2008-03-17 42 1 1 REPS 0 0 2008-03-17 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 1835 Bills R2906 1835 Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 1835 12:01:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —As has been stated and restated in recent days, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 is a turning point in the history of industrial relations in Australia because it spells the end of Australian workplace agreements, which were first implemented in 1996. It is true that the federal coalition has championed statutory individual contracts for many years and has fought critics of the system. However, the election on 24 November 2007 delivered a convincing win to the Australian Labor Party as a result of the policies the ALP took to the people of Australia and the people of Gilmore. While there is continuing debate on the reasons for the ALP victory, there is no doubt that the debate on Work Choices and AWAs was highly public and a driving factor in many a person’s decision on election day. That being the case, the coalition is not going to stand in the way of the government’s industrial relations policy and its commitment to the Australian people with regard to Work Choices and Australian workplace agreements. However, I strongly suspect that the coalition would have been criticised for whatever stance we took on the issues. The coalition is seeking one change to the bill, and I strongly urge the government to adopt the amendment. The coalition believes the Australian government should extend its temporary employment contracts, its individual transitional employment agreements, from two years to five years. This will allow greater certainty for employers and employees. The amendment the opposition proposed will not obstruct this bill but it will provide greater flexibility. The coalition will now focus on developing new policies to encourage individual employment arrangements using the framework of common law contracts. That said, the key to this entire debate lies in the bill’s subheading, ‘Transition to Forward with Fairness’. The 10-year National Employment Standards profess to provide a simple, fair, flexible safety net for all employees, and that is a commitment to which the alternative government will hold the Prime Minister and his government accountable. Twenty-twenty hindsight is a luxury not afforded to new policy. We are not in a position to gauge the true impact of the new legislation; we can only hope it delivers what the government has said it will. It goes without saying that we need to be wary in these troubling international economic times. Already in some circles the 1970s term ‘stagflation’ has been resurrected and is being bandied about. The government has been elected to make laws for the benefit of the nation, not just for a select few. As a former small business owner and now parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for tourism, my concern obviously turns to the business community, particularly the hospitality and service sector. The Australian Financial Review wrote on Friday, 15 February 2008 that employers were warning of a massive increase in costs and more restrictive work arrangements. Business groups also warned that the new industrial era being introduced will place more and more impositions on business activity and impact on the bottom line. There is no doubt that the less-structured approach to industrial relations from the reforms up to 2005 have brought us benefits. These concerns must be taken on board by the government as it moves forward with its changes. We left the Labor government a legacy of strong economic and employment conditions, a point acknowledged on both sides of this House. We left the new Labor government no debt and a massive surplus. We left this Labor government and its state colleagues a lot of economic wriggle room. The management of our industrial relations system is no easy task—and the Rudd Labor government now has its hands on the controls. This bill is the government’s first major foray into the arena, and its impact will be monitored not only by the coalition but by the people of Australia—the working families and the business owners. As a backbencher my primary concern is towards my constituency and the impact this will have on one of the major industries in Gilmore—tourism, a major employer of young people. The new government’s policies are gradually unfolding and need to be monitored so as to avoid any deterrent to employment and potential to contribute to an increase in unemployment. The new government has before it the challenge of meeting the economic and industrial relations changes of a rapidly changing world. Our local tourism industry is at the cutting edge of that changing world and among the first to feel the impact of change to industrial relations legislation. I talked to a number of small business owners in my electorate recently, asking how things were going. Without exception they expressed deep concern about where things were heading. They were concerned about how rough things have been in New South Wales for a very long time and that it did not seem like they were getting any better. In regional and rural areas trade has been down. These people trade on weekends and public holidays. That is when tourists visit and it is their best opportunity for making a living. They told me that many cannot afford to open because of the high cost of staff and that they are wary of a union driven wages break-out. One cafe owner said it cost him about $40 an hour for a senior shop assistant on New Year’s Day. That is a lot of lattes that he has to turn out every hour just to break even. But he says he needs to do that just to make sure his business has continuity. He has to cop any losses from that. He has a choice: he can do that or he can shut up shop. If he shuts, staff have no jobs and the tourists have no service. My point is that, in the face of a possible world recession, with the events unfolding in America this year, more interest rate rises on the way and further deterioration of consumer confidence, sound management of our industrial relations system is more crucial than ever—and now the new Labor government has the helm. Although the question of the reintroduction of unfair dismissal provisions has not yet been raised, it would appear likely. The prudent approach should be to explore the consequences of any such step. Again, this is a case of the government being given the reins of control. We as the alternative government have the responsibility of making sure that due diligence is followed in the formation and delivery of the government’s industrial relations policy agenda. When business operators, the people who provide and create jobs, are telling us to take it steady, we should listen. Of primary concern for me and the people of Gilmore is the creation of jobs and the maintenance of employment. Job creation or job preservation strategies are critical elements of any government’s industrial relations legislation. We need to avoid pressure mounting on the domestic tourism industry. Added pressure will come if this government does not control inflation. It is all very well blaming the former government but, sooner or later, the government have to accept responsibility and act on the fact that they were voted in because Rudd said they would do a better job. If the unemployment rate starts going up then it is a clear sign they have failed. This failure will be accentuated if the government fail to reduce the unemployment rate in Gilmore. My concern is to protect and to build on the jobs we have, and the people of Gilmore would expect no less of me. We need to address the issue of job prospects in the Gilmore electorate and particularly in domestic tourism. Gilmore has the reputation of having one of the highest unemployment rates in Australia. During the last campaign Labor promised to make it a priority to address the chronic unemployment issue in Gilmore by addressing the infrastructure bottlenecks and the skill shortage crisis. In fact, I have purposely kept a record of the words used by my Labor opponent during the campaign with regard to this issue and many others. I might remind Labor that the unemployment rate in Gilmore under the previous stewardship was as high as 17 per cent and was brought down to 7.8 per cent as of September 2007. Labor now has to bring that figure down significantly if its promise is to have any meaning at all. Labor needs to make some serious investment in the Gilmore electorate and one of the first places to start would be the local tourism industry, which is the major cornerstone of the economies of Kiama, the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla. I have no qualms about working with the government to achieve this and have already taken steps, through approaches to ministers, to put some rubber on the road. I strongly encourage Minister Albanese to place the Princes Highway at the top of Infrastructure Australia’s priority list. A commitment to the improvement of our main transport artery would be a positive early sign that the government is determined to do as it promised and govern for all Australians. As far as I am concerned, we cannot afford to be caught up in arguments over ideology. Industrial relations management is too important. Sound management of an incredibly complex system is what, in the end, puts bread on our tables and clothes on our children’s backs. Businesses in my electorate are very concerned at what could be coming over the economic horizon, as are mortgage holders, mums and dads, builders, casuals and young people about to leave school and their parents. These concerns will not be easily allayed, but a steady approach to industrial relations management will go a long way towards doing just that. Again, Work Choices is no longer coalition policy and the coalition will not block the abolition of AWAs as this bill passes through the House. However, over coming months and years the government should be aware that it is on notice that the people of Australia and Gilmore are dependent on it to deliver on its election 2007 commitments. Policy that reduces flexibility and returns modern workplaces to the mandatory collective agreement dominated days of the past will be rejected and stunts and posturing will also be rejected. The people of Australia, particularly the people of Gilmore, stand by the coalition when it says that Labor has the controls but it does not have a mandate to destroy jobs and damage the economy. Our people want to work and we need the jobs for that to happen. It does not help when the government axes programs like the local liaison officer program that was of great assistance to local members in their efforts to assist, for example, job seekers. The new Labor government also needs to closely investigate the impact of abandoning programs like Sustainable Regions. The coalition had committed $15 million under the Sustainable Regions Program to encourage business initiatives and job creation on the New South Wales South coast. While I appreciate the new government is in a stage of review and renewal, I strongly urge it to look at the need for such a commitment in Gilmore. A similar commitment by the Rudd Labor government to the people of Gilmore would be a clear indication that the government is determined to deliver on its commitment to govern for all Australians. 1838 12:11:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —Today on St Patrick’s Day, wearing my green tie, I am proud to speak in favour of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 and join the Rudd government’s support for Australian working families. I think St Patrick is credited with getting rid of snakes in Ireland, so it is a good omen for this piece of legislation. Australians have spoken loudly and clearly—they do not want the coalition’s unfair Work Choices laws. This bill honours the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to return fairness to Australian workplaces and the incredible efforts of the hundreds and thousands of Your Rights at Work activists and union members who dug into their pockets and did the hard yards on work sites and street corners all over Australia in the lead-up to last November’s election. This Rudd government bill will also ensure that we never again return to a system where Australians are forced to trade away their entitlements. We will not be leaving a legacy of poorer working conditions for our children, which, unfortunately, was the case under the Work Choices legislation where, for the first time in the history of the Australian Federation or white settlement, we would have been leaving our children with a poorer set of working conditions in the workplace. Since Australian workplace agreements were forced upon working Australians we have heard countless examples of how pay and conditions have been stripped away. I have certainly heard it throughout my electorate of Moreton. This new bill means no new AWAs for working Australians, no more ‘my way or the highway’ workplace negotiations. Now we are returning to the long cherished Australian tradition of employees and employers sitting down at the table like civilised human beings and discussing what is best for the long-term interests of the business. This is music to my ears and to those of people on this side of the House. It is music to the ears of the millions of mums and dads—the millions of working Australians—who have been let down by AWAs. Also, it is a huge relief to the many seniors and pensioners who were horrified at what the Howard and Costello government foisted on the country of the fair go. The country that they had worked so hard to create was being chipped away by the Howard-Costello legislation. This bill puts in place sensible and fair transitional arrangements to allow those employers and employees who have been using AWAs to prepare for the full implementation of the Rudd government’s new system in January 2010. During the transition period, employers using AWAs as at 1 December 2007 can offer individual transitional employment agreements to new employees and employees already on AWAs. This bill also addresses John Howard’s failed fairness test. Never before in the history of literature have we in this parliament come so close to Orwellian language. George Orwell would be spinning in his grave, in a little country graveyard in England, over that so-called fairness test. This John Howard-Joe Hockey ‘unfairness test’ failed to protect working Australians. It failed to protect all award conditions. We have heard in parliament, from the Deputy Prime Minister, tale after tale of lost entitlements. In fact, when data was collected it showed that 100 per cent of AWAs ripped off workers’ entitlements and that they failed to adequately compensate employees for the loss of so-called protected award conditions. Quite frankly, the Howard government’s fairness test wasn’t worth two bob. It almost brings a tear to my eye when I think of all the money that was wasted on the ads that I saw promoting this so-called fairness test. This bill will ensure that all agreements approved by the Workplace Authority pass a true no-disadvantage test against the full applicable award or the full applicable collective agreement in the workplace, if there is one. The opposition would have us believe that unions are irrelevant and no longer have a role to play in Australian workplaces. Well, I think the election in November last year showed that this could not be further from the truth. Unions have played a vital role when it comes to ensuring proper standards of occupational health and safety, and they will continue to do so for many years to come. We all expect that when we go to work, be that in a service industry or a mine or a school, we will be safe. As well, we expect that when our children go to work they will be safe and come home. We have unions to thank for many of the workplace health and safety conditions around the country. I think of my younger brother’s experience on a building site. Unfortunately, two people were killed in a workplace accident right next to him. Changes have been made since then because of union involvement in response to that accident. Our trade union members and leaders across the country are working to ensure that basic working conditions, like overtime and penalty rates and the ability to make a few dollars if one has to work in a coffee shop on New Year’s Day, are being properly protected. I said at a forum at Yeronga State High School, in my electorate, way back in early 2005 that I thought the union movement’s response to the Work Choices legislation would be the union movement’s finest hour—and it certainly was. It certainly showed that when people have worked out how they are going to be treated unfairly it will move them off their couches and onto street corners to do great things. I contrast that with the agenda of the former member for Bennelong—and it is great to see the current member for Bennelong here. What happened reminds me of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. That novel was set in the Depression, a time when there was a race to the bottom as to what workers would tolerate. If someone was prepared to work for 15c an hour, an employer would say, ‘Well, there’s someone here prepared to work for 14c an hour.’ That would then lower the rate. That race to the bottom is not the way of the Rudd government. We are finetuning the economy. We have a plan for the future. We disagree with what is being suggested by the opposition in terms of what was handed on to us. We had 16-year-high inflation rates. We had 10 interest rate rises in a row. We had a productivity rate of zero handed over to us, Commonwealth spending at record levels, at up to nearly 4½ per cent, and 5½ years of monthly trade deficits—22 shameful quarters in a row of trade deficits. That is the economy that was handed on to us. This bill offers a fair and balanced approach to workplace relations, one which ensures that employees are getting proper protection, when it comes to their basic working conditions, and offers more than enough flexibility for business. I commend the bill to the House. 1839 12:19:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, with regard to my electorate of Forrest, in the south-west of Western Australia. My electorate has a full range of industry, from small business to retail, contracting and those in the very large mining and resources sector. I have found that the majority of people have not been fazed by the introduction of Work Choices and are well aware that AWAs are nothing new as they have been available since 1996. It is plain that federal Labor are using the Work Choices legislation as the excuse to roll back and then to end AWAs and individual contracts. However, they are keeping them under the new name of individual employment transitional agreements, or IETAs, but only until December 2009, when a no disadvantage test will apply. As AWAs were subject to a fairness test anyway, this really means that federal Labor intend to keep individual contracts but to promote union collective agreements over individual contacts. In my electorate we have the Bunbury Chamber of Commerce. This particular group has over 800 small business members, with 80 per cent employing fewer than four employees. Work Choices gave these particular businesses significant confidence to expand and employ more staff. I also have larger mining and resources companies in my electorate. Wespine, for example, has 80 per cent of its workforce on AWAs. This has been the case for a long time. It believes that if these contracts cannot be renewed federal Labor will make it more difficult for the company as it has been able to incorporate flexibility into the contracts to cater for the needs of individual employees. I have another major firm in my electorate, a contract cartage and heavy haulage business, whose workers have the opportunity for a wide variety of agreements—and it is that flexibility that makes the difference for both the employer and the employees in that particular business. Another company, Piacentini & Son, an earthmoving and mining contracting company in Picton, in the south-west, has been able to operate very successfully with AWAs not only in Western Australia but also in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. AWAs have been very good for both this company and its employees because they have offered flexibility to workers and have streamlined the rules and pay for similar activities. With AWAs the employer could deal directly with individuals and discuss the issues that were relevant. Different levels of pay were available for different levels of activity. The company reported to me that it needs to retain this flexibility in its workforce to remain competitive in tendering for contracts right across Australia. AWAs benefited both employers and employees because they provided an alternative to a discussion platform. It was akin to having competition in the workforce as opposed to having only a union to negotiate with. The power was not confined to just one group, and it gave people the capacity to negotiate. The Minister  for Employment and Workplace Relations has said her government must talk with employers, employees and those who will play a role in our new workplace relations system. There are a number of employers and employees in my region. I seriously hope that the minister consults with them in this process, because they are working very well with AWAs, probably because they are on non-union sites. I would strongly encourage federal Labor to get in contact with the various groups and businesses in my electorate. We need certainty, and these businesses are already contacting me looking for certainty and looking for what the rules will be going forward. An expanding business needs increased productivity, and employers and employees are happy when they work together. I am a small business person myself, and the one thing that I hear from other small business people is how much they value very good workers. We hear about workers being dismissed. In this House the employers whom I meet value their very good employees because they are part of the productivity and the future of their businesses. Employers cannot do their jobs without good employees and they value those employees. In fact, with our unemployment rates as they are in Western Australia, the good employees certainly are able to negotiate very good outcomes for themselves. My colleagues who have spoken previously to this bill have also confirmed the coalition’s position that Work Choices is no longer coalition policy and the coalition will not oppose the transition of this bill in the House. In my electorate of Forrest the mining sector is a very high earner, followed by forestry and agriculture—including horticulture and viticulture—and tourism. All of these businesses require flexibility in the workforce. Another issue is the fact that small business is also often the engine room of many small towns and communities in general. I was the president of a football club in my small community, and the support for that football club came from small businesses. Their economic position came from flexibility in the workforce and the capacity to negotiate with their employees. Small business has the capacity to be significantly impacted by major changes. A number of those businesses have contacted my office in relation to this issue. Small business is a critical part of our economic and social fabric in regional towns and centres right across Australia, but particularly in my electorate of Forrest. The majority of these small businesses are family owned and run. Small business is a major employer nationally and is effectively the cornerstone of our society. The one thing that is often overlooked is the fact that small business is actually a critical player in strengthening competition in the marketplace. My electorate is one that has a vast range of tourism opportunities, but its workforce needs to be a flexible workforce. The same is true of the agricultural sector, particularly in dairy farming, where there is a real need for flexibility in the workforce. I have also looked at what has happened in relation to infrastructure. We have some very clear infrastructure needs throughout my electorate. I hope that the Labor government strongly supports their election commitments, particularly in relation to the infrastructure projects and the Bunbury outer ring road. Again, a raft of these initiatives will be based on the capacity to engage a flexible workforce. I am concerned that recent job advertisement figures show the total number of jobs that are being advertised is actually falling. The three latest surveys indicate that business confidence is eroding and, as a result, there is a real and genuine possibility that unemployment may rise. Last month’s Sensis business index showed support for the new government dropped by 30 percentage points. This was followed by the Olivier job index, which recorded a drop in job advertisements for the first time in three years. Business, and in particular small businesses, is facing an uncertain future under changes to unfair dismissal laws. The Labor government wants to abolish AWAs but not enable negotiations beyond these in a way that is effective for both employers and employees. No new employees can go onto ITEAs; there will be no new agreements beyond December 2009. Only 700,000 workers—that is, eight per cent of workers in Australia—are on individual contracts, mostly in the mining sector, but they are a significant check and balance for businesses. They are a check and balance; I repeat that. We need flexibility of individual contracts as well as collective agreements. We need flexibility in the labour market for productivity gains. Individual common-law contracts are needed for contracts where employees earn over $100,000. I believe all employees should have the right to negotiate their own conditions, whether they earn above or below this level, but this sends the wrong message and separates these workers into an elite class. I maintain that we need to retain flexibility in the labour market. The amendment bill seeks to lengthen the life of ITEAs to five years. I support the amendment bill and commend it to the House. 1842 12:29:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise with a lot of pride to speak in relation to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. If there has been a bill in the last 50 years that has been more important to redressing the imbalance in workplaces in Australia then I am yet to see it. This is a bill that is supported by the vast majority of Australians, one that on 24 November galvanised Australians all around workplaces to vote for the Labor Party to see the end of these rotten laws. It was with some amusement that I noted the member for Gilmore’s comment chastising Labor, saying that we cannot afford to be caught up in ideology. Dear me, if there were any piece of legislation in the last 50 years more caught up in blind ideology than the Work Choices legislation then I would be astounded. The Work Choices legislation was inherently unfair; it inherently played on the imbalance between an individual worker at a workplace and the powers that a corporation can bring to the bargaining table. How could anyone argue that an AWA could not take advantage of that inherent imbalance of power? The statistics in relation to AWAs speak for themselves. Between April and October 2006, 89 per cent of the 1,700 AWAs that were lodged excluded one or more protected items. That means literally almost nine out of 10 agreements that were lodged took away what were meant to be protected items. Quite clearly, the argument that individuals can be in some sense empowered to be on an equal standing when they bargain with their employer is an absolute nonsense. Before I came to this place, I represented workers in the health industry. I was constantly asked by ambulance officers, radiographers, pharmacists, nurses and aged-care workers: ‘how is it fair that a government can bring in laws that strip away our conditions?’ How is the economy improved by an ambulance officer losing his penalty rates or by a nurse losing her shift allowance? These were questions that were asked of me constantly and ones to which I could only say: the laws are unfair and need to change. Another terrible effect of the Work Choices laws was the insecurity of hours that workers suddenly found themselves with. People were not able to plan when they were going to be at work. People had their whole shift patterns eroded. These sorts of things put great strains on family life and on community life and made it difficult for people who want to volunteer for a range of community activities. The death of Work Choices means that these opportunities are there again. Looking at the aged-care industry, where over 80 per cent of employees are either part time or casual, where over 80 per cent of employees are female and where workers earn less, on average, than you would working in McDonald’s or KFC, what is the effect on the quality of care for the elderly when the few conditions that workers have are eroded and their working patterns are disrupted? Back in 1962 in New South Wales, by agreement with the employer, awards were changed so that broken shifts were outlawed unless there was a specific agreement. That meant that people going to work would not be asked to work for three hours, have two hours off unpaid then return for another three or four hours. With Work Choices, we saw the return of this practice in nursing homes. We saw people becoming chained to their workplaces. It was not creating flexibility for mothers, as is often put by the opposition. It was not creating a more friendly workplace. It was creating a workplace that you could never leave, even when you were not being paid. These are the effects of Work Choices. They need to be addressed and changed, and this legislation is the starting point in relation to that. In my electorate of Dobell, we have high unemployment. We are in a very different position from the electorate of the member for Forrest. In fact, unemployment in Dobell is almost twice the national average. For the citizens of Dobell, the former Prime Minister’s boast that working people have never been better off sounds very hollow indeed. It was worse for people in Dobell because we have close to 30 per cent of the working population commuting for up to two hours to Sydney. You need to ask: how can working people travel to Sydney for two hours, be asked to work a broken shift where they will work for three hours on the job, take four hours off on their own time and spend another three hours back at work, then travel home at the end of the day? Clearly, this has an effect on communities and it had an effect on my community—it made sure that people understood that these laws were inherently unfair for working families. During the election campaign a gentleman came to see me who had been given an AWA at a large retail store where he was to be made the manager. By being made manager, he found his AWA said that he would have to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The AWA had another provision in it which said, despite that clause, ‘This should not limit the number of hours that he may be called upon by his employer.’ I am not quite sure what hours outside seven days a week, 24 hours a day someone can be asked to be available, but that was what happened with the AWA this gentleman was asked to sign. Members opposite may say, ‘Yes, but he was rewarded through an increase in salary.’ He was offered a salary of $25,000 to be available seven days a week, 24 hours a day, only made possible by these Work Choices laws. In the seat of Dobell this was the biggest issue that had people changing their votes. The economic argument that is put forward by the opposition from time to time is about flexibility in wages so that we can compete. Well, quite frankly, I do not want to see an Australia, and I do not want to see the citizens of Dobell, having to compete on wages with India and China, who are a couple of our biggest trading partners. It is a nonsense. The way for us to compete internationally is through working smarter and that is why the Rudd government’s education revolution is so important for this country. What does the opposition actually stand for today in relation to Work Choices? We have heard speaker after speaker saying it is no longer the policy of the opposition to support Work Choices, but we all know they still believe it. You have to say to yourself: ‘If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it still is a duck.’ We just had the member for Forrest extolling the virtues of AWAs and saying how important AWAs were for this country. I certainly did not get the impression that the member for Forrest thought that Work Choices was not a good thing for this country. Look at the way in which the then government tried to frame the argument in relation to Work Choices. It was framed as an attack on union bosses. There are a couple of points that need to be made in relation to this, the first being: what is dishonourable about looking after workers? I have spent 19 years looking after health workers, ambulance officers and pharmacists, and can I tell the House that I am damn proud of that work and think that it was an honour to be a union official given that responsibility. Legislation, though, was not aimed at the unions; it was aimed at ordinary working families—and that is the problem that the opposition have in relation to their position on this particular issue. They chose to attack the most vulnerable. They chose to attack ordinary working families, to make their lives more difficult. They made it more difficult for them to pay the bills by weakening their bargaining position. Do opposition members really think that employers just came to the workplace one day and said: ‘G’day workers, today we are going to give you four weeks annual leave; tomorrow we are going to give you penalty rates, workers compensation and long service leave’? These things were argued and fought for by unions and, for that reason, the union’s role in relation to the workplace should be spoken about with honour rather than derided as the opposition continue to do. The Australian public were very clear on 24 November 2007: they were voting to get rid of these rotten work laws. The important legislation that is before the parliament today is the first stage in the Rudd government’s commitment to have fair and balanced workplace laws in Australia, and I commend the legislation to the House. 1844 12:40:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Today the House has an opportunity to take an important step in building a modern Australia that delivers for working families facing cost of living pressures. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 makes the first step towards a new balanced approach to workplace relations that delivers for the economy and delivers for working families—the first step towards a system that is designed to increase rather than reduce productivity growth, the first step towards a genuine safety net for working families, ensuring that employees will no longer have basic conditions stripped away by unfair AWAs, and the first step towards a modern industrial relations system, a modern workplace relations system, that is consistent with the core Australian value of a fair go for all. Just over three months ago, Australians voted overwhelmingly against the extreme workplace relations policies and laws of the Liberal Party. For the Liberal Party, this policy was the centrepiece of their fourth term in office. It was their No. 1 priority. From July 2005, they had control of the House and the Senate—the first time that such power had been enjoyed for three decades. What did the Liberal Party do with this power? It used this power to ram through the legislation that reflects their deepest beliefs and deepest values—that is, Work Choices. This deepest belief is that working families and their children should be left to fend for themselves in an industrial relations system that has one organising principle and one organising principle alone, and that is the survival of the fittest: a system where hard-working people working in shops, offices, hotels, restaurants and workplaces of every kind could have the most basic award entitlements stripped away from them without any compensation. Make no mistake about it: the Liberal Party is the party of Work Choices, by Work Choices, for Work Choices. This is the policy supported in the party room and in the parliament by every one of them who were in this place before the last election, and by every one of them who, as candidates, defended this industrial relations system during the last election. The Liberal party spent $121 million of taxpayers’ money trying to convince Australians to accept this extreme workplace relations system. That of itself is an obscenity. What is a double obscenity is the fact that this money was taken from the pockets of working families to try to sell, to the very same working families, the proposition that Work Choices was somehow going to be good for those working families. Throughout 2007 and at November’s election, Labor outlined a clear alternative approach. This alternative reflects a core Australian value—the tradition of combining individual aspiration with a strong community safety net; a tradition that says that, to reward hard work, achievement and success through individual incentives, we do not need to become a dog-eat-dog society where working people are forced to fend for themselves. This Australian tradition says that we can provide a decent safety net and we can respect the rights of workers to bargain collectively without tying businesses up with the rigidities of a centralised wage-fixing system. The great Australian tradition is that we can have a society that protects decent minimum standards and also rewards individual effort. The Liberal Party’s DNA says there is a core and absolute choice between individual aspiration and a fair go for all. Their conclusion is this: to hell with a fair go for all. Labor’s DNA, by contrast, says that in this country we can embrace a system that combines both aspiration and a fair go. That underlines our different approach to this core piece of law, this core piece of policy, this core piece of practice which affects every working Australian in their workplace. The Liberal Party has got this wrong, because they have got Australia wrong. They do not understand the values of working families. They do not understand the cost of living pressures on working families. They just do not understand working families, period. They went to the last election proclaiming working families had never been better off and did so without dissent from any Liberal MP or any Liberal candidate. They are so out of touch that, according to their own former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, most of their cabinet ministers were not even aware that working Australians were being made worse off by Work Choices, despite the fact that the central point of the Australian industrial relations debate through 2005, 2006 and 2007 went to the absolute detail of the Work Choices legislation regime. Late last month the Four Corners program gave us the extraordinary picture of the member for North Sydney trotting from one cabinet minister’s office to the next as he told ministers, whom he claims were ignorant, that Work Choices was actually making people worse off. Hold the phone! There is some news for you. I remind the House that this was happening in the first half of 2007, although almost two years had passed since the Work Choices policy had been announced. For all that time, the people who made up the frontbench of the opposition today were defending this legislation and denying its harmful effects on working families. They just cannot work out where they stand on this legislation, even as of today—one moment they are opposing it, the next moment supporting it and most recently they say they are not supporting it but they are not opposing it either. The legislation that Labor introduces to the parliament highlights one further contrast between this government and the previous government. Before the previous election the Liberal Party kept their industrial relations plans secret. Once they had won the 2004 election, they sprung their extreme laws on Australians and rammed them through the parliament. In contrast, Labor announced our workplace relations policy in detail well prior to the last election and in government we are delivering on what we promised before the election. We said before the election that we would achieve a sensible transition to our new, fair and flexible system that would come into operation fully from 1 January 2010. This bill takes us a step forward towards that goal. We said before the election we would prohibit the making of new AWAs. This bill achieves that goal. We said before the election we would allow for individual transitional employment arrangements for a two-year period only. This bill does that. We said before the election we would modernise the award system. This bill makes that possible. We said before the election that what we needed was a balanced system and an approach that delivers appropriate flexibility for businesses but provides a genuine safety net for working families. This bill takes us towards that goal. This balanced approach to Australian workplaces is critical for both the long-term needs of the economy and our immediate priority of tackling inflation. Right now, Australia is facing a serious economic challenge arising from global financial market instability. That instability rages abroad while at the same time we have raising inflationary pressures at home. The key measure of ongoing inflation, the underlying rate of inflation, had at the time this government took office risen to the highest level in 16 years. Underlying inflation has been running at an average of three per cent, the upper limit of the RBA inflation target, for the past year and a half. It is now forecast by the RBA to stay at three per cent or higher until mid-2010. The threat of rising inflation has not emerged overnight; it has been building for years as the Howard government neglected warnings about growing supply constraints and slowing productivity growth. Back in 2005, the Liberals told us that Work Choices would deliver low inflation, low interest rates and stronger productivity growth. They claimed that Work Choices was core economic business but they had nothing—no hard data, no modelling—to support their claims, and now we understand why. The member for Goldstein, for example, was very explicit when he told this chamber on 3 November 2005—and it is worth listening to this: By promoting flexibility and greatly simplifying the system of industrial relations, this legislation— that means the Work Choices legislation— will deliver better outcomes for interest rates and employment and inflation. Since then we have seen inflation reach its highest level in 16 years. Since then interest rates have risen seven times, the second highest level amongst advanced economies. Since then productivity growth has been flat and, as of when this government assumed office, had fallen to zero. The architects of Work Choices said it would lift productivity growth; it failed to do so. By failing to boost productivity growth, Work Choices failed to tackle the inflation challenge. Nor did the Liberals deal with the rest of the inflation challenge: skills shortages, infrastructure bottlenecks and profligate government spending on the demand side of the economy. The result: rising inflation and, as a result of that, rising interest rates, despite the Liberals’ assurances that they would keep interest rates at record lows. Do you remember that? The assurance prior to the 2004 election, just before Work Choices legislation was introduced, that they would keep interest rates at record lows—as believable as the undertaking since that election that working families had never been better off. At a level of policy, Work Choices has been an abject failure. Work Choices has been bad for the economy. Work Choices has been bad for working families and Work Choices has also been bad for business. It has created a red-tape nightmare, especially for small businesses. Just look at the fairness test, the bandaid that was taped over Work Choices in the run-up to last year’s election. By the time the Liberal Party lost office last November, employers had lodged 220,000 workplace agreements to be reviewed under the fairness test. Only 50,000 agreements had passed the test, and 9,000 of those needed to be changed before being approved. Just 72,000, less than one in three of those workplace agreements, had been finalised. There were 150,000 workplace agreements at the Workplace Authority waiting to be processed. You can just see it down there at the Workplace Authority: there is the shelf space for unprocessed applications for new workplace agreements—150,000 of them—and over there you have got the 467,000 Work Choices propaganda booklets. There must have been no room on the shelves down at the Workplace Authority; none whatsoever. If you are in small business and you are trying to make sense of this extraordinary system which the previous government had implemented, consider, in a very tight labour market, the consequences of dealing with such a complex piece of legislation. For 150,000 workplace agreements to be with the Workplace Authority waiting to be processed is one of the most anti-business, pro-regulation, pro-red tape measures that any government of this country has ever introduced. They pretend to be not just the party of compassion but also the party of small business. If ever there was a set of statistics which underpinned the reckless disregard which the previous government and the Liberal Party had for the interests of business in general and small business in particular, it was in their bandaid solution last year to their industrial relations laws, resulting in an absolute nightmare for businesses trying to operate within that regulatory environment. Harmers Workplace Lawyers estimated last year that the record-keeping requirements of Work Choices had imposed compliance costs of more than $950 million in relation to small and medium sized businesses. In the Australian Human Resources Institute survey of 1,000 human resources managers in August 2007, 55 per cent of HR managers reported that there was an increased need to seek legal advice since the introduction of Work Choices, 54 per cent reported that there was an increased level of record keeping since the introduction of Work Choices and 40 per cent said Work Choices had made employment arrangements more complicated. Asked the question of whether Work Choices was more or less likely to improve productivity, job creation or work-family balance with their organisation over the next three years, more said it was unlikely to improve these outcomes, and 78 per cent had not seen any improvement—I repeat, any improvement—in productivity since Work Choices had been introduced. In fact, five per cent had seen a decrease in productivity. AWAs did not deliver for the economy, AWAs did not deliver for business, but AWAs certainly did deliver substantial harm to the interests of working families. According to the Bureau of Statistics, workers on AWAs work more and earn less per hour than those in the same jobs who are employed on collective agreements. