratulate the government and the Treasurer on delivering another budget which demonstrates not only economic credentials but also a capacity to invest for the future. Many people in my electorate of Greenway, and residents of the Hawkesbury particularly, will benefit from this budget. Australia is one of the few countries across the globe where the budget operates on a surplus rather than a debt. More than that, the government is investing billions of dollars to earn income to build infrastructure and cover future liabilities, such as superannuation. The member for Parramatta spoke about the budget as passing by with little comment from her community. Australians are in a position where they expect tax cuts. They expect one-off payments. They expect assistance for child care. They expect this because they have a government that has been able to manage a trillion-dollar economy responsibly and deliver to Australians. The Australian public have come to expect tax cuts. When they are delivered, they accept them as part and parcel of everyday life. When Labor was in government people hoped for a tax cut, and when they got it, it made headlines. It did not happen very often. Tax cuts should be for everyone who works, and I am proud that the Howard government has yet again delivered tax cuts for all Australian income earners. Because of these tax cuts, over 80 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30 per cent of their gross earnings in tax. These tax cuts will mean that people in my electorate who previously earned up to $25,000 and paid 15 per cent tax will be able to earn an additional $5,000 before the tax rate increases. A part-time mum who may have felt that the $25,000 threshold was a disadvantage may now find this an incentive to work extra hours. It will give working mums more choice. Families from Kings Park, Glenwood, McGraths Hill, Bligh Park, Kellyville Ridge and Riverstone will welcome the 10 per cent on top of indexation that will be added to the childcare benefit and the further $2 billion in childcare assistance. It is because of strong economic management that additional funds can be made available to assist families with childcare costs without putting our budget into deficit. Families in the electorate will also receive a childcare tax rebate of up to $4,200 per child. Parents have welcomed this. In Greenway, parents with primary school children who are having difficulty with their literacy and numeracy will have additional peace of mind knowing that there are education vouchers available to assist with tutorial costs. As a parent of an 11-year-old and a 14-year-old, and as someone who mixes with many other parents, I know our children’s education and the ability for them to achieve their potential is critical. Literacy and numeracy are vital to their future education and their future prospects. From 1 January 2008, parents will be provided with a $700 tuition voucher if their child does not achieve national literacy and numeracy benchmarks in years 3, 5 and 7. This provides the financial assistance parents need to secure for their children the help they need to bring their literacy and numeracy up to speed. For teachers there will be bonuses to encourage academic excellence. Schools will be eligible for up to $50,000 if they make significant improvements in numeracy and literacy, and teachers will receive a $5,000 bonus if they undertake training over summer. The $1.8 billion invested in aged care will further improve our aged-care system. I have spoken personally with aged-care providers, carers and older residents and I am sure the increase in payments for residents of aged-care homes and the extra 100,000 days of respite care over the next four years— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 8.08 pm to 8.22 pm E07 Markus, Louise, MP Mrs MARKUS —I was speaking earlier about personally speaking to aged-care providers, carers and older residents. I am sure the increase in payments for residents of aged-care homes and the extra 100,000 days of respite care over the next four years will benefit the aged-care community greatly. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, and I recently met with Hawkesbury division of GPs at the Hawkesbury after-hours practice to discuss their service, and I am sure that the announcement of an additional 357,000 GP hours of after-hours service will be very much welcomed by the Hawkesbury team. I am sure that residents living in the Hawkesbury district who use the after-hours clinic will also welcome the additional $71.8 million that has been allocated to after-hours GP services, as well as the Australian government’s commitment to promoting healthy eating and physical activity for children through the CSIRO Wellbeing Plan for children. Greenway has an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent, 0.3 per cent below the Australian average, which is 4.5 per cent. We have seen two million new jobs created. This, coupled with the increase in real wages by 19.8 per cent since March 1996, has enabled families to plan with confidence not just for their future but for the future of their children. New jobs create new wealth. This extra money in the economy and also in the hands of families and income earners has enabled a growth which has seen business investment grow by more than 70 per cent in real terms. I welcome the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to small business by providing this sector with tax cuts worth $450 million over a four-year period. Small businesses who earn less than $75,000 do not have to register for the GST and, over a 10-year period, there will be $90 million plus in grants for small businesses. By continuing to support small business, we will continue to strengthen our economy and enable small business to plan their future with confidence. This means more jobs for more people. Families in Western Sydney want to know that their children’s future is as important to the nation as it is to them, and I welcome the Howard government’s commitment to tomorrow’s future—our children. Before the last election, the Howard government reminded us that an apprenticeship is just as important as a degree. This is why it has continued to invest funding in addressing Australia’s skills shortages. In the electorate of Greenway we can already see the success of the Australian technical college. Students from the 2007 intake are about to finish their first block of on-the-job training and are about to start their third term. By the end of 2008, these students will be ready to move into full-time employment with a certificate III under their belt, their HSC and a job. Inquiries about the 2008 classes are already strong. The reputation of the Australian technical college has meant that students have enrolled from all over Western Sydney, including Hawkesbury, Penrith, Blacktown and Pennant Hills. The $549 million that will be invested over four years to help address skills shortages by further boosting Australian apprenticeships is welcomed. I congratulate the Australian government on recognising the need for another Australian technical college in Penrith. Then there are the students who attend universities. The University of Western Sydney, which has two campuses in my area, will welcome the news of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. This $5 billion investment fund will enable campuses such as UWS Hawkesbury to deliver world-class research facilities and capital works. Universities will be able to plan with confidence, knowing that money will always be made available through the $5 billion investment fund. One trillion dollars is a lot of money for a government to be responsible for if they are not strong economic managers—and the Howard government have shown that they are strong economic managers. An everyday Australian would not give the management of their weekly budget to a person who had no economic credentials. Would families trust their household budget, when the house is fully paid for, to someone who, last time they were in control of the purse strings, created a $96 billion debt? I think not. This is what Labor want Australians to do. Labor want Australians to trust them to deliver a strong and prosperous economy like the Howard government have done. After the Labor government left Australia with a $96 billion debt, will they really be able to deliver surplus budgets? I think not. Will they be able to guarantee the security of the education fund and ensure that it remains a priority? I think not. Will they be able to offer personal tax cuts for all Australians like the Howard government have done for the past four years? I think not. Will they be able to provide a bonus to older Australians who are receiving a utilities allowance or a seniors concession allowance? I doubt this very much. Even the opposition’s shadow Treasurer stated publicly that Labor do not have a tax policy. How can they deliver the type of budget Australians expect when they do not have a tax policy in place? With an economy 1½ times larger than it was 10 years ago, Australia needs to have a government that will manage it responsibly. It took the Howard government 10 years to pay off Labor’s debt. Can Australia afford to have another debt of $96 billion? I think not. Can Australia again afford headlines such as ‘Old, sick and jobless hit’ or ‘Budget acts on welfare, jobs, wages—it sinks or swims’? That is in contrast to a government which has spent significantly on Welfare to Work packages, which returned people to work who were able to work and gave people who historically have not been given the opportunity to work—people with disabilities—access not just to training but to support. Many of these people are now in full, open employment whereas under the previous Labor government they would not have been supported because money was not made available for them. Other headlines when Labor were in government read, ‘$3.50 to see doctor’ and ‘$8 tax cut, cigs up 6c, petrol up 3c, sales tax up—gain and pain’. Can Australia afford a Labor government, when they have a history of going back on their promises—like the second round of tax cuts for middle-income earners that was dropped, as reported by the Daily Telegraph in May 1996? How many Australians plan their future with confidence? They will not be able to under Labor—Labor do not even have a tax policy to give Australians the confidence that they can do the job and manage a trillion-dollar economy. It is because of solid economic management by the Howard government that another budget surplus has been produced, and because of that people in my electorate and across this nation can plan with confidence. They can plan with confidence because they know that the Howard government has planned for an ageing population, has planned for the growing demands on health care, has planned for the challenge of climate change, has planned for the future of education and has planned for Australia’s future. I commend this budget to the House. 197 20:31:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —The appropriation bills are always a great opportunity for members in this place to put on the record some of our views about not only the budget but government policies, our own policies and, I suppose, the current state of affairs. In particular tonight I would like to talk about some industry policy, where Australia is heading in the future and the lack of vision of the government. The government talks about a whole range of things but in the 11 years it has been in power it has reaped the benefits of a growing global economy and a great economy in Australia but has not really contributed a great deal to that itself. Basically, with the sorts of revenues that are coming into Canberra, it is almost impossible for government to spend them all—even though it blows billions of dollars on a whole range of things. What I would like to do is focus on some industry issues. During the recent press launch of the government’s new industry policy, the Prime Minister reminded the gathered media that mining was very important—and that it is. He also said that it was not the only pebble on the beach. Hoorah for the Prime Minister! He has finally come on board and realised what the rest of us have known for quite some time: that there is more to industry policy than just mining. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s observations come a long time after Labor, just like the rest of the country, had already formed very strong views in this area and had formed strong policy. The unfortunate part of it, though, is that the government needed to have understood this much earlier, to have put some policy in place and done something about it. We have creaking infrastructure that cannot quite cope with the resources boom globally. Now what we are seeing because of that is the states often left to carry out massive infrastructure investment on their own when they just do not have the capacity. When they turn to the federal government, the federal government has a great opportunity but just does not contribute. We are seeing the outcome of that now with the potential loss of mining jobs. Believe it or not, there is a potential loss of mining jobs in an era of a resources boom because mines have overrun their capacity to export. We have got so much coal building up, so many of our resources building up, that mines may possibly have to shut down or at least slow down operations, meaning that miners could lose their jobs. That is an incredible outcome after years of being warned not only by the states but also by federal Labor that more had to be done. The federal government decided to play the game of politics and just not get involved. That was certainly not good enough. What it means is that this government is out of touch and out of ideas. After 11 years, it cannot come up with a new idea. It cannot come up with some decent industry policy that will see us through the next 20 years. It is one thing to inherit a good and growing economy. It has been growing for 16 years. You have to understand that the Howard government has only been there for 11—it inherited a good economy. You cannot stop a global boom. But you have to leave a legacy; after more than a decade, you need to leave something. This government needs to leave something for the next 20 years, and that is what we are not seeing. That is the great danger we face: that in these great economic times people are blinded by the good fortune that they inherit but then do not invest for the future. Good times end. They might not end for a while, but they will end. When that cycle finishes—and it may not be that the mining boom or the resources boom will end; I think that the demand is going to stay there for a long time—profits will not be as big and there will not be as many jobs created out of it. Other technologies will be developed in the next decade. There is a whole range of issues that we have to deal with, and this is where you need a government that puts some thought, time and effort into the future rather than just harping on about the past and the things that it has inherited. We need a government that not only talks about innovation but is innovative. There is no doubt that the innovative capacity of our manufacturing services sector is also important and Australia has to invest properly in our capacity to innovate. We need an open economy. We need to make sure that we are out there competing with the rest of the world. I have said in many places that the greatest issue we have in Australia today, as China and India develop as nations, is one of manufacturing. Basically, they can make things cheaper than us. We will never be able to compete on wages—there is no way that Australia should or could ever compete on wages—but that is not the biggest threat. That is just the perceived threat today. The threat tomorrow is that they will out innovate us; they will beat us at our own game. Australia’s great history has always been that we have had great ideas, great innovators and entrepreneurs. Because of our isolation and remoteness from the rest of the world, we have always been able to do things just a little bit better in a whole range of ways. It has kept us punching well above our weight. But what we are seeing is a complacent government that does not look that far ahead. The fear I have is that if we do not put those sorts of policies in place very soon we are going to see some negative outcomes. Back in February this year in a speech to the Australian Industry Group, the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, made his own observations stating that in the 21st century innovation policy was actually industry policy. This is the difference between the Howard government and a Rudd led Labor alternative government. The ALP is thinking about the future. We are thinking about how to pull all of those different threads together and present a coherent economic vision while the government does nothing but play catch-up. In this context I want to raise the issue of the recently released Productivity Commission report called Public support for science and innovation, and add a couple of interesting thoughts in that debate concerning innovation and productivity in Australia. The commission’s report formulates a clear and concise rationale for public support for innovation and science on two broad principles. Firstly, the best rationale for public support of innovation and the sciences is the spill-over effect. Quite simply, that means that by investing in particular areas you get much more spillover into the rest of the economy and the rest of industry than just where you particularly invest. It is an important point that government should understand: that investment in innovation, in skills, in training and in education, while it is long term, is a good thing. It actually is an investment and not just a cost. Secondly, government funding decisions should seek to maximise the return on taxpayers’ dollars by supporting innovative activities that otherwise would not be undertaken independently by the private sector. That is the principal addition, where you can add on to the private sector where otherwise things would not happen. Basically, what the Productivity Commission does is argue that public support for science innovation should always be aimed at generating the greatest social return, which is a sensible rule of thumb for any government regardless of its political stripes. But on the innovation front you cannot say that there has been a lot happening. Sure, there has been a little bit in a few areas, and one of the key areas where government has had some great opportunities is the EMDGs, the export marketing development grants. Personally, I think it is a great program and government should support it, and it does support it, but it has diminished. This is one program where we see net benefits and results, really good outcomes. But what has the government done with one of the best programs out in the marketplace? It has wound it back, scaled it back; it has taken some of the money away and made it more difficult. Some of the funding commitments are remarkably small also. One in particular that I want to raise is a paltry $14.3 million over two years to extend the Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business program for just one extra year. If you have a close look at the government’s commitment to small business and innovation, you will be a little bit surprised here. It talks about it; it just does not invest in it. Australia has 1.2 million small businesses. It does not take a brain surgeon to do some quick mathematics on this to see that any small business wanting to access funds here will really struggle; there is just not enough money. But it is a good program and it should be supported. It is something that we could do a lot better. We need to see some long-term commitment. The other interesting point is that the government keeps drawing on Labor policy, and we have heard quite a bit of that lately. There is one particular issue I want to make mention of, and that is the Australian industry policy centres, which almost identically mirror Labor’s policy commitment to establishing 10 Enterprise Connect innovation centres to better connect business, people and ideas. So there is a whole range of areas where this government looks to the past, reaps the benefits of the things that have come before, but does not itself innovate or do anything to stimulate ideas and innovation. Ideas in the next decade will be the greatest things we have—new ideas, new ways to do things, new processes, new skills and certainly some things we have not even dreamt of today. But if we do not make the hard decisions today and if we do not use the good economic times we have—the rivers of gold in tax revenue that flow into the government coffers in Canberra—for the great programs and the innovations which support business and the community then we are going to miss out. Labor, on the other hand, do have a positive agenda. Labor want to build a culture of innovation. We want to support new ideas and we want to do that by strengthening investment in creativity and knowledge generation. We want to focus incentives on business research and development to promote global competitiveness, because at the end of the day our ability to compete with the rest of the world is how we will succeed and how we will create the jobs later in the 21st century. If we want to deliver the best outcomes for exports and economic growth then we have got to support the companies that are investing in those areas. We want to accelerate the take-up of new technology so that Australian firms can access the best ideas from around Australia and the rest of the world. I do not have to repeat them today, but I know there are dozens and dozens of stories that people know, of great ideas, inventions and innovations made right here in Australia, which could not find support. Support could not be found from government or from the private sector and those ideas had to go offshore, only to come back to us in mass numbers. In relation to solar panels, hot-water systems, microwave ovens, black box flight recorders, and a whole range of other ideas, we have exported the ideas but just did not re-import the revenue and the profits. Labor want to make Australia’s innovation system truly international by supporting partnerships with foreign investment in Australian research and development. We want to make sure we can use government procurement to support innovative Australian firms. We want to make sure we give firms a leg-up, not a handout. We want to make sure they can do things for themselves. We want to make sure we can strengthen publicly funded innovation and research infrastructure and develop a whole range of pathways to assist our universities to achieve these goals. Labor want to make sure we can develop and implement a set of national innovation priorities with a broader focus than the current national research priorities. We want to strengthen the governance of the national innovation system to support higher expectation of government agencies and business. It is not good enough for government just to provide some programs but not itself take on innovation and new ideas. And we certainly need to look at reducing the bewilderingly duplicated and multilayered bureaucracy—dozens to hundreds of programs for industry that seem to do a range of different things or the same things. If you were to ask anyone in government or the bureaucracy to put it into context for you and give you a document that spelt it all out, I think it would be just about impossible for them because it is so complicated. It is almost as if this government has designed it to make it difficult to get to—to make it so complex and so hard that small business owners and medium sized enterprises cannot quite get their head around just where they might go to get a grant, assistance or R&D funding, so they cannot achieve their own outcomes and give up. So some of the money just sits there in the funds and does not get used. An interesting thing has happened over a number of years. We keep hearing about some terrible economic times in the past, and how great this government is at managing the economy, but we only hear half the story. That is the unfortunate truth; we only hear half the story. They say how great it is to have all these revenues coming into government, but of course that is from the mining boom. This government did not create a global demand and a Chinese demand for resources. I do not think they are claiming that—it would be interesting to see if they were—but they are only telling you half the story. What we do know is that, while the government has been claiming that it is so good, on the really important factors that are going to determine our standard of living and our lifestyle in the next two decades we have actually been going backwards. That is the sad truth. If you have a look at productivity—and probably the key indicator in any economy about where you are going into the future is your capacity to become more productive—then you see that Australia does not do too well. When we left office, productivity was growing at an average of 3.2 per cent, which was not too bad. It actually put us in a strong position. If you look back—and the economists or anyone else who has looked at it will tell you this—you will see that it actually set us up today. It was that productivity growth. What has this government done with that 3.2 per cent growth? It has reduced it. Productivity is now down to 2.2 per cent and is expected to fall even lower to 1.5. What that means is that we are dumbing down. It means that industry will not be able to compete. It is not competing now. We are lucky that there is a resources boom and we have got the resources because if we had to compete globally on other things, including our own productivity, our capacity to improve what we do, make it better, make it faster and make more of it, then we would be struggling. So that is the half-truth you get from the government about the good economic times. But you do not get the other half: that we are falling behind the rest of the world. That is something that this government refuses to acknowledge or address, and I think in the future that will be looked upon very badly. This government applauds itself on a whole range of things. It says it is the great economic manager, but you have just got to have a look at the record run of trade deficits. Despite the most favourable global economy and global conditions in 30 years, we cannot seem to pick up the ball. We just cannot seem to get our game right. We keep going backwards. Our trade deficits are getting larger and larger. This government is very proud of saying that it has no debt. That is right; there is no government debt. But to my mind it has transferred it to the community. It is the poor punter out there and it is the electors who have got the debt now. Government has managed to transfer its debt and neatly place it into peoples’ homes. Homeownership debt is through the roof; it has never been higher. Credit card debt is out of control. Everywhere the government applauds itself. It is a 50 per cent story, a 50 per cent truth. Yes, it is true that the government has got no debt. But who cares that the government has got no debt? I am actually much more worried about people in my electorate whose household debt has tripled or quadrupled since this government has been in power. That is a debt they have to live with every day, and it is causing a whole heap of strain in homes. There have also been eight successive interest rate rises. We keep hearing about interest rates back in Labor’s day, but the government only tells you half the story. It is a 50 per cent truth. The reality was that, compared to the rest of the world, interest rates in Australia, while they were high as a number, were not that bad. As a number they were high, but how much was it hurting your back pocket at 17 per cent at that peak for three months? Let me tell you: a whole heap less than it is hurting you today at 6.5 or seven per cent, because today the equivalent to 17 per cent is about 7.5 or eight per cent. That is the reality today. People are going bankrupt and losing their homes now. Home bankruptcy and mortgagee repossessions have quadrupled in the last quarter. Ask the government why under its policies with supposedly such low interest rates people are losing their homes faster than they have ever lost them before. How can that be? The numbers simply do not add up. The reality today—the 50 per cent truth of this government—is that it says interest rates are low but we have had eight successive rises. We have had four just recently. Interest rates just keep going up under this government. They do not need to go up much because every quarter per cent today is equivalent to two or three per cent back in the nineties. That is the reality, the 50 per cent truth. We have had warnings from the Reserve Bank. We have had former Reserve Bank governors coming out and telling the real position once they were no longer in their positions in their office and saying just how bad this economy is for a lot of Australians. We should not forget that about the 50 per cent truth this government always talks about. This is a government that has been great at fudging the books. It has been great at passing the buck. It has been great at looking the other way when it comes to skills and training. Why is there a skills crisis today and why is the government clamouring to build ATCs and do something about skills? Because it just did not do anything about it before. For 10 years it just sat there and did nothing, and now it is saying, ‘Oh, my God, we need to do all these things.’ This is incredible. This is a government that has ripped money out of education and health, and now we are seeing the real outcomes of having Labor’s Commonwealth dental health program axed back in 1996. It was not a lot of money back then but it has caused a lot of pain for ordinary people today. That scheme needs to come back, and Labor will be putting that back. Of course, Labor supports income tax cuts, because the long-suffering taxpayer deserves a little bit back from all the taxes they are now paying. They are now paying more tax than they have ever paid. Higher education needs to be on the agenda. We also need to see trade skills back on the agenda. We need to see this government seriously look at infrastructure. I will not go on about infrastructure in Queensland in the small time that I have left. But after 10 or 11 years of doing absolutely nothing, what is government doing today? In the last throw of the dice before an election, this is the government that rocks up with a giant bag full of cash—taxpayers’ money—and says, ‘We’re here to help; we’re going to do something for you.’ But I think most people have woken up and said, ‘But where were you for the last 10 years? Where were you when we were crying out for funding for desperately needed safety upgrades and urgent upgrades on federal roads?’ You cannot blame the states for federal roads. In reality, this is a government that is missing in action; it is a government that is out of ideas; it is a government that has lost its way; it is a government that is tired; it is a government that no longer has an idea about what it ought to do in the future; and, in my book, it is a government that is out of time. 202 20:51:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —There are no mines in Dunkley, but you see the economy of Dunkley delivering some wonderful benefits and supporting improved living standards in our community. You see small business with a spring in its step and an optimism about the future. You see reports, even in the Financial Review, about how the heart of Dunkley at Frankston is attracting a great deal of investment and how it is a source of great optimism for the Greater Melbourne area. But there are no mines in Dunkley—and this is what makes a lot of Labor’s rhetoric so unbelievable. In this debate on the appropriation bills we have heard about the extent to which the mining industry contributes to the Australian economy. Its contribution is important and it is welcomed, but to glibly reduce this more than decade-long period of sound economic management to some good fortune linked to the mining industry shows just how little understanding the Labor Party has about the way economies work, the way individuals invest and the choices that businesses and individuals make about their lives and their futures. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend to you and the House a key statistic in the Dunkley area. We have a generational low level of unemployment. For the first time in as long as anybody can remember the unemployment rate in Dunkley is 4.4 per cent. It is actually below the national average. This is quite remarkable. When I was first elected to represent the terrific communities that comprise Dunkley, one of our greatest exports was young people leaving to find a job somewhere else. There was a sense of despair amongst many as they finished their education and a sense of foreboding about what the future held. Now those times are behind us because of careful economic management—no fluke, no fortuitous good fortune that the opposition would seek to have, but sound economic management that recognises that outer metropolitan economies like that of Dunkley can be very sensitive to an adverse economic climate. It was often that said if Melbourne got a sniffle the Mornington Peninsula got the flu. When economies are not in this sustained period of growth and investment and are not forward-looking about opportunities, the contraction of opportunities starts from the periphery of broader metropolitan areas and you see the more extended areas away from the capital city suffering disproportionately to what might have been the challenges that the broader metropolitan area faced. That was Dunkley’s story. The previous Labor government confessed that they took the Dunkley community for granted. Our undertaking was to do all we could to restore the prospects for a brighter future—but to do the work. Even though we have just listened to an opposition spokesperson, you would swear that we were at a branch meeting of the Labor Party—he was prattling on about a very selected range of figures without showing any great understanding about the context in which this time of economic good fortune has been developed and can be sustained. You heard a cobbled-together account about why it was bad for governments to reduce government debt. I think that was the implication. It is a government’s responsibility to manage government affairs, and one of the terrific success stories is that the Howard government, despite the opposition from the Labor Party, has actually paid off $96 billion of debt. The statement by the member for Oxley was, ‘Who cares that the government has no debt.’ The electors of Dunkley care because of the $8½ billion to $9 billion of interest that would be payable each year on a debt of that size. They are resources that would not be deployed to improving the living standards, infrastructure, essential services and prospects of the nation. That is about the government taking responsibility for its own choices. You heard a conversation about what household debt looks like. Again, it was free of a discussion about what the household asset base looks like and it was free of a discussion about the fact that families and individuals are making decisions for themselves—in the context of this improved prosperity—to extend and improve their circumstances and to invest in more valuable real estate. These are decisions for the individual. They are decisions that individuals are making—taking account of their economic circumstances—because they are optimistic and confident about the future. You also heard another line that the Labor Party runs out about productivity trends. There is one sure-fire way of having optimised productivity improvement, and that is to provide only for the highly skilled in the economy. If you have people who have been out of the workforce for some time or have low skills or skills that need updating to meet the challenges of the contemporary workplace, the easiest way to optimise productivity is not to have those people in the workforce. Is that really what was behind Labor’s million people unemployed? If you had a million people unemployed, a decade later you could actually talk about productivity growth. We recognise that less productive people, if given half a chance and some support and confidence by employers, can actually be very valuable contributors to the economy. So again, it is a matter of some pride that we are seeing the long-term unemployed—people with low and limited skills and those who have been out of the workforce for some time—now being able to re-engage in the workforce. But if you listen to what the opposition has to say, you would think this was a bad thing. I just wonder what the Australian public must think. Is this the kind of arrogance and complacency that we are seeing around this parliament amongst Labor members and senators, and particularly their staffers? They are convinced that they are just