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for workplace relations reported to the House on new data analysing a sample of 670 Australian workplace agreements submitted to the Workplace Authority in the two months after May 2007, when the fairness test had been announced. This data showed that, of the sample of AWAs that had failed the fairness test, around 45 per cent underpaid workers by between $1 and $49 per week below the required rate of pay for the protected award conditions, 50 per cent paid $50 to $199 per week less than the required rate of pay, and five per cent provided $200 to $499 per week below what was required. These are extraordinary numbers. Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister again revealed other information about AWAs that had been kept secret by the previous government. That information showed that, in a total sample of over 1,700 AWAs lodged between April and October 2006, 89 per cent of those AWAs removed at least one award condition that the previous government’s advertisements said was protected. Further, 31 per cent of those AWAs took away rest breaks, 49 per cent took away overtime loadings, 63 per cent removed incentive based payments and bonuses, 65 per cent removed penalty rates and 70 per cent took away shift loadings. Consider also the evidence of the impact of Work Choices on women. Women on AWAs earn less per hour than those on collective agreements. Women on AWAs who work part time earn $3.70 less per hour or $85.10 less per week, based on an average of 23 hours per week, than those on collective agreements. This unfairness lies at the heart of the Work Choices legislation. This is the legacy of the Liberal Party—the party that, three months later, wants to pretend now to be the party of compassion. What I have run through for the benefit of the House today is the cold, hard, statistical data as it impacts on working families and as it impacts on hardworking small businesses. And still the Liberal Party does not know if it supports Work Choices or opposes Work Choices. It is why we now come today to start to build a new, fair, flexible and modern system. The first step towards a new workplace relations system is this bill, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. The transitional arrangements will be followed by the introduction of more substantial workplace relations legislation into the parliament later this year to ensure that the government’s new, fair, flexible and productive workplace relations system can be fully operational by January 2010. If the coalition finally backflips, a big ‘if’, this legislation can declare a stop to the use of AWAs now—if the coalition backflips. The transition bill ensures that Australians will no longer be forced to sign unfair AWAs that strip away key conditions with little or no compensation. From the commencement date of this legislation, no more AWAs can be created. An employer and employee can agree to terminate an AWA and replace it with another type of arrangement. We know we cannot correct every injustice of the old Work Choices system overnight. It took the Liberal Party, represented by their spokesman at the table, quite a period of time to construct such an entrenched and complex system of injustice. It will take us some time. We need to focus instead on building a system that will not allow such injustices in the future. This bill ensures sensible transitional arrangements for employers who have been using AWAs under the previously existing law. Where an employer was using AWAs as of 1 December 2007, employees on AWAs or new employees may be placed on individual transitional employment agreements that can have a nominal expiry date up to 31 December 2009. The bill abolishes the so-called ‘fairness test’ and introduces a new, genuine no disadvantage test that provides a genuine safety net for employees. The new no disadvantage test will apply to all individual and collective workplace agreements. Importantly, the bill will also make it possible for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to begin the process of award modernisation. The bill enables an award modernisation request to be made of the AIRC by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. It is intended that modern awards be simple and provide an appropriate benchmark to support collective bargaining, while at the same time providing a safety net for award-only employees. It is also intended that modern awards be relevant to the Australian economy by not being overly prescriptive and by allowing for flexible working arrangements. The AIRC will play an integral role in the award modernisation process during the transition period. The intention is to ensure that this exercise is overwhelmingly completed by the end of 2009. Modern awards will be able to contain 10 allowable modern award matters, including minimum wages; arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work and rest breaks; overtime rates and penalty rates; and allowances. Modern awards may also build on and provide industry specific detail about the proposed National Employment Standards, the content of which will be finalised by June, following the exposure draft process that is occurring now. We are proud of this legislation because it brings to an end a system of rank injustice on the part of those opposite. We believe that it is entirely appropriate that this legislation be supported by the parliament. The modern, fair and flexible system that Labor is building demonstrates that we can build long-term prosperity without throwing the fair go out the back door. We can build long-term productivity growth while giving working people the right to bargain collectively if they choose. We can have a low inflation economy without forcing the lowest paid workers to make all the sacrifices to achieve it. The government takes very seriously its responsibility to deliver on its election commitment. That commitment was to abolish Work Choices and to build a modern balanced system that helps build long-term productivity growth while protecting the interests of working families. This legislation is the first order of business for the government. That is why it is the first bill that this government has introduced into the House. I commend the legislation to the House. (Time expired) 1849 13:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —in reply—In closing this second reading debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, it is not my intention to speak for a long period of time, but I make the following points very briefly. The Rudd Labor government has come here today proud to start the process of getting rid of Work Choices through the passage of this bill. I have been wondering for some weeks now what it means to not support and not oppose a piece of legislation. Apparently, what it means is that you hide in your office because you do not know what you want to stand for in the modern age. This is a government that knows what it stands for. It stands for a fair, balanced and flexible industrial relations system; and, more than anything else, it stands for the delivery of the things that it promised the Australian people. Let us remind ourselves that the Liberal Party finds itself in the position it is in today because it was not honest with the Australian people. When the Australian people voted in 2004 they did not vote for their pay and conditions to be stripped away through individual workplace agreements, Australian workplace agreements, they did not vote to exchange the safety net for a limited number of so-called protected award conditions that could simply be eradicated without any compensation and with the flick of a pen, they did not put their hand up and vote for the opportunity to be dismissed at any time at all and for no reason and they did not vote for a system so complex and so confusing that it fails to meet the needs of business. Having not told the Australian people the truth in 2004, that is what the Liberal Party introduced in government. There is now an attempt to completely rewrite history about its knowledge of the impact of these changes on working families. It knew it was hurting Australian working families and it delighted in it. That is the truth and no rewriting of history will cover that up. Let us remember that the Liberal Party’s own Work Choices propaganda talked about Billy, the minimum wage worker who lost every condition in his award. Howard government ministers, the members of the Liberal Party today, publicly defended that as fair. These are the same people who now profess a great concern about jobs in the Australian community who said that it was fine, if you were a long-term worker, the breadwinner in your family and you had always done the right thing by your employer, and it was okay if you went to work one day and were dismissed for no reason and you had no remedy. So much for a concern about jobs and the job security of working people. They delighted in the fact that people could lose pay and conditions. They delighted in the fact that people could be thrown out the door for no reason at all and with no remedy. Since the election the Liberal Party have been trying to rewrite history and they have been struggling to try and find a way to a new position on workplace relations. And haven’t we seen a variety of positions on display? No-one can predict with certainty where they are going to go next. But what we do know is that they introduced Work Choices, then they defended Work Choices, then they defended the continuation of Australian workplace agreements, then they had a vexed party room meeting and then they did not know what they were going to do next. In that track record of dithering around the place it seems that the parliament today is going to be witness to another round of dithering because we are advised—and we do not know if we have been correctly advised—that the opposition will not move any amendments today, despite the fact that the opposition spokesperson on this commenced her speech in the second reading debate by saying: The opposition will not seek to oppose the passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. However, we will move an amendment that we believe will strike the right balance between flexibility and fairness in workplace relations.  She then went on to outline an amendment which would have increased the time period for interim transition employment agreements—that is, she outlined an amendment which would have kept statutory individual employment agreements in the system for longer. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Your bill keeps them anyway. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As anticipated, right on cue, the member opposite thinks she has some point about Labor’s system having in it interim transition employment agreements. I say to the member opposite that we do not apologise for giving business a sensible and measured transition. We do not apologise for that. You might have wanted to do it differently, you might have wanted to create chaos, but we do not apologise for creating a sensible and measured transition. What the member opposite, and the opposition overall, has never seemed to understand is that the interim transition employment agreements are in the system only to allow the two-year award modernisation process to go forth. Once the award modernisation is completed there is no need, going forward, for statutory individual employment agreements, and under Labor there will be no new statutory individual employment agreements from that date. They are over—done and dusted. From the date of proclamation of this bill the ability of any employer in this country to make an Australian workplace agreement, the ability of any employer in this country to rip away an award condition without compensation, will be over—done and dusted. That can still happen today, despite the so-called fairness test of the previous government, which was of course not fair at all. So, from the date of proclamation of this bill, there will be no new Australian workplace agreements, nothing for employees to fear in terms of the safety net being ripped off them, an award modernisation process, a two-year interim transition employment agreement while award modernisation is in train and then Labor’s new fair, balanced, flexible system, which will protect the interests of working families. That is what this bill is about.  ‘We don’t oppose; we don’t support; we don’t know; we’re still thinking; we’ve got no idea’—all these divisions, and we still do not know exactly where the opposition stand. We know that they have been supporters of Work Choices, but I would be really interested in an answer to a simple question, which is: will they go to the next election promising the reintroduction of Australian workplace agreements—yes or no? It is a very simple question: yes or no? Do they stand for statutory individual employment agreements—yes or no? What will they take to the next election? We do not know. What we do know is they cover things up in the lead-up to elections. They did that in 2004. But surely they could break with tradition and be honest just once. Today is the day to do it—to declare where they stand on that central question. During the debate, and obviously in the Senate inquiry, some points have been raised about various aspects of Labor’s legislation. Can I thank those who have participated in this chamber and can I thank those who made submissions to the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry report will be available later today. Of course, we will look at the Senate inquiry report and, if there are technical clarifications that need to be made arising from the report, we will consider those. But we are saying, both in this chamber and in the Senate: there is no reason why this legislation cannot be through the parliament by the end of this week. We will do everything to organise the sitting program to ensure that that happens. What we do not know, of course, is whether all of the opposition’s ‘don’t support, don’t oppose, don’t know, can’t think, don’t have an amendment, do have an amendment’ dithering will hold up this bill that the Australian people voted for. I am clearly saying both to the opposition members in this place and to the opposition members in the Senate that we will facilitate whatever is necessary to allow them to have their say but this bill should clear the parliament this week. That is what the Australian people want; that is what they voted for, and we will deliver it. On the question of award modernisation, clearly the commission will undertake the modernisation of awards. I understand that concerns were raised before the Senate inquiry about the requirement for the commission to ensure that modern awards do not contain state based differences. I would like to note for the purposes of the record that this would not prevent the commission including in awards terms and conditions that are appropriate and based on objectively ascertainable regional circumstances and on the evidence of the parties that such a term or condition is necessary to ensure a fair minimum safety net. It is appropriate that new modern awards operating in a national system should not replicate state based differences from old awards which exist merely as a matter of historical circumstance. Of course, awards will be modernised over the next two-year period. In the period of award modernisation this bill, very importantly, extends the end date for notional agreements preserving state awards and transitionally registered associations—matters that Work Choices would have brought to an end artificially, leaving thousands and thousands of workers around the country without a safety net. One thing we should remind ourselves of is that the Howard government were not only on a strategy to have Australian workplace agreements override awards and allow working families to be ripped off; the Howard government were on a strategy to kill the award system overall. They wanted it to wither and die. They wanted the only minimum conditions for employees in this country to be the five minimum conditions in the Australian fair pay and conditions standard. If re-elected at the last election, who knows where they would have sought to go to next in terms of those five minimum conditions? Would there still have been five, or would it have become four, three, two, one or no minimum conditions for employees in the workplace? This is an important moment for this parliament. It is about delivering to the Australian people what we promise. It is about getting rid of the spectre of Work Choices from their lives. Getting rid of Work Choices is only a start—there will be more legislation to come—but it is an important start. It is the first handful of dirt in the grave in which we are burying Work Choices, and we will make sure that it is buried because we understand what it cost the Australian people—what it cost people who lost pay and conditions, what it cost people who worried about their sons and daughters in their first job, and what it cost people who lost their jobs without reason and without remedy. The members opposite, the Liberal Party, will never understand that. They will politically position, they will come out with platitudes, they will come out with things to say in this area of debate, but they will never understand what they did to Australian working families with their extremism. And they will forever be tied to Work Choices because they will forever believe in it. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 1852 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 1852 13:14:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Notwithstanding the ideological rhetoric of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, I must bring to the attention of the House that this piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, does not deliver what the government said this bill would deliver. It is in fact a flawed piece of drafting. Given that the Labor Party has had almost 12 months since it announced its policy platform on industrial relations, it is almost inconceivable that this bill is so flawed as to not come near reflecting what the government has said it will achieve. The coalition referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, against the strenuous opposition of the government, and then the time frame for the inquiry was severely truncated by the government. Nevertheless, the evidence before the inquiry has revealed that this bill is fundamentally flawed, both from a drafting and a policy perspective. There are extensive concerns with respect to the bill’s complexity and drafting. I refer to comments from Professor Andrew Stewart, of Flinders University, who has stated that many of the provisions remain ‘unduly complicated and difficult to understand’. On a close analysis, it is apparent that Professor Stewart is correct: the proposed legislation is complicated unnecessarily and in many areas is very difficult to understand. This confusion and complexity will impact on businesses and workers. To prevent widespread confusion and ensure transitional arrangements for workplaces across the country are adequate, the bill should be redrafted to address the numerous technical and policy concerns that have been raised in the evidence given before the Senate inquiry. Let me give you a number of examples. Whilst the bill seeks to replace existing Australian workplace agreements with another, similar form of individual statutory agreement called an ITEA—an interim AWA introduced by Labor—and in fact allows existing individual agreements to continue up to and beyond 2010, the legislation before the House is unable to accommodate particular types of employment arrangements presently able to be entered into under Australian workplace agreements. Evidence before the inquiry shows that, moving forward, this will present significant challenges for industries who are dealing with the introduction of Labor’s interim AWAs, otherwise known as individual transitional employment agreements. A specific example of this is the construction sector, where, due to the transient nature of the workforce and the project nature of the work, there will be some employees that will be able to access Labor’s interim AWAs and others that will not. Somebody put it in these terms: ‘There will be workers who will fall into an abyss.’ This will result in workplaces having one set of workers on Labor’s interim AWAs and another set of workers, carrying out the same work, who are going to be forced back onto awards. Within the construction and mining sector, industrial coverage, and thus protection from industrial action and drawn-out completion dates, is also a commercial consideration for many principal contractors. This bill places workplaces and contractors at risk from industrial action and puts employers and employees in a position where they have different groups of workers doing the same work employed on different industrial instruments. This is a significant problem, not just for employers but also for workers, and it is one that must be rectified by the government. There are also inconsistencies within the bill with respect to the application of the no disadvantage test and the relevant standard against which these interim AWAs and collective agreements will be tested. In certain workplaces, interim AWAs will be measured against existing collective agreements instead of the new National Employment Standards. This could result in the ratcheting up of wages and conditions where this might not ordinarily occur, leading to wage inflation. This is a great concern. (Time expired) 1853 13:19:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I will answer the points that have been raised so far in consideration in detail. I anticipate that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have some more. I hope that this is not a tactic to delay the passage of the bill through the House. Can I say, in relation to the Senate inquiry, the representations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were completely wrong. We were always happy to have a Senate inquiry. The only thing we ever asked of the opposition was that they do it on the same time frame as the last Senate inquiry was done into their last workplace relations changes—that is, we asked the opposition to apply the same standards to itself as it sought to apply to others in government. I know consistency is a hard ask for this opposition, but to represent in this parliament that we opposed having a Senate inquiry on a proper time frame is not true. Secondly, I am bemused, I would have to say, by the reference to Andrew Stewart. He is exactly the sort of person that Howard government ministers used to get up in question time and vilify because he had criticised Work Choices—remarkable indeed. I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if she wants to ring up Andrew Stewart and ask him the simple question, ‘What did you think of Work Choices and do you think this is better?’ then she had better hold the phone away from her ear as he very loudly proclaims, ‘This is better for Australian working people’—because it so clearly is. On the question of different agreements being in a workplace: now I have heard everything! This is a Liberal Party that changed workplace relations laws so that it is possible in one workplace for some workers to be on an award, for some to be on a collective agreement, for some to be on a pre-reform AWA, for some to be on a pre-fairness test AWA and for some to be on a post-fairness test AWA. Apparently the criticism of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that we are introducing another employment instrument. Can I reassure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that when Labor’s system is in full operation—unlike the mess that Work Choices has created—we will have the National Employment Standards and awards creating a modern, simple safety net. We will have people able to collectively bargain to get above that safety net or people able to enter into individual common-law contracts of employment—that is, our system will be a simpler one than the scrambled mess that has been created by Work Choices. It is with some amusement that I note that one of the great debates of the last election—one of the key questions of ideology, one of the things that has defined what it is to be a Liberal in this country—now apparently comes down to a question of drafting. The opposition no longer want to be in government. They want to run the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That is apparently their highest aspiration in life. They would prefer to be there drafting legislation. Drafting legislation might be the highest aspiration of the opposition, but at some point they are going to have to answer the question: what do they stand for? Do they still stand for Australian workplace agreements? Will they go to the next election reintroducing Australian workplace agreements? Is that what the opposition stand for, as they wander around saying: ‘We don’t support and we don’t oppose. Now we think we could have drafted it better, but we don’t support and we don’t oppose. We did have an amendment. Now we don’t have an amendment. We don’t know whether we will have amendments. Really, we don’t really know anything.’ Against that backdrop, I would seriously suggest to the opposition that, instead of pretending that they are parliamentary draftspeople, they actually say something about what they believe in and, if they are not able to do that, then they get out of the way of a government that knows what it believes it. 1854 13:23:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Legislation has the potential to impact on the everyday lives of Australians. I am amazed that the Deputy Prime Minister seeks to ridicule the evidence given before a Senate inquiry. She seeks to ridicule the evidence given before a Senate inquiry as to the complexity and the flawed nature of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 and she seeks to ridicule Professor Andrew Stewart, whose evidence was: ... the ... provisions remain unduly complicated and difficult to understand ... I would suggest that Professor Stewart’s concerns be treated with respect. The premise upon which this bill is based—that is, the abolition of Australian workplace agreements—is in fact false. That is not what this bill does. The Labor Party have led the public to believe that individual statutory agreements will no longer exist in workplaces in Australia—certainly not beyond 2010. We all remember the statements in their document of April 2007—that is, the document of the now Deputy Prime Minister before the now Prime Minister had to come in and pull her into line. This document said on page 3: AWAs and statutory individual contracts will not be a part of Labor’s fair and balanced workplace laws. That is, in fact, not the case. Time after time, the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, and the Deputy Prime Minister, the then shadow minister for workplace relations, said, for example: Australian Workplace Agreements are no part of Labor’s industrial future for this country. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Hear, hear! Exactly right. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —That is not correct. They went on to say: Our laws will abolish AWAs ... The now Deputy Prime Minister said on 2 May 2007: We will be getting rid of Australian workplace agreements. The Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said statutory AWAs were, for Labor, ‘simply unacceptable’. He later went on to say: We see no need whatsoever for individual statutory agreements. The Australian public would be able to draw from that that there will be no individual agreements in workplaces across Australia beyond 2010 or, as the Policy implementation plan said, that 31 December 2012 would be the ‘last possible expiry date for all Work Choices AWAs’. The public thought that that meant that Labor’s policy was there would be no individual statutory agreements beyond 2010 or, most certainly, beyond 2012. But, in fact, evidence provided to the Senate inquiry has revealed that individual statutory agreements can continue indefinitely where the employer or the employee chooses not to terminate the agreement. These arrangements can continue indefinitely for AWAs and for Labor’s interim AWAs, the ITEAs. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were at it again today in the House, refusing to acknowledge that, at the nominal expiry date of an individual statutory agreement—whether it is an AWA or one of Labor’s new interim AWAs—that agreement can continue. If the employee and the employer do not seek to terminate or to renegotiate it, it continues indefinitely—beyond 2010, beyond 2012 and into the future. The evidence that we got from an Acting Associate Secretary, Mr Pratt, of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, should be highlighted to this House. Mr Pratt said: In relation to the government’s intended new system, which will apply from January 2010, there will be no individual statutory agreements. There will be transitional agreements which still continue, but they are not agreements under the government’s new system. The question was put to him: Senator FISHER—If your definition of ‘new system’ is January 2010, you have indicated—unless you tell me that I have misunderstood—that it will be possible for parties to continue to work under legal AWAs and legal ITEAs beyond January 2010. Mr Pratt—Certainly, but they will be remnants of the previous system. Senator FISHER—Is there an end point? Let us go to that. Does the bill bring about a definitive end point for those agreements in date terms? Mr Pratt—No, it does not. (Time expired) 1856 13:29:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Deputy Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —Clearly, there is now a strategy by the opposition to extend Work Choices. It is what they believe in and it is what they are trying to do. This is clearly a content-less filibuster in order to extend Work Choices. They do not want the Australian public, immediately after Easter, to have the reassurance that they can walk into workplaces knowing that no-one can ask them to sign an Australian workplace agreement that rips away award conditions. That is what Work Choices guaranteed. That is what it is guaranteeing even today. We are trying to get rid of it, and here we have a content-less filibuster to try and keep Work Choices going as long as possible. We know that it was the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and many in her party room to keep Work Choices. But, as has been so well documented in the media, that was not the position of the balance of her party room, who actually wanted this legislation to go through. The opposition say they do not support, they do not oppose, they do not know and they really cannot think about it. The best thing they could do would be to let this legislation through into the Senate so that we can deliver to the Australian people on a reasonable timetable what they voted for. We know that the concept to actually do what the Australian people voted for in workplace relations strikes the Liberal Party as grandly odd because it is not a concept that has ever exercised the minds of the Liberal Party. They did not go to the 2004 election asking people what they wanted to vote for. They cooked up Work Choices in secret and then imposed it on the Australian people. Can I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it does strike me as passing strange that, having introduced Work Choices in this country and having fought the last election in favour of Work Choices, her criticism of the government now is apparently that we are not getting rid of it quickly enough! I mean, really! Mr Deputy Speaker, you would probably recall that industrial relations was one of the single biggest things talked about in the lead-up to the last election. It was not a side issue; it was at the centre of the election campaign. Anybody who had looked at Labor’s policy in the period before the last election—and millions of voting Australians did—would have found that it described absolutely that we would pass a transition bill to end the making of new Australian workplace agreements and that we would have a two-year transition period in which awards would be modernised. We said that people would have access to an individual transition employment agreement during that period but it would be strictly limited in terms of which employers could use it and for what categories of employees, and it would have to pass a full no disadvantage test against the underlying industrial instrument—that is, we would end the rip-offs. We said that we would then move to a substantive bill that delivered on the rest of Labor’s commitments. We always clearly said in that policy, as part of promising a sensible and measured transition to the Australian people, that Australian workplace agreements that were in operation at the time of the passage of the transition bill would stay in operation for the balance of their term and then, in accordance with normal industrial relations law and practice, when they hit the nominal expiry date, people could make decisions about what to do next. One of the decisions they might make is that they would like to enter into a collective agreement. One of the decisions they might make is that they would like to enter into an individual common-law contract that respects the safety net. Of course, agreements in accordance with industrial law, whether they are collective agreements or individual agreements, continue to the nominal expiry date and beyond until people make that election about what they are going to do next. What is the reason for that? The reason is to give people certainty. This is not a political point; this is ‘Labour Law 101’. There would be university lecture halls around this country that are having a more sophisticated dialogue than the opposition is capable of today. We promised this bill to the Australian people and the opposition apparently does not oppose it. So stop filibustering because, if you hold this bill up, any Australian who loses a condition will have you to hold responsible. (Time expired) 1857 13:34:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Indeed, one of the decisions that employees and employers can make upon the expiration of the nominal expiry date is that the Australian workplace agreement or the interim AWA can continue indefinitely. I believe the Australian public will be very interested to know that Labor’s own bill does not abolish individual statutory agreements and that, in workplaces across Australia, employees and employers are entitled to continue working under individual statutory agreements. Once again, this is all Labor’s spin and when you go to the detail the truth is revealed. There has also been much concern raised in the Senate inquiry by stakeholders and both sides of politics about the workability of the award modernisation scheme. The coalition is particularly concerned about comments made to the Senate inquiry by Professor Andrew Stewart, who submitted that: It is simply not possible to standardise conditions in any award-reliant industry or occupation without disadvantaging someone. One of the minister’s own Labor colleagues, Senator Marshall, suggested last week that the ALP plan for award modernisation without disadvantaging workers or increasing employers’ costs was ‘contradictory and an impossible ask’. I ask the minister to respond to Senator Marshall’s concerns about this contradiction. Of all the areas within the bill, this is the most flawed and of greatest concern. On the one hand the ALP want to oversee the eventual demise, they say, of individual statutory agreements, yet on the other hand they are not prepared to extend the life of ITEAs until such time as there is an adequate set of modern award conditions in place. Senator Marshall’s concerns about the contradictory nature of this ought to be taken into account. To top it off, the Senate inquiry revealed that the government had neither undertaken nor commissioned any economic modelling or economic analysis of the impact of its transition bill or indeed its industrial relations agenda more broadly. Given that unemployment is at its lowest level in 34 years and long-term unemployment has decreased significantly during the decade of workplace reform under the Howard government, we are amazed that the Labor Party are so dismissive of the impact this bill will have on jobs. They have done nothing about getting any economic modelling or analysis on its impact on jobs. There is nothing fair about unemployment. I am at a loss to understand why Labor has not published any analysis—positive or negative—on the impact on jobs. We are aware that the minister has a report from Econtech that analysed the impact of Labor’s broader industrial relations agenda and conservatively estimated that it will result in a 2.4 per cent increase in unemployment and a potential loss of 268,000 jobs. The minister has refused to release this report publicly. What does she have to hide? It is the responsibility of the government of the day to draft legislation that can be implemented without confusion, without complexity and without subsequent damage to the economy. The government is obliged to consider the evidence given to the Senate inquiry and respond with the necessary amendments to ensure that the legislation reflects the promises that Labor made to business, industry and workers before the election. My initial proposal alluded to in my speech in the second reading debate, to amend the bill to extend the life of Labor’s interim statutory agreements, is no longer necessary in the light of the evidence before the inquiry. I remind the House again of the evidence of Finn Pratt, an assistant secretary in DEEWR. Existing AWAs and the new individual statutory agreements introduced by Labor can continue indefinitely—and that is what I was seeking to do with the amendment—into the future, provided neither party seeks to terminate or renegotiate the agreement. It is a well-known fact that there are thousands of agreements that have continued for many decades on the same terms and conditions. The coalition does not support this legislation but we will not oppose its passage to the Senate. Government members interjecting— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —Labor seeks to ridicule that position in the same high-handed, arrogant and dismissive manner that is becoming a hallmark of this leadership. It is a position that Labor adopted on numerous occasions in opposition. (Time expired) 1858 13:39:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I am advised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she has nearly finished her remarks. If that is the case we will hear again from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and then do what the Australian people want us to do, which is to pass the bill which they voted for. In relation to the last representations and silly statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—no doubt she will stand at the dispatch box and make another series of silly statements which I will leave unanswered—the Howard government never produced any economic modelling of Work Choices. I will not stand here as a member of the Rudd Labor government and be lectured by the current opposition on the question of the production of economic modelling. Indeed, her request for it is the height of hypocrisy. For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to describe her proposal in her speech on the second reading as something that has been satisfied through the Senate inquiry process is a cover-up of the fact that she has clearly been rolled by her party room again. She tried to achieve yet another extension of Australian workplace agreements, because she believes in Work Choices—she believes in AWAs that can rip people off. She put that position to the party room, she got rolled and she clearly got rolled again on the amendment. I will give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this: at least she knows what she believes in and she is prepared to stand up for it. I have to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that. I can understand her high state of anger with her colleagues whom she described in the media as having ‘gone to water’. I can understand that. She at least knows what she believes in. She believes in Work Choices and she always will. But this government was elected to deliver something different. It is this bill. We are seeking passage of it through the House of Representatives today. We will receive the Senate inquiry report. We always supported there being a Senate inquiry with a proper time frame. We will consider what the Senate inquiry report says. But having had that consideration I can see no reason why this bill cannot pass the parliament this week so we can end forever the spectre that Australians walk into their workplaces to be confronted by an Australian workplace agreement that takes away an award condition from them without any, or any proper, compensation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can carry on about nominal expiry dates and time periods for agreements, but what she and the Liberal Party know is this: the only thing that ensured the end of Australian workplace agreements that can rip conditions away was the election of the Rudd Labor government. We would never have got to this point had the Howard government been re-elected. She will dismiss it—she will carry on about nominal expiry dates—but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must concede that next week when this bill is proclaimed there will never again be an Australian worker who walks into their workplace fearful that that is the day when an Australian workplace agreement gets shoved into their hands that takes away an award condition for no proper compensation or perhaps no compensation at all. I think that is a truly historic step. The Rudd Labor government believes it to be a truly historic step. It is what the Australian people voted for when they repudiated Work Choices and the party of Work Choices—the Liberal Party. 1859 13:43:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The coalition urges the minister to review the existing bill in the light of the Senate inquiry. We also understand that the Senate committee will deliver its report on the inquiry sometime this afternoon. The coalition understands that the Labor government is keen to put its election promises into action, but it should heed the warnings that this bill will not achieve what Labor said it would achieve. The minister should put aside her ideological rhetoric and admit that the bill is so poorly drafted and deficient that it should be withdrawn and redrafted. She should listen to the evidence that has already been given that shows what impact the inconsistencies and the complexities will have on business, particularly the construction and mining sector, which has done so much to underpin the economic strength that we are currently experiencing. I urge the minister to do so. Bill agreed to. 1859 Ms GILLARD (Lalor —Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion) 13:44:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 1859 Bills R2925 1859 Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 1859 13:46:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I rise today in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008. We are in the midst of an exciting and ever-changing global telecommunications environment. When federal Labor announced its broadband policy last March, it indicated then that it would use the funds in the Communications Fund to partly finance its commitment to establish a national broadband network. This bill represents an early step in the process to deliver on this significant election commitment, a commitment that will see an investment on a promise to deliver a world-class national broadband network, with minimum speeds of 12 megabits per second to 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses, to be rolled out over the next five years. This bill amends part 9C of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to enable money in the Communications Fund to be used for the purposes of funding a national broadband network. The use of the fund will be entirely consistent with the purpose for which it was intended: to improve telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. The Rudd Labor government is determined to bring Australia out of the technological black hole we were left to wallow in for 11½ long years by the Howard-Costello government. In his speech to the House on 12 March, the member for Dunkley claimed that this bill was: ... the first effort to unravel all of that sound public policy ... the future proofing protection ... that remote ... and regional Australia had looked for to give them comfort ... He referred to the Rudd government’s decision to invest in a national broadband network and access the fund as a ‘state-sanctioned smash and grab raid’. He called the National Broadband Network commitment a ‘vague’ and ‘citycentric idea’ and a ‘sound bite’ which ‘the Rudd government is struggling to turn into public policy’. It is remarkable that the member for Dunkley would say that when for 11½ years the Howard-Costello government was aware of major problems in accessing broadband around Australia, in particular in regional and remote parts of Australia, much of which is in my own state of Western Australia. In that time it virtually sat on its hands and did nothing or little while the caravan moved on. The previous government did not build a national broadband network. Furthermore, it only promised to create one in 2007 after it realised how popular with voters Labor’s plan was. The previous government legislated to quarantine the $2 billion Communications Fund so that only interest earned could be used and to only allow expenditure of the revenue stream. Under this approach, approximately $400 million would have been available to improve telecommunications in regional, rural and remote Australia every three years. The member for Dunkley said that the Communications Fund was put in place to protect rural and regional Australians against the emergence of a new digital divide as technology moves forward. Frankly, by opposing this bill the opposition appear to want to ensure that a digital divide continues. Without the Rudd government’s proposal, homes and businesses would have been left out in the cold without the best fibre technology available to them. The Howard-Costello government were not nation builders. They were tired and out of touch. They completely failed to recognise that a reliable, high-speed broadband network is, to our nation in this century, the modern equivalent of the railway network in the late 19th century. They failed to comprehend how critical a modern telecommunications infrastructure is for productivity growth and to our economy. They failed to understand that a national broadband network is a critical tool for small businesses for effective e-health and education services. We saw something like 17 so-called broadband proposals during the life of the Howard-Costello government which seemed to go nowhere. It took the previous government 11 years to announce a task force, a task force that was widely criticised as not having the requisite skills to ensure the best outcome for Australians, with guidelines that provided almost no clarity on the objectives of that task force and their process. It was only when they found themselves staring down the barrel of the 2007 federal election that the previous government finally announced a belated broadband plan. They came up with a simple two-tiered, two-class plan they called ‘Australia Connected’, which was condemned by some people in regional and rural Australia as a second-class service delivered by an outdated system. The tired Howard-Costello government failed the Australian people by promising a substandard broadband plan that would have done little to improve current levels of telecommunications infrastructure in Australia, particularly in my electorate of Hasluck. This was not a long-term vision that would have served the people of this country. This was just another illusion. There can be no denying that, as a consequence of the previous government floundering on the National Broadband Network, Australia is behind in the digital dark ages. Time and again the Howard-Costello government demonstrated that they were not nation builders. Instead, we witnessed bandaid, quick-fix solutions that the now opposition hoped would help them scrape through to the next election, and during that time Australia went backwards compared with the rest of the world in broadband and broadband infrastructure. Our future productivity relies upon a national broadband network that will open new markets for Australian business and drive economic productivity and growth in the future. The Australian people deserve a world-class, fibre-to-the-node broadband future that will guide Australia’s economy, and the Rudd Labor government is proud that we have a plan that will contribute to the wellbeing and long-term economic prosperity of Australians everywhere. I hosted a forum in my electorate of Hasluck last year with the now Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy, to discuss telecommunications with community members. We were both struck by the level of frustration felt by constituents about the lack of adequate, reliable telecommunications and broadband services in their suburbs. These complaints were often from people who lived only a few kilometres from the nearest exchange. My office regularly receives complaints from constituents who are tired and fed up with being passed around and are trying to find out why they and other residents in their streets and suburbs are still unable to obtain broadband access. People who live no more than 10 or 20 minutes from the Perth CBD have no access to broadband, despite several applications to their ISPs, because the infrastructure is not available to them. I find it appalling that even today a web designer who lives in Huntingdale and runs his business from home has to make do with the old dial-up system. These are hard-working residents and constituents who depend upon broadband access to provide for their families while trying to sustain their own businesses and livelihoods, yet they have been told again and again that they do not live in areas which can be accessed by broadband. These are just some of the people the previous government failed. Under the Rudd government’s National Broadband Network, the hard-working families and business owners in my electorate, from Maddington to Helena Valley, will finally have access to the digital services they deserve. The government has committed an investment of up to $4.7 billion to establish a new high-speed broadband network, in partnership with the private sector, to 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses over the next five years. As I have said, this is critical to our long-term social and economic prosperity. The bill also ensures that Australians in rural and regional areas are not forgotten. Indeed, the need for investment in telecommunications services is greater in rural and regional Australia than it is in our major capital cities. I know this as someone who grew up in the bush and who understands the importance of services to people who live and work in our rural and regional areas. Increasingly now we are seeing advances in technology, allowing people access to more sophisticated diagnostic services in health and to better and more reliable education services—all dependent on decent access to broadband or a high-speed broadband network, something that for over a decade, as I have said, the Howard government failed to properly invest in. I am also pleased that the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, chaired by Dr Bill Glasson, announced in February that it intends to run a national program of public meetings in regional Australia to address the adequacy of telecommunications in rural and remote parts of the country and that these public hearings will commence in Western Australia. Given the potential importance of the committee’s findings, I welcome the government’s decision to extend the report of the Regional and Telecommunications Independent Review Committee to August 2008. This will allow the committee to consider the National Broadband Network and other government policies which will benefit regional telecommunications across Australia in making their recommendations. The bill amends the existing act to allow funds to be drawn from the $2 billion principal in the Communications Fund rather than the revenue stream of $400 million that would have been made available every three years to spend on improving telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. By contrast, this government is prepared to invest $4.7 billion to fund this critical piece of national infrastructure now. The government is determined to ensure that Australians in regional and remote areas are able to access reliable high-speed broadband services. It is worth noting that regional Australians would have been waiting 35 years longer to achieve the same level of investment under the previous government’s legislation. We are currently experiencing an unprecedented technological transformation in almost every aspect of our lives. It is time that we started to meet the challenge of putting Australia on an equal footing with our global competitors after so many years of neglect. As I have said, I think it is extraordinary that members opposite claim to be concerned about access to technological services such as high-speed broadband by those in regional and remote Australia when there is such a stark difference in the preparedness to invest in providing that kind of infrastructure to people who live in our regional and remote areas. It demonstrates that the Rudd Labor government understands that broadband and the digital economy are crucial to Australia’s long-term prosperity and that, unlike its predecessor, this government has a plan which will lead Australia out of the telecommunications dark ages and into the digital future. This bill represents a significant milestone in the implementation of the Rudd government’s initiative to give Australia as a whole a first-class broadband network for the future, a commitment that was extremely popular at the 2007 federal election. I commend this bill to the House. Debate interrupted. 1862 Condolences 1862 1862 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 14 March 2008 of the Hon. Clyde Robert Cameron AO, former minister and member for Hindmarsh, and place on record its appreciation for his long and meritorious public service and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Clyde Cameron was the member for Hindmarsh for 31 years, from 1949 to 1980, an era spanning from the end of Ben Chifley’s time as Prime Minister to Bob Hawke’s election to the seat of Wills. After the death of Kim Beazley Sr in October last year, he was the sole surviving member of the parliament elected in 1949; Clyde Cameron was the last of ‘the 49ers’. Clyde Cameron was a cabinet minister in the Whitlam government, a prolific author and a leading figure in the Australian labour movement for more than 40 years. Clyde Cameron was born on 11 February 1913 at Murray Bridge, South Australia, the son of a shearer of Scottish descent. It was a poor but happy upbringing. As he said many years later: We assumed that it was the natural order of things that children did not wear shoes and would have to go to school barefooted. He left school at 14 to work as a shearer. He experienced unemployment during the depths of the Great Depression and, during the rest of the 1930s, worked in every Australian state and in New Zealand as well. His harsh experience of working life, combined with a political awareness that he had learned at the family dinner table, led him to become a lifelong supporter of the working people’s movement and, in fact, an active participant in the Australian labour movement. In The Confessions of Clyde Cameron, published in 1990, he remarked of his mother: Every mealtime she used to talk with us about the state of society, explaining that it did not have to be the way it was. If we took an intelligent interest in politics and exercised our right to vote when we became old enough, then we could change things … I can honestly say that I do not remember a meal at which political and social questions were not mentioned by my mother. Clyde Cameron’s commitment to changing things began with an active role in the Australian Workers Union from a very early age. He gained a reputation for his dedication to improving the working conditions of shearers. He travelled the sheds across much of southern Australia, meeting with shearers and often sleeping in the back of his car before travelling the next day to another remote location. By 1941, at the age of just 28, he had become South Australian state president and federal vice-president of the AWU. From 1943 to 1948 he was the union’s industrial advocate and taught himself industrial law. Clyde became State President of the Labor Party for South Australia in 1946, and at the 1949 election he was elected to the House of Representatives for the Labor seat of Hindmarsh. His entry marked the beginning of 23 years in opposition for Labor. He rose quickly to become a leader of the Left within the Labor caucus and, during the split of the 1950s, he played a prominent role opposing the influence of the industrial groupers. Clyde Cameron served in the shadow cabinet for two decades, from 1953 to 1972. In the Whitlam Labor government, he served as Minister for Labour, from 1972 to 1974; Minister for Labour and Immigration, from 1974 to 1975; and Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, in 1975. One of Clyde Cameron’s greatest achievements in office was taking the case for equal pay for women workers before the arbitration commission. That case was argued by Mary Gaudron, later, of course, the first woman to be appointed to the High Court bench. Clyde Cameron was an effective and able parliamentarian, a great storyteller who brought passion, intelligence and colour to parliamentary life and then to political and historical debate afterwards. After retiring from the federal parliament, he played a major role in documenting Labor history and interviewed prominent political and other national figures as part of the National Library’s oral history program. His published works include The Cameron Diaries of 1990 and The Confessions of Clyde Cameron, also of that time. Clyde remained a frequent contributor to public debate well into his 80s. Clyde Cameron was a tough and passionate man who was as hard on his own side of politics as he was on his opponents. It is true that he could bear the odd grudge for a while, yet he was able to deal with political opponents like Menzies and Gorton with a great generosity of spirit. His personal relationships aside, Clyde Cameron’s commitment to working men and women remained paramount throughout his life. This was recognised when, in 1982, he was awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia. On behalf of the government, I offer condolences to his wife, Doris, and his family. 