going to slide on into office at the next federal election. Is this the early sign of that hubris? I think it is. What we are looking at are the achievements over 11 years of the Howard government—the achievements that have built that prosperity and the improved opportunities for the community that I represent. All those reforms have been opposed every step of the way by the Labor opposition, yet they come into this parliament and they distribute to the media a nice superficial story so far out from the election. They want to benefit from the bounty that has been produced from the hard work of others—they now claim a right to inherit it. For the people of greater Frankston—the Mornington Peninsula—the budget again delivers for them. There are tax cuts—more in a succession of tax cuts—which were achieved in this budget because of sound economic management. The budget returns to the taxpayers the bounty of their hard work and of the government’s sound economic management. There is also support for those most in need—the seniors in our community and the carers—all of whom make an incredibly valuable contribution. The tax cuts are substantial and will make a very practical and positive difference to people’s lives. These are substantial personal income tax cuts that are worth over $31 billion over four years. They put spending power and opportunity back into the pockets of people in our area. The tax tables have been canvassed, but in the time available to me I will not dwell on those, other than to say that right across the income scales there will be tax cuts and improved opportunities for people from their work and their enterprise. There have also been improvements in the childcare benefit. It is increasing as well and it will provide extra support for families. This is a strong budget for families. In an area where families are strongly represented—in Dunkley—this is very important. It builds on a combination of new and existing concessions providing even more support and encouragement for families. There are more than 2,500 recipients of carer allowance in the Dunkley electorate and they will benefit from the $600 one-off bonus. In addition, 580 recipients of the carer payment will receive a $1,000 bonus which will be paid by 30 June this year. Carers make a significant contribution. Their selfless dedication to those that are near and dear to them needs to be recognised and I am pleased that that has been achieved in this budget. Older Australians are also benefiting from the budget with the bonuses that have been made possible by sound economic management. It will be an opportunity to return the benefits of that prosperity to those people who have made a significant contribution to the wellbeing of our nation and our economic prosperity over such a long period. It is interesting to look at the story of real wages growth. Often in my area of work people reflect on the movement in real wages on things like comparative value of benefits and the like. This is not a challenge that the former Labor government had to contend with because you saw a net reduction in real wages on their watch. Contrast that with the more than 20 per cent increase in real wages since the Howard government was elected and you see why household wealth has improved. You have seen how tax cuts have delivered additional benefits to people on higher incomes that are being rewarded for their own enterprise and their own work. And you are also seeing, with this record low unemployment, more people with the opportunity to earn higher incomes, to pay lower levels of tax and to see real wages increase. I want to talk about our community, which, as I mentioned earlier, is in the fringe metropolitan area of the great city of Melbourne. I will not digress for too long to correct the member for Kingston, who was quite unfortunate in comparing the two sides of parliament to, I think, the Adelaide Crows and the Tigers. I felt my footy team was defamed, so I will not spend too much time on that—only to suggest that the Tigers in Melbourne are a great team that have not peaked early this year, but I am looking for improved prospects. In our community, though, one of the things that helps our performance is important infrastructure, and that is why you see the Roads to Recovery program being so welcomed by Frankston Council and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. We have got growing demands on our roads, not only from an increase in the size and extent of housing but, even on the Mornington Peninsula, from a less obvious trend where what may have once been tourist accommodation, holiday homes, is now becoming permanent residences. So whilst you do not see as rapid a build-up of housing in some of those coastal communities you are seeing a conversion of the housing use and more permanent residents moving into our area. That refurbishment opportunity for key local roads is therefore very much valued and appreciated. Road safety benefits have come from the improvements to a number of roadways in the electorate of Dunkley, including the Nepean Highway, McClelland Drive, Overport Road, Foot Street, Kars Street, Warrandyte Road, Bungower Road and many smaller roads, as well as some pedestrian safety improvements. So these are demonstrable improvements to the infrastructure that supports our growing and more mobile community. We have also seen the Howard government’s strong commitment to key transport infrastructure. I have long campaigned for the Scoresby Freeway and still lament the fact that it is being built but with a toll, which, sadly, is completely unnecessary and will disadvantage our community. Beyond that, we are seeing that road work and the growth in activity in our area creating very particular traffic congestion at the end of the existing Frankston Freeway and where it intersects with the Frankston-Cranbourne Road. I have argued vigorously that there is a need for a bypass that would connect to the Eastlink toll road to take those people who do not wish to enter into the centre of Frankston around the outside of Frankston so as not to cause added congestion to that already clogged intersection. The Howard government did provide $50,000 for an environmental impact study to support the development of that idea. Something interesting has happened, though. Since that time the state government, perhaps recognising that some leadership was required, has followed the lead of the Howard government and come forward with its own funding, putting $5 million on the table for an environmental effects statement in addition to the environment management work that the Howard government recognised needed to be undertaken. That is interesting, somewhat belated, but welcome. I am hopeful that that is not simply a stalling tactic to delay the necessary decision to get on with that project, and I will continue to campaign for that. In the area of the local environment, our coastal community is very focused on the health of its natural systems. I am pleased that through the Howard government’s leadership we have seen improved use of water and improved water infrastructure. The community water grants have seen many local communities and many schools lead by example through improving their harvesting and recycling of rainwater. There are other projects available that I am keen to support, including efforts to drought proof a large part of Frankston, bringing forward some infrastructure that is partly there but can be readily connected into the outfall pipeline that currently discharges excessive amounts of water down at Gunnamatta. These are projects we will continue to work on, as well as those in the Mornington area, where we did have resources to make grey water available for the Mornington racing club and a number of reserves and facilities. Interestingly, we had to give that money back because, notwithstanding the Commonwealth funding the entire cost of the infrastructure—the pipeline to connect to the outfall, the storage infrastructure, the sprinkler systems and all the treatment that was required—it still was not economic because the state government at that time, through Southeast Water, were operating a ‘take or pay’ contract. So even though we were doing the right thing—displacing the use of potable drinking water with grey water, reused and recovered from the Eastern Treatment Plant—it still was not economic because the pricing structure did not support this kind of enterprise. Thankfully, despite the fact that this pricing arrangement and the policy arrangements put in place by state governments can make or break these wastewater reuse projects, you are actually seeing some changes occurring. We have heard others speak about higher education. I again want to point to what is a terrific success story, the Peninsula campus of Monash University. It sees opportunity in the new perpetual Higher Education Endowment Fund that the government has announced—that $5 billion commitment that will generate earnings available for capital works and research facilities. The Peninsula campus of Monash is very focused on its health and wellness agenda—an agenda we have been able to support with additional HECS funded places in key disciplines of health and allied health that have seen the campus grow and prosper. In addition to our work to revitalise and re-energise the campus, and our parallel efforts to establish a regional aquatic health and wellness centre, we have to carry out some work to make sure that the site can accommodate this nice problem to have, and that is the revitalisation of the campus with increased students and course offers and the facilities needed to present Monash Peninsula not as a second choice but as a first choice for education in our community. I am delighted that the Howard government has put $5 million on the table for this truly remarkable collaborative undertaking of a regional aquatic health and wellness centre. We need to make sure that the councils, state governments and the university itself bring forward their best contribution to see that that project can move forward. I am confident that will happen. This is a bold and ambitious project, and when it comes to full bloom all the partners in the broader community and the Monash University community will see it is a terrific outcome. We are within reach of it. We need to do some site planning to make sure that this project can be accommodated and that the improved prospects of the campus with its student and course offer can be supported in addition to this improved infrastructure. It is a nice problem to have. It is not one we thought we would have, where the popularity, the revitalisation and, in fact, the renaissance of the Peninsula campus have caused us to make sure that the campus and its strategic plans for the future can accommodate this improved university in the Dunkley electorate as well as the major collaborative facilities that support not only the academic endeavours on that campus but also broader community and social goals. The veterans’ affairs budget is obviously very dear to my heart. I am delighted that, for the first time, the budget totals over $11 billion this year. This is at a time of declining numbers, with, sadly, a number of older veterans moving to a more peaceful place. The Howard government’s increasing budget contribution is part of the government’s sustained recognition. When the Howard government was first elected, the veterans’ affairs budget was $6.5 billion. It is now $11 billion. We have some challenges in the way we respond to the needs of an ageing veterans community as well the needs of newer veterans that are coming forward from more recent conflicts. There is a demonstration of that in the budget, with additional benefits for the more than 4,000 members of the veterans community, some of which are very direct and very obvious. These include additional support for special rate and intermediate rate pensioners; improvements to the funeral benefit paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act; the very important ex gratia payment to ex-prisoners of war in Europe from World War II; improvements to the time available for war widows to make their claim and then be able to backdate the basis of that claim; and improved health care, medication management and continuum of care when people leave hospitals all the way through to respite care. They are very important initiatives. In the moment that is left to me, I again urge all sides of parliament to focus in a positive and constructive way on the needs of veterans. Earlier tonight, the member for Cowan turned a policy discussion into a personal attack on me. It is very disappointing and it is what we have come to expect when one tries to canvass these very significant and carefully considered issues around the development of policy for our veterans community that responds in a principled way to their existing and future needs and that maintains the foundations of our repatriation system. That, frankly, requires the best of all of us. Care for our veterans and our veterans community is a collaboration led largely by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the federal government, with these resources, in partnership with the health professionals, the ex-service organisations, the men and women who have served our country in the past, their dependants and those who are serving at the present time. It requires the best of all of us. I always aim to bring a positive and generous outlook to our work, but I always anticipate a personal attack. This just seems to be the way things happen when one questions what is put forward as fact when it is not fact, when it is incomplete; when one raises examples of something that is being asserted by whomever to be the truth when there is actually more to the subject than they care to canvass, or when one tries to highlight some shortcomings in policy development. I anticipate that there will be further personal attacks. I anticipate that, sadly, whenever a discussion about policy comes forward and you happen to disagree with somebody, or you identify an area of potential improvement, rather than embracing that input as constructive and helpful—which I aim to do even from most vitriolic critique that runs around the internet from those who spend a lot of their time shopping around toxic emails and the like—there will be personal attacks. I still look for some positive insight or something constructive. It is not always there, but I encourage the Labor Party to think about whether provoking grievance and politicking about every veterans affairs issue is in the best interests of our veterans. I will continue to apply my best efforts and enterprise to extending the decade of support the Howard government has provided for our veterans community. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. 207 21:11:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.11 pm 208 Questions in Writing 208 208 1598 208 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 31 May 2005: In respect of his travel to the UK, United States of America and France in May-June 2004, (a) what was the total cost of travel and accommodation for him and his party, (b) what sum was spent on airline travel (i) in total and (ii) for his personal staff, (c) how many personal staff accompanied him, (d) what class of air travel was used by (i) his personal staff and (ii) departmental staff, (e) what sum was spent on ground transport, (f) what modes of ground transport were used, (g) how many hotel rooms were booked for him and his staff, and (h) what standard of hotel room was booked for (i) him and (ii) staff. 208 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: $460,307.53 (includes cost of RAAF aircraft) $78,273.55 $33,211.80 Nine RAAF VIP Aircraft and commercial business class for advance travellers RAAF VIP Aircraft and commercial business class for advance travellers $53,279.29 Car and coach (and also train for the advance travellers) 10 Suite Standard rooms 208 208 4033 208 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 208 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Nil. Nil. Not applicable. 209 209 4461 209 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of gardening; and indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 209 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: gardening Financial year Amount spent (GST incl) 2000-01   $ 47,058.00 2001-02 $ 49,400.00 2002-03 $ 51,882.00 2003-04 $ 55,000.00 2004-05 $ 95,220.35 2005-06 $111,014.11 indoor plants Financial year Amount spent (GST incl) 2000-01   $182,630.27 2001-02 $208,858.88 2002-03 $213,025.57 2003-04 $230,864.79 2004-05 $239,107.38 2005-06 $242,756.08 209 209 4704 209 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 9 October 2006: How many Department of Immigration and Citizenship officers have been out-posted to work for businesses or business organisations and what is the cost of this arrangement. 209 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has 15 Industry Outreach Officers working with peak industry and association bodies on full-time and part-time placements. They were initially attached to 20 peak bodies and since 1 September 2006, when one body withdrew, are now located in 19 industry bodies. The government has provided $4.9 million over four years to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the Outreach Officer programme. The cost for the Industry Outreach Officer programme in 2005/06 was $1.7 million. 209 209 4733 209 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 October 2006: What are the names and dates of appointment of all persons who have been appointed as Director or Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service since the establishment of the service in 1952. 210 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There have been 10 formally appointed Directors or Directors-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service since its inception in 1952. The current Director-General is Mr David Irvine AO, whose appointment commenced 1 March 2003. Previously, those persons appointed as Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service are as follows: Mr Allan Taylor AM, was appointed 1 March 1998 until 28 February 2003. Mr Rex Stevenson AO, commenced in acting capacity on 25 November 1992 before being appointed to the position 9 December 1992 until 28 February 1998. Brigadier James Furner AO CBE DSM, was appointed 27 February 1984 until 24 November 1992. Mr John Ryan OBE, was appointed 5 October 1981 until 21 December 1983. Mr Ian Kennison CBE, was appointed 8 November 1975 until 10 July 1981. Mr William Robertson CBE MC, commenced in acting capacity from 1 April 1960 until 31 August 1960 and was appointed 3 July 1968 until 7 November 1975. Major General Sir Walter Cawthorn Kt CB CBE, was appointed 1 September 1960 until 2 July 1968. Mr Ralph Harry AC CBE, was appointed 23 August 1957 until 31 March 1960. Mr Alfred Brookes, was appointed 13 May 1952 until 22 August 1957. 210 210 4759 210 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 Ms Hall asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 12 October 2006: Does the Evatt Foundation receive equivalent government funding to that received by the Menzies Foundation; if not, when was the last government funding provided to the Evatt Foundation. 210 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Evatt Foundation received annual funding from the Australian Government for each financial year from 1984-85. In 2000, government funding was transferred to the newly established Chifley Research Centre. The Australian Government subsequently paid annual grants-in-aid of $100,000 each to both the Chifley Research Centre and the Menzies Research Centre. In 2005-06, this amount increased to $175,000 for each grant. 210 210 4962 210 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 6 December 2006: In respect of the $18,491.23 bill incurred by the Commonwealth Government as a consequence of the Governor-General’s stay at The Berkley Hotel in London in June 2006, what was the precise breakdown of the bill, including the costs of accommodation, room service, drinks and meals, laundry and all other services specified in the hotel’s account. 210 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised by the Official Secretary to the Governor-General that the breakdown of the account for the Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery and support staff stay at The Berkley Hotel in London in June 2006 spanning 5 days is as follows: accommodation $15,488.06; meals and drinks $3,003.17. 211 211 4984 211 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 7 December 2006: What is the projected cost of (a) the accreditation and access control project, (b) telecommunications services and (c) interpreting services for APEC 2007 meetings and events. 211 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The contract for the accreditation and access project was gazetted for $14.7m. The budget for telecommunications services is $2.4m. The budget for interpretation services is $500,000. 211 211 4985 211 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 7 December 2006: What was the cost to establish the APEC 2007 website and what is the projected cost of operation of the website to the end of 2007. 211 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The cost to establish the APEC 2007 website, paid to the outsourced web designer was $78,081.00 (inclusive of GST). Costs for the operation of the website from March 2006 to the end of February 2007 to the hosting provider were $26,094.76 (inclusive of GST). At this time it is expected that the only other ongoing costs will be payable to the hosting provider. These costs are variable and are based on usage. 211 211 5144 211 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what was the total cost the Minister’s department of departmental property reported missing. For the financial year 2005-06, what items of property were reported missing and what was the cost of each. 211 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr Turnbull —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department’s response is represented in the table below: Financial Year Cost of missing property 2004/05 $12,400 2005/06 $18,474 The Department’s response is represented in the table below: Missing Item  $ Value Palmtop computer 599 Light Pro 2,100 Camera – Olympus Stylus 448 Headphones (6) 200 Mobile phones (3) 1,077 Laptops (3) 10,900 Memory sticks (7) 1,750 Thumb drives (2) 500 Camping Equipment 900 212 212 5323 212 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: How many people in the federal electorate of Throsby have an outstanding HECS debt and what is the sum of that debt. For the post code area (a) 2502, (b) 2505, (c) 2506, (d) 2526, (e) 2527, (f) 2528, (g) 2529, (h) 2530, what is the breakdown of that outstanding HECS debt by gender. In 2005 and 2006, for the federal electorate of Throsby and for the postcode area (a) 2502, (b) 2505, (c) 2506, (d) 2526, (e) 2527, (f) 2528, (g) 2529, (h) 2530, how many undergraduate students paid (i) up-front HECS fees and (ii) full up-front fees. What is the average HECS debt (a) in total, (b) per male and (c) per female in (i) Australia, (ii) New South Wales, (iii) the postcode area 2502, (iv) the postcode area 2505, (v) the postcode area 2506, (vi) the postcode area 2526, (vii) the postcode area 2527, (viii) the postcode area 2528, (ix) the postcode area 2529 and (x) the postcode area 2530. What is the average age for paying off a HECS debt for (a) males and (b) females in (i) Australia, (ii) New South Wales, (iii) the postcode area 2502, (iv) the postcode area 2505, (v) the postcode area 2506, (vi) the postcode area 2526, (vii) the postcode area 2527, (viii) the postcode area 2528, (ix) the postcode area 2529 and (x) the postcode area 2530. 212 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 1 June 2006, HECS debts became HELP debts. A person’s accumulated HELP debt includes any debts incurred under the former Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), the Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme (PELS), the Open Learning Deferred Payment Scheme (OLDPS) and the Bridging for Overseas Trained Professionals Loan Scheme (BOTPLS) along with any HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP and OS-HELP debts. Where applicable, answers have been provided based on accumulated HELP debts. The data for questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been provided by the Australian Taxation Office and are subject to the following limitations: Data provided is current as at 30 June 2006. Due to a change in reporting requirements, this information only includes reported debts up to 31 December 2005. The data is based on the residential address postcode of each client. If the residential address postcode is blank or invalid, then the postal address postcode is used. ‘Other’ clients include those overseas or where the postal address is invalid or incomplete. Address data is based on the latest information provided to the Tax Office by the taxpayer or their agent and may no longer be current.     2527 2528 2529 2530 Female ($) 2,705,860 3,516,449 2,458,057 5,512,647 Male ($) 1,763,650 2,236,793 1,973,451 3,865,670   Federal Electoral boundaries are not set by postcode. The Department of Education, Science and Training is able to extract data only by postcode area.         The figures provided below represent data as reported to DEST in 2005, the latest year for which final data is available. Commonwealth supported students (previously known as HECS students) paying full up-front by postcode – 2005     2502 2505 2506 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 Student no. 18 7 17 124 75 80 86 109   Data on the total number of domestic undergraduate fee-paying students at approved private higher education providers (private providers) is not available for 2005, as private providers were required to provide data to DEST only on students who took out a FEE-HELP loan. Some private providers submitted data on other fee-paying students and this data only is included in the table below. Domestic undergraduate fee-paying students who paid full upfront fees by post code – 2005   Number of studentsPublic higher education providers (Table A providers) Number of Students Private higher education providers 2502 3 0 2505 3 0 2506 1 1 2526 5 4 2527 11 3 2528 8 0 2529 5 3 2530 9 5 1. Does not include Open Universities Australia students as information on students’ address is not submitted to DEST. 2. Does not include domestic undergraduate students who used FEE-HELP to pay for all of their tuition fees. Average accumulated HELP debt by gender by Australia/New South Wales/post code   Australia NSW 2502 2505 2506 Total average($) 10,478 10,364 10,393 10,013 9,584 Female average ($) 10,000 9,888 10,266 8,771 8,702 Male average($) 11,162 11,026 10,585 11,355 10,841      2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 Total average($) 10,015 9,888 9,190 9,613 10,084 Female average ($) 9,859 9,664 8,971 8,717 9,472 Male average($) 10,244 10,254 9,559 11,025 11,108   Average age of clients when accumulated HELP debt is fully repaid by Australia/New South Wales/post code   Australia New South Wales Male average age 31 30 Female average age 32 31     2502 2505 2506 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 Male average age 31 30 31 31 32 32 31 32 Female average age 32 34 35 31 32 33 32 33 214 214 5342 214 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: Can she confirm that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is an Australian Government statutory authority constituted and operating under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949; if not, why not. Can she confirm that she is the Minister responsible for the CSIRO; if so, can she advise in which circumstances she may investigate, as the Minister responsible, any allegation that ministerial staff members have spoken to managers at the CSIRO regarding what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if not, why not. Can she confirm that it would be inappropriate for ministerial staff to speak to managers and/or scientists from any independent statutory authority including, but not limited to, the CSIRO, regarding what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if not, why not. Further to her response to question No. 4942, will she investigate whether members of her staff, or former staff, have breached or induced CSIRO staff and/or managers to breach (a) policies or (b) public comment protocols by discussing what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if so, what are the full details of this investigation; if not, what are the full reasons why she is unable to investigate this matter as the Minister responsible for the CSIRO. 214 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. In respect to the query about circumstances in which I would investigate allegations of contact between ministerial staff and CSIRO officers over public comments, I do not consider it appropriate to respond to questions of a speculative nature. As previously advised, it is up to CSIRO as a statutory authority to determine and implement its own policies in relation to matters such as public comment. I note that CSIRO has in place a public comment policy that was released in July 2006 following an extensive consultation process. The policy is publicly available and can be accessed at: http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfgk.html. I have previously responded to this question in my answer to question number 4942. 215 215 5343 215 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: Can she confirm that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is an Australian government statutory authority constituted and operating under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949; if not, why not. Can she confirm that she is the Minister responsible for the Department of Education, Science and Training; if not, why not. Can she confirm that she is the Minister responsible for the CSIRO; if so, can she advise in which circumstances she may investigate, as the Minister responsible, any allegation that departmental staff members have spoken to managers at the CSIRO regarding what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if not, why not. Can she confirm that it would be inappropriate for departmental staff to speak to managers or scientists from any independent statutory authority including, but not limited to, the CSIRO, regarding what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if not, why not. Further to her response to question No. 4943, will she investigate whether current or former departmental staff have breached or induced CSIRO staff and/or managers to breach (a) policies or (b) public comment protocols by discussing what scientists can, cannot, should or should not say in the course of their duties; if so, what are the full details of this investigation; if not, what are the full reasons why she is unable to investigate this matter as the Minister responsible for the CSIRO and the Department of Education, Science and Training. 215 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. Yes. In respect to the query about circumstances in which I would investigate allegations of contact between departmental staff and CSIRO officers over public comments, I do not consider it appropriate to respond to questions of a speculative nature. As previously advised, it is up to CSIRO as a statutory authority to determine and implement its own policies in relation to matters such as public comment. I note that CSIRO has in place a public comment policy that was released in July 2006 following an extensive consultation process. The policy is publicly available and can be accessed at: http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfgk.html. I have previously responded to this question in my answer to question number 4943. 215 215 5379 215 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 8 February 2007: In respect of the federal electorate of Throsby, will the Minister provide details of the programs administered by his/her department and relevant agencies under which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding. In respect of each Commonwealth-funded program identified in Part (1), what sum was allocated, in total, to eligible participants in the federal electorate of Throsby in: 2005 and 2006. what is the name and address of each of the funding recipients and what sum was allocated to each of them in: 2005 and 2006. 216 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Programs available to community organisations, business or individuals in the federal electorate of Throsby are as follows: Commercial Ready Program Commercialising Emerging Technologies Program Industry Cooperative Innovation Program Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund R&D Tax Concession, 175% Premium, Tax Offset Renewable Energy Development Initiative Certain Inputs to Manufacture Scheme Enhanced Project By-Laws Scheme Space Projects By-Law Tradex Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Corporatewear Register TCF Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions TCF Post-2005 Strategic Investment Program (SIP) TCF Product Diversification Scheme Ethanol Distribution Program Ethanol Production Grants Program Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business LPG Vehicle Scheme Australian Tourism Development Program Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership Innovation Investment Fund Pre-Seed Fund Renewable Energy Equity Fund Venture Capital Limited Partnerships Program The following programs are under the $747 million ten-year Textile, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Post-2005 Assistance Package are available to community organisations, business and individuals in the Throsby Electorate. The $575 million ten year TCF Post-2005 Strategic Investment Program (SIP) Scheme encourages and supports the TCF design and manufacturing industry to invest and innovate to increase international competitiveness. The $50 million TCF Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) has three parts which provide assistance to retrenched TCF employees, TCF companies who take part in a restructuring initiative, and communities affected by the closure of TCF companies through the Regional Partnerships Program. The $25 million TCF Small Business Program provides grants to TCF small businesses to improve the business enterprise culture that do not qualify for the SIP Scheme. The $50 million Product Diversification Scheme (PDS) assists clothing and finished textile product manufacturers to internationalise their sourcing arrangements and complement their existing product range by providing duty relief for certain articles. The $27 million Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions (EOAP) Scheme facilitates the ongoing development of Australian TCF firms by encouraging the retention of skilled activities in Australia in conjunction with expansion in overseas assembly activities. The Strategic Investment Coordination process is open to both international and domestic businesses. Information about the programs administered by the Department and their aims and objectives is contained in the Portfolio Budget Statements and other publicly available documents including the Department’s websites: www.industry.gov.au, www.ausindustry.gov.au, and www.investaustalia.gov.au. In respect of each Commonwealth-funded programs identified in Part 1. The Department’s ability to release information on assistance to individual customers, or a customer’s detail’s, is governed by the confidentiality and disclosure provisions under each program’s legislation or guidelines, and any provisions in agreements signed by customers to receive the assistance. ,  (b) and (c) The hard copies are available from the House of Representatives Table Office details of assistance provided in 2004-05 and 2005-06 to customers in the Throsby electorate, including names and amounts by financial year, which can be publicly released. Where information on individual customers can not be released, assistance information aggregated for each program is the most detailed information we can provide. Where a program: does not allow the release of details for individual customers, neither the customer’s name nor address has been provided below. does not permit the disclosure of the address from the Department’s records, an address has been obtained from publicly available sources and provided below. allows for a customer’s address to be provided by the Department, the address from the Department’s records has been provided below. Customer Address CNC Teknix Pty Ltd Unit 1/113 Industrial Road Oak Flats NSW 2529 Hydromet Corporation Ltd PO Box 42, Unanderra NSW 2526 Shellharbour City Council 1 Lamerton Crescent Shellharbour NSW 2529 218 218 5436 218 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 14 February 2007: For the financial year 2005-06, how many people, by country of citizenship, from (a) Middle East nations and (b) Pakistan were approved for: temporary visas in the Skill Stream categories visas in the Skilled Independent categories visas in the State-Territory Sponsored categories visas in the Skilled Australian Sponsored categories. 218 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Skill Stream of the Migration Programme contains two non permanent visas. These are normally described as provisional visas as they are a pathway to a subsequent permanent visa. These include: provisional Business Skills visas Skilled Independent Regional (SIR) visas.         Table A is available from the House of representatives Table Office shows the 2005-06 Migration Programme outcome, by country of citizenship, for Middle East nations and Pakistan for the following visa categories: 218 218 5509 218 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms Owens asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 1 March 2007: How many people in the federal electorate of Parramatta have an outstanding HECS debt and what is the sum of that debt. For the post code area (a) 2115, (b) 2116, (c) 2117, (d) 2118, (e) 2142, (f) 2145, (g) 2146, (h) 2147, (i) 2148, (j) 2150, (k) 2151, (l) 2152 and (m) 2153, what is the breakdown of that outstanding HECS debt by gender. In 2005 and 2006, for the federal electorate of Parramatta and for the postcode area (a) 2115, (b) 2116, (c) 2117, (d) 2118, (e) 2142, (f) 2145, (g) 2146, (h) 2147, (i) 2148, (j) 2150, (k) 2151, (l) 2152 and (m) 2153, how many undergraduate students paid (i) up-front HECS fees and (ii) full up-front fees. What is the average HECS debt (a) in total, (b) per male and (c) per female in (i) Australia, (ii) New South Wales, (iii) the postcode area 2115, (iv) the postcode area 2116, (v) the postcode area 2117, (vi) the postcode area 2118, (vii) the postcode area 2142, (viii) the postcode area 2145, (ix) the postcode area 2146, (x) the postcode area 2147, (xi) the postcode area 2148, (xii) the postcode area 2150, (xiii) the postcode area 2151, (xiv) the postcode area 2152, and (xv) the postcode area 2153. What is the average age for paying off a HECS debt for (a) males and (b) females in (i) Australia, (ii) New South Wales, (iii) the postcode area 2115, (iv) the postcode area 2116, (v) the postcode area 2117, (vi) the postcode area 2118, (vii) the postcode area 2142, (viii) the postcode area 2145, (ix) the postcode area 2146, (x) the postcode area 2147, (xi) the postcode area 2148, (xii) the postcode area 2150, (xiii) the postcode area 2151, (xiv) the postcode area 2152, and (xv) the postcode area 2153. 219 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 1 June 2006, HECS debts became HELP debts. A person’s accumulated HELP debt includes any debts incurred under the former Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), the Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme (PELS), the Open Learning Deferred Payment Scheme (OLDPS) and the Bridging for Overseas Trained Professionals Loan Scheme (BOTPLS) along with any HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP and OS-HELP debts. Where applicable, answers have been provided based on accumulated HELP debts. The data for questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 has been provided by the Australian Taxation Office and are subject to the following limitations: Data provided is current as at 30 June 2006 and includes reported debts up to 31 December 2005. The data is based on the residential address postcode of each client. If the residential address postcode is blank or invalid, then the postal address postcode is used. ‘Other’ clients include those overseas or where the postal address is invalid or incomplete. Address data is based on the latest information provided to the Tax Office by the taxpayer or their agent and may no longer be current.     2142 2145 2146 2147 Female ($) 6,194,531 15,467,925 4,070,048 7,321,667 Male ($) 5,965,276 13,017,436 3,301,186 6,158,230     2148 2150 2151 2152 2153 Female ($) 14,353,115 10,426,798 5,538,789 1,912,034 18,888,955 Male ($) 13,068,116 9,839,080 4,479,080 1,261,785 14,739,849   Federal Electoral boundaries are not set by postcode. The Department of Education, Science and Training is able to extract data only by postcode area. The figures provided below represent data as reported to DEST in 2005, the latest year for which final data is available. Commonwealth supported students (previously known as HECS students) paying full up-front by postcode – 2005   2115 2116 2117 2118 2142 2145 2146 Student no. 52 36 176 342 81 397 124     2147 2148 2150 2151 2152 2153 Student no. 222 281 145 170 60 572 Data on the total number of domestic undergraduate fee-paying students at approved private higher education providers (private providers) is not available for 2005, as private providers were required to submit data to DEST only on students who took out a FEE-HELP loan. Some private providers submitted data on other fee-paying students and this data only is included in the table below. Domestic undergraduate fee-paying students who paid full up-front by postcode - 2005   Number of students - public higher education providers (Table A providers) Number of students - private higher education providers 2115 2 4 2116 0 8 2117 18 12 2118 17 5 2142 4 12 2145 36 6 2146 8 12 2147 13 11 2148 9 6 2150 9 11 2151 9 7 2152 6 31 2153 39 125   1. Does not include Open Universities Australia students as information on students’ address is not submitted to DEST. 2. Does not include domestic undergraduate students who used FEE-HELP to pay for all of their tuition fees. Average accumulated HELP debt by gender by Australia/New South Wales/post code   Australia NSW 2115 2116 2117 Total average ($) 10,478 10,364 11,483 11,088 11,457 Female average ($) 10,000 9,888 11,281 9,879 10,524 Male average ($) 11,162 11,026 11,690 12,451 12,496     2118 2142 2145 2146 2147 Total average ($) 11,583 11,280 10,956 10,637 10,810 Female average ($) 10,981 11,101 10,587 10,099 10,327 Male average ($) 12,258 11,472 11,429 11,383 11,447      2148 2150 2151 2152 2153 Total average ($) 10,628 11,178 10,468 9,706 10,218 Female average ($) 10,172 10,839 10,089 9,466 9,900 Male average ($) 11,179 11,562 10,978 10,094 10,658   Average age of clients when accumulated HELP debt is fully repaid by Australia/New South Wales/post code   Australia New South Wales Male average age 31 30 Female average age 32 31     2115 2116 2117 2118 2142 2145 2146 Male average age 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Female average age 30 31 31 32 31 31 31     2147 2148 2150 2151 2152 2153 Male average age 31 31 31 31 31 31 Female average age 31 31 31 31 30 31   221 221 5513 221 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 1 March 2007: Has he read an article titled “Government has no legal duty to help Hicks”, which was published in the Canberra Times on 27 February 2007; if not, why not. Does he agree with Solicitor-General, Mr David Bennett QC, that a general obligation for the Federal Government to protect Australians abroad “is simply something that the law has never recognised”; if so, why; if not, why not. 221 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. It is not appropriate for me to comment on matters that are before the court. 221 221 5549 221 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 21 March 2007: Does the Government consider it appropriate to provide funding to schools for the installation of flagpoles to fly the Aboriginal flag; if not, why not. 221 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The purpose of the Flagpole Funding Initiative (FFI) is to assist schools in fulfilling the Australian Government’s requirement for schools to have a functioning flagpole and fly the Australian flag. This has been a condition of Australian Government schools funding since 1 January 2005. The Government provides up to $1,500, through the Flagpole Funding Initiative (FFI), to assist with the purchase and installation of one flagpole per school where currently there is no functioning flagpole. Programme guidelines limit eligibility for funding under this initiative to schools that do not have a functioning flagpole capable of flying the Australian flag and to one flagpole only. Yardarm-style flagpoles which allow up to three flags to be flown simultaneously may be purchased using FFI funding up to the maximum of $1,500. Many schools have taken up this option which enables them to fly the Aboriginal or another Indigenous flag in addition to the Australian flag. 222 222 5618 222 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 28 March 2007: Further to his response to question No. 3183 (Hansard, 11 May 2006, page 176) concerning the $250 million AusLink Strategic Regional Program: (a) in respect of the projects funded by the $93.185 million announced for the period June to October 2004, when was each project (i) commenced and (ii) completed; and (b) in respect of projects that received funding under the $127 million competitive-based process, (i) which projects were funded; (ii) when was the funding for each project announced and when was each project (iii) commenced and (iv) completed. 222 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (ii) AusLink Strategic Regional Programme – 2004 Funding Round Project Commenced Completed NSW Princes Highway black spots (1) November 2005 - Pambula River Bridge September 2006 - Batemans Bay Bypass April 2007 - Warnervale link road Planning underway - Camden Valley Way traffic signals May 2006 November 2006 Bondi Beach infrastructure Planning complete - Lakes Way January 2007 - Main Road 301 Planning complete - Main Road 301 and 101 July 2006 - Vic Great Alpine Road Planning complete - Metung Boardwalk November 2005 November 2006 Yan Yean traffic signals August 2005 October 2005 Bryn Mawr Bridge April 2006 - Qld Tablelands Road Planning complete - River Heads Road July 2006 February 2007 Bribie Island Road (2) Russett Park Causeway September 2005 May 2006 WA Outback Highway July 2006 - Tas Bass Highway - Sisters Hills February 2006 - Bridport Road September 2006 - Tasman Highway - Nunamara-Targa Planning complete Port Sorell Road December 2005 June 2006 (1) Construction commenced in November 2005 on the Jervis Bay Road intersection and was completed in late December 2005. The Jervis Bay Road intersection project is one of four component projects of the Princes Highway Blackspot package. The remaining 3 projects are not yet complete. (2) The Bribie Island Road project has been overtaken by a major upgrade to the entire road. (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) AusLink Strategic Regional Programme – Successful Projects – 2006 Funding Round Council Project Date Announced Commenced (2) Completed NSW (Kiama) The Council of the Municipality of Kiama Princess Hwy, Conjola Mountain Deviation 13/12/2006 - - Lithgow City Council Wolgan Road Upgrade 13/12/2006 - - Midwest Regional Council Bylong Valley Way sealing 13/12/2006 March 2007 - Parkes Regional Council Parkes Multimodal Transport Hub – Higher Mass Limit vehicle access road 13/12/2006 Planning underway - Tumut Shire Council MR278 SH4 to Bombowlee Creek Road 13/12/2006 - - Upper Lachlan Shire Council MR248 West reconstruction and seal 13/12/2006 - - (Wakool) The Council of the Shire of Wakool Jimaringle Road construction 13/12/2006 - - Walgett Shire Council Collarenebri to Mungindi Road 13/12/2006 - - Clarence Valley Council MR 150 Baryulgil Creek Bridge replacement 15/12/2006  - - Clarence Valley Council MR 150 Flagstone Creek Bridge replacement 15/12/2006 - - Coffs Harbour City Council Coldwater Creek Bridge replacement 15/12/2006 - - Cooma - Monaro Shire Council Springfield Road reconstruction 5/12/2006 - - Corowa Shire Council Hume Bridge replacement 15/12/2006 - - Gundagai Shire Council Nangus Road Long Tunnel Creek Bridge replacement 15/12/2006 Planning underway - Hawkesbury City Council St Albans Road sealing (1) see below - - Kempsey Shire Council Maria River Road Link 15/12/2006 - - Oberon Council Shooters Hill Forestry Transport Routes 15/12/2006 - - Tenterfield Shire Council Gumdale West reconstruction 15/12/2006 - - Tenterfield Shire Council Browns Dip realignment 15/12/2006 - - Tenterfield Shire Council Beaury Creek reconstruction 21/12/2006 - - Urana Shire Council Federation Way Road widening 15/12/2006 - - Wyong Shire Council The Ridgeway upgrade 15/12/2006 Planning underway - Warrumbungle Shire Council Remove height restrictions on rail over road bridge on the Coonabarabran - Coonamble road 15/12/2006 - - Wingecarribee Shire Council MR372 Intersection realignment 15/12/2006 - - Young Shire Council Mines Road construction / sealing 15/12/2006 - -     VIC     Alpine Shire Council Bogong High Plains Road sealing 30/11/2006 Hume City Council Arundel and Annandale Roads 22/11/2006 Planning underway - Pyrenees Shire Council Eurambeen Streatham Road 18/12/2006 Planning underway - Wellington Shire Council Bridges Across Gippsland 30/11/2006 - - Bass Coast Shire Council Nyora - St Heiler Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Baw Baw Shire Council Grand Ridge Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Cardinia Shire Council Gembrook Tonimbuk Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Frankston City Council Frankston Bypass Environmental Management Plan 15/12/2006 - - Glenelg Shire Council Chaffeys Lane 21/12/2006 - - Greater Bendigo City Council Allies Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Hindmarsh Shire Council Albacutya Road Bridge improvements 15/12/2006 - - Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Sorrento Ferry Terminal Roundabout 15/12/2006 - - West Wimmera Shire Council Chappel Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Yarra Ranges Shire Council Bayview Road Belgrave Roundabout 15/12/2006 - - Yarra Ranges Shire Council Wray Crescent Mt Evelyn duplication and traffic signals 15/12/2006 - - Yarriambiack Shire Council Fensomes Road construction 15/12/2006 March 2007 -   QLD Aramac Shire Council Starlight Way (Aramac to Torrens Creek Road) 13/12/2006 - - Cloncurry Shire Council Duchess - Phosphate Hill Road pavement 13/12/2006 - - Cook Shire Council Northern Peninsula Road access improvement 13/12/2006 - - Gold Coast City Council Stanmore Road improvements 13/12/2006 - - Ipswich City Council Cunningham Hwy - Swanbank Enterprise Park Link 13/12/2006 - - Mackay Shire Council Connor Road upgrading to serve Paget Industrial Area 13/12/2006 - - Maroochy Shire Council Sippy Downs Drive 13/12/2006 - - Booringa Shire Council Muckadilla Ashmount Road Redevelopment 15/12/2006 April 2007 - Cambooya Shire Council Greenmount Etonvale 15/12/2006 - - Diamantina Shire Council Cluny Sandhills 15/12/2006 - - Eidsvold Shire Council Eidsvold Theodore Road pave and seal Stage 2 15/12/2006 - - Isis Shire Council Bundaberg District Cane Deregulation Roads Program 15/12/2006 - - Laidley Shire Council Replacement of McGraths Bridge 15/12/2006 - - Lockhart River Aboriginal Council Lockhart River Access Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Maryborough City Council Woodstock/Lennox Streets Traffic Lights 15/12/2006 - - Maryborough City Council Pavement rehabilitation Tuan Forest Road 15/12/2006 - - Mirani Shire Council Dalrymple Road 15/12/2006 - - Mirani Shire Council Devereux Creek Road widening 15/12/2006 - - Monto Shire Council Upgrading of Monto - Kalpow Section of Gladstone Monto Road 22/01/2007 - - Pormpuraaw Community Council Pormpuraaw Kowanyama Southern Access Road (1) see below - - Rosalie Shire Council Old Goombungee Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - St Pauls Community Council St Pauls Community Barge Access Road 15/12/2006 - - Yarrabah Aboriginal Community Council Yarrabah Range Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - -     WA   (Armadale) City of Armadale Ranford Road construction 13/12/2006 Planning underway - Kalamunda Shire Council Abernethy Road dualing 13/12/2006 Planning underway - (Swan) City of Swan Lloyd Street extension 13/12/2006 - - Toodyay Shire Council Stirling Terrace upgrade 13/12/2006 Planning underway - Busselton Shire Council Tuart Drive Tourist Way upgrade 15/12/2006 Planning underway - (Chapman Valley) Shire of Chapman Valley Yuna Tenindewa Road upgrade 15/12/2006 Planning underway - Greenough Shire Council Midwest Regional Livestock Export/ Remote Access Facility 15/12/2006 March 2007 - Narrogin Shire Council Wanerie Road upgrade 15/12/2006 Planning underway - SA Alexandrina Council Nangakita Road Stage 3 construction and junctions 13/12/2006 February 2007 - (Grant) District Council of Grant Mount Gambier Bypass 13/12/2006 - - (Kimba) District Council of Kimba Kimba - Buckleboo sealing 13/12/2006 Planning underway - Wakefield Regional Council Bowmans Intermodal expansion 13/12/2006 - - Barrossa Council Moppa Road South extension 15/12/2006 March 2007 - (Karoonda) District Council of Karoonda East Murray Mindarie Railway Siding 15/12/2006 - - South Australian Government Road Condition Signs automation 15/12/2006 - - (Streaky Bay) District Council of Streaky Bay Streaky Bay to Point Labatt Road 15/12/2006 Planning underway - TAS     Huon Valley Council Esperance Coast Road upgrade 13/11/2006 Planning underway - Burnie City Council South Riana Log Route upgrade 15/12/2006 - - Central Coast Council Spellmans Road - Cradle Country 15/12/2006 - - Southern Midlands Council White Kangaroo Road construct and seal 15/12/2006 February 2007 -     NT     Northern Territory Government Port Keats Road upgrade 13/12/2006 - - Katherine Town Council Florina Road upgrade 15/12/2006 - - (1) Announced just prior to Christmas 2006, no media release available. (2) Commencement information is provided for projects approved by the Australian Government Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. All commencement dates refer to commencement of construction. Otherwise, a planning status is provided. In all other cases contracts relating to the successful projects announced in the 2006 Funding Round of the Programme are currently being finalised. 225 225 5622 225 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 28 March 2007: Has the Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Mike Rann, in his capacity as Chair of the Council for the Australian Federation, which represents the premiers and chief ministers, written to him about his concern at the Commonwealth Government’s ability to determine proposed developments at 22 privatised airports, including the Macquarie Bank-backed Sydney Airport; if so, what was his response to Mr Rann’s letter. Did the Southern Cross Consortium make it clear to the Howard Government that, when it paid $5.6 billion for the 99-year lease of Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, it would expect that it could develop Sydney Airport into a massive complex of shops and car-parks in order to recoup its very large investment. Why is the Government allowing the Macquarie Bank-backed Southern Cross Consortium to turn Sydney airport into a massive shopping centre and car-park and how is this in the public interest. 226 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Premier of South Australia, the Hon Mike Rann MP, wrote to me on 5 March 2007, in his capacity as Chair of the Council for the Australian Federation about master planning issues at major airports. In my response I indicated that the Commonwealth considers the most effective planning regime for airport developments involves one planning jurisdiction, and that the Commonwealth is committed to consultation to ensure a meaningful exchange between airport operators and all relevant stakeholders. I am advised that the Southern Cross Consortium acquired the lease of Sydney airport in June 2003. The Airports Act 1996 establishes the planning regime that applies to federally leased airports. This allows some non-aeronautical development to take place but this is balanced against the aeronautical developments required for the continuing operation of the site as an airport. I am advised that as indicated in the Sydney Airport’s Master Plan, the greater portion of airport land is quarantined for aeronautical use. 226 226 5672 226 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 8 May 2007: How many Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) aged care packages are available in (a) South Australia and (b) the federal electorate of Hindmarsh. Who is currently in receipt of an EACH aged care package in the federal electorate of Hindmarsh. What are the eligibility criteria for the EACH aged care package. 226 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 Mr Pyne —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 31 December 2006, South Australia had a total of 286 allocated Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) packages, of which 281 are currently operational. The remaining five EACH packages allocated in the 2006 Aged Care Approvals Round are scheduled to become operational on 4 June 2007. As at 30 June 2006 (most current data available at the electorate level), there were a total of four EACH services located in the electorate of Hindmarsh operating 40 EACH packages. In accordance with Part 6.2 – Protection of information of the Aged Care Act 1997, I am unable to provide details of care recipients in receipt of EACH packages. Under Section 21-4 of the Aged Care Act 1997, a person is eligible to receive flexible care if: the person has physical, social and psychological needs that require the provision of care; those needs can be met appropriately through flexible care services; and the person meets the criteria (if any) specified in the Approval of Care Recipients Principles as the criteria that a person must meet in order to be eligible to be approved as a recipient of flexible care. Under Section 5.7 of the Approval of Care Recipients Principles 1997, a person is eligible to receive flexible care in the form of extended aged care at home only if the person: is assessed under section 22-4 of the Act as requiring a high level of residential care; prefers to receive extended aged care at home; and is able to live at home with the support of extended aged care at home. 227 227 5707 227 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 May 2007: Is he aware that after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Vietnam in November 2006, and despite Vietnam’s World Trade Organisation accession, the Vietnamese Government began a crackdown on dissidents connected with the democracy movement known as Block 8406; if so, what measures has he taken to discuss this matter with the Vietnamese Government. Is he aware that the Vietnamese Government (a) ransacked the rectory of a Catholic priest, Nguyen Van Ly, a founder of the Block 8406 and relocated him to a remote parish and if so, can he say whether Nguyen Van Ly is among five others awaiting trial for involvement in alleged dissident activities; and (b) arrested Le Quoc Quan on his return from the US, where he had been participating in a citizen exchange program and completing a fellowship in democracy; if so, what steps has he taken to raise these issues with the Vietnamese Government. 227 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The Australian Government is aware of these cases. We make regular representations to Vietnam on human rights issues. 227 227 5708 227 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 May 2007: Is he aware that (a) a human rights group has sued Internet giant Yahoo Incorporated in the District Court of San Francisco for abetting the torture of pro-democracy writers by releasing data that allowed the Chinese Government to identify them, (b) that the suit filed states that Yahoo was complicit in the arrests of many Chinese Internet pro-democracy activists, including pro-democracy activist Wang Xiaoning, and (c) a plaintiff in the Yahoo suit, Wang Xiaoning, had begun serving a ten-year sentence on charges that he incited subversion with online treatises criticizing the Chinese Government; if so, has he made any attempt to discuss this matter with representatives of (i) the Chinese Government and/or (ii) Yahoo and other internet search engines operating in Australia; if not, why not. 227 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. I am aware that the lawsuit alleges that Yahoo was complicit in the arrests of various Chinese internet activists. Yes. The Australian government made representations to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing on 7 June 2006, expressing our concern that the prison sentence given to Wang Xiaoning was disproportionate, and about reports that he had suffered mistreatment in prison. Mr Wang’s case was also raised during the last round of the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, which was held in Canberra on 25 July 2006. The Australian government has not raised the issue with Yahoo or other internet search engines operating in Australia. The Australian government does not regulate the behaviour of foreign, private corporations operating in third countries.