1864 14:05:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —I rise on behalf of the opposition and alternative government in support of this condolence motion. The Hon. Clyde Cameron was by all accounts a good man: a great servant and sometimes critic of his political party but always a man who believed in building a stronger and a better Australia as he saw it. His passing marks, in many ways, the end of an era in Australian public life. Born in Murray Bridge on 11 February 1913, he was the son of a shearer. He was educated at Gawler but left school at 14 on the eve of the Great Depression and worked as a shearer. At the outbreak of the war, Clyde married Cherie Krahe, with whom he had three children, Warren, Noel and Tania. From an early age he was active in the Australian Workers Union and the Australian Labor Party, becoming an AWU organiser and then South Australian state secretary and federal vice-president of that union in 1941. In 1946 he became State President of the South Australian branch of the Labor Party and in 1949 he was elected to the House of Representatives for the seat of Hindmarsh, being re-elected on 12 subsequent occasions. In 1969, Gough Whitlam appointed him shadow minister for labour, and on 19 December 1972, following the Whitlam victory, Cameron was appointed Minister for Labour, at the age of 58. It is said that at the first cabinet meeting Gough Whitlam listed the academic qualifications of the cabinet to show that it was the best qualified Labor cabinet ever. Cameron is reported to have said: What a relief, we wouldn’t want any drongos here like Scullin and Chifley. Despite the relationship between Whitlam and Cameron disintegrating in later years, Whitlam hailed Clyde as a principal architect of the Whitlam victory in 1972. He played an important role in delivering the necessary reforms that actually made Labor electable that year, and particularly was instrumental in supporting Whitlam’s move in 1970 to reform the Victorian branch of the Labor Party and remove its extreme left leadership. Following the 1974 election, he was appointed Minister for Labour and Immigration and finally he retired from the federal parliament at the 1980 election, at which point he was joint father of the House. He was a part of a generation of Labor politicians that spent 23 years in opposition, and he spent only three of his 31 years in parliament on the government benches. Despite his formidable nature and often fiery engagement with his political opponents, Jim Killen once observed, ‘The softest part of Cameron is his teeth.’ Clyde Cameron earned the respect of the conservative parties. Phillip Lynch, during his valedictory address, described him as one of the giants of the parliament. Clyde Cameron formed friendships with many of his opponents, including a very strong relationship with the late Sir John Gorton, who often stayed with Clyde when visiting Adelaide. Notwithstanding the many mistakes of the Whitlam years, Clyde Cameron’s move to throw the support of the federal government behind equal pay for women workers by appointing now High Court Justice Mary Gaudron to argue the case before the Arbitration and Conciliation Commission was a significant and enduring achievement of which we should all be proud. He improved the pay and conditions of public servants, yet came to later regret seeking to use the public sector as a pacesetter for the private sector. A real wage surge in 1974 of around 12 per cent, led by the public service, was very damaging to the Australian economy and a major contributing factor to rising unemployment. He later described the introduction of a 17.5 per cent annual leave loading as ‘a stupid decision’. He was a dedicated and tireless parliamentarian and a devoted servant of and advocate on behalf of the Labor Party and the labour movement. He died on Friday in Adelaide and he is survived by his wife, Doris, whom he married in 1967, and by his three children. This recognises the passing of a great man, a great Australian, and the condolences of the Liberal and National parties are strongly provided to his family and those who loved him. 1865 14:09:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise today to speak on the condolence motion for the late the Hon. Clyde Robert Cameron. Clyde was the first politician I ever met. It was during the election of 1977 that I met Clyde and handed out how-to-votes for him at Cowandilla Primary School. Anyone that met Clyde was in awe of his great presence, frank nature and ability, which commanded the attention of any audience. He was a great man, someone that I and all that knew him truly admired. Clyde was one of the last of his era to pass away, following other greats such as Mick Young, Reg Bishop and his brother Don Cameron, among others from South Australia. Personally, I feel very privileged to have known Clyde all these years. Clyde always offered his advice on all matters political throughout my career. He kept a keen interest in politics throughout his entire life, even in his last years. This interest was evident in his involvement in Hindmarsh campaigns. He was active in each one of the last three Hindmarsh campaigns and, as I said, I felt very privileged to have such a great man supporting me and the Labor Party. He co-launched my 1998 and 2001 campaigns, together with Kim Beazley, and was front and centre for the opening of the Hindmarsh electorate office when I was elected a couple of years ago. The 1998 Hindmarsh campaign was launched by Clyde at the Hilton Hotel. A miscommunication lead to Clyde thinking that it was to be at the ritzy Adelaide city Hilton Hotel, only for him to be told, with great relief, that the campaign launch was at the Hilton Hotel in the working class suburb of Hilton. It is a working man’s pub, where Clyde felt comfortable and stood proudly to discuss the trials and tribulations of a working man’s life. Clyde was always involved in varying ways within the South Australian labour movement and it was his passion to help those that he felt were underrepresented. Clyde would call me on a regular basis, keeping me informed of his dealings within Hindmarsh and passing on messages to be delivered either to the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, or to last year’s Leader of the Opposition—and today’s Prime Minister—Kevin Rudd. I remember a call I received from Clyde shortly after 24 November last year. I could feel the smile radiating from his face. He knew that his passion for the working man would again be something that was taken very seriously. Clyde Cameron was the member for Hindmarsh for 31 years. His dedication to his electorate has been long remembered by many members of the community, who often mention this great man’s defence of the working man’s rights. Clyde held great rapport with those in the electorate of Hindmarsh and with many individuals across South Australia. He had great links with the array of communities he represented. Clyde was a true believer, a true Labor man. His commitment to the working class was evident in his actions as a member of parliament, as a union representative and as a member of the Australian community. He joined the ALP at the young age of 15, as a young boy who would continue on to become one of the most influential men in the South Australian political and labour movements. His father was a shearer who worked hard to support his family and their farm in rural South Australia. There were many nights around the dinner table where Clyde would be encouraged by his mother to enter into discussions about issues relating to politics. Being bought up in a small, modest country town, Clyde’s roots in South Australia were firmly placed in Australia’s working class. His childhood and the great influence of his parents fomented his beliefs in the Australian fair go. Clyde joined his father as a shearer during his young years before his election as a full-time organiser for the Adelaide branch of the Australian Workers Union. His work at the AWU ensured that pastoralists fully observed the shearers award and he focused on the standard of hygiene within the workplace. He sat on the opposition benches from 1953 to 1972, before becoming the Minister for Labour and Immigration and also the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs in the Whitlam government. He introduced equal pay and the concept of flexitime—allowing workers to stagger their hours, principally to accommodate school-age children. These changes initiated by Clyde still have an effect on the working lives of Australians. His legacy will not be forgotten. Clyde’s great support of the unions and his reforming of the union movement led to the establishment of the Clyde Cameron College in Wodonga, which was an education centre. Clyde never forgot the working man. He would be smiling down on us today, as the working man’s rights are a centrepiece of discussion in our parliament. For me, it has been an honour and a privilege to know Clyde, as it has been for all the others that knew him. I feel very humble that I now represent the seat that such a great man, who contributed so much to Australia and contributed so much to Australian working people, represented. I would like to conclude by expressing my deepest sympathies to his wife, Doris, his children and his many grandchildren. 1866 14:15:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The passing of significant characters from our political history is always a cause for reflection on the part of serving members in this House, and that is an extremely appropriate course of action because it is an opportunity to reflect on the great political debates of the time and on the impact on the nation. Clyde Cameron began his political career as a renowned trade union hard man and was legendary for his so-called hatred of those on this side of the chamber. Yet, over time, he earned the respect of all sides of politics. When appointed to the Whitlam cabinet as Minister for Labour, he demonstrated that he was able to rise above ideology and to act in what he believed to be the national interest. Given his background and beliefs, the unions had high hopes that Clyde Cameron would bring greatly improved benefits for industrial workers. There were great expectations of increased salaries across the board for union members. However, when faced with the realities of managing budgets and managing the economy, Clyde Cameron tried to resist spiralling wage demands, which would fuel inflation. Cameron’s stance put him at odds with many of his Labor colleagues at the time and his relationship with Gough Whitlam deteriorated. He became increasingly critical of union leaders who, as he saw it, blindly pursued wage rises without regard to the state of the economy or to the policies of their own Labor government. Much to the surprise of some of his colleagues, Clyde Cameron revealed a feminist streak when he appointed Mary Gaudron to argue the government’s case before the arbitration commission for equal pay for women workers. Clearly, he recognised Mary Gaudron’s competence as a lawyer, and she went on to be the first woman appointed to the High Court bench. Through Clyde Cameron’s long parliamentary career and his commitment to the national interest, he demonstrated that he was true to the motivation of most members who enter this parliament—that is, the desire to make a difference and to spend our time here in this place working for the betterment of our fellow Australians. I offer condolences to the family of Clyde Cameron. 1867 14:17:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP 0 0 Mr DOWNER —I just very briefly want to add my support to this condolence motion because it is my view that Clyde Cameron was one of the greatest political figures to emerge from South Australia. He was a really great man in many ways. He was a great friend of my parents—initially, of my father. They came into the House together in 1949. My father was a quite traditional conservative and Clyde Cameron was not much of what you see on the other side these days but a very traditional representative of working people. He did a wonderful job standing up for working people throughout his life. Whilst I do not think my father ever agreed with too many of his policies, and was very critical of them on occasions, the friendship that developed between them and, in time, between Clyde and my mother, right up until the time of Clyde’s death, is an illustration of the type of man Clyde Cameron was. He was a man of enormous integrity. He was very tough. He was often extremely acerbic, as members on both sides of the House I think would know. He was a great champion of working people, as he saw it. He was also an extremely amusing man and he was able to build relationships right across the political spectrum—very close and very personal relationships. He will be greatly missed. As I said at the beginning, he really was one of the greatest political figures, Liberal or Labor, or Democrat for that matter, that South Australia has produced. He will be very sorely missed, and I want to extend my condolences to Doris and to his family. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. 1867 Miscellaneous 1867 1867 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 14:20:00 —I move: That the resolution of the House relating to the death of the Honourable Clyde Robert Cameron AO be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 1868 14:20:00 Questions Without Notice 1868 14:20:00 1868 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 Mr BILLSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, as shadow foreign affairs minister, he accompanied a Chinese importer of Australian telecommunications products, Beijing AustChina Technology, on a paid trip to Sudan, in June and July 2006, where the company pursued a number of business deals? 1868 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Any sponsored travel of mine is fully documented in my pecuniary interests register. I stand by everything which is in that register. 1868 1868 14:21:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 Ms JACKSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the discovery of HMAS Sydney? 1868 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. I am pleased to inform the House that one of Australia’s most enduring maritime mysteries has now been resolved, at least in substantial part. Last night the final resting place of the missing Royal Australian Navy cruiser HMAS Sydney was confirmed. In 1941 HMAS Sydney, the most famous of the RAN ships at the time, was sunk as the result of a naval engagement with the German raider Kormoran. The Sydney had already returned from the Mediterranean, where it had been engaged gallantly in action, including most significantly against a more heavily armed Italian cruiser, the Bartolomeo Colleoni. In the Indian Ocean, however, the engagement with the Kormoran resulted in both the Kormoran and HMAS Sydney going down. In the case of HMAS Sydney, tragically we lost all 645 members of the crew. This was the largest loss of life in a single naval incident on the part of the Royal Australian Navy. Until yesterday the families of those crew members did not know the final resting place of their loved ones. Now they know. But that knowledge reminds them of a loss and, though more than 60 years have now passed, that loss is still keenly felt. On behalf of the government, and I believe on behalf of the parliament, we convey our condolences to all surviving family members of those who tragically lost their lives in the service of their country on board HMAS Sydney. Finding the location of the German raider HSK Kormoran was the key to finding HMAS Sydney. The Kormoran was found approximately 112 nautical miles off Steep Point, in Western Australia, and it is lying in about 2,500 metres of water. The Australian government has advised the German government of this find. The Sydney was found around 12 nautical miles from the wreck of the Kormoran, and it is also lying in 2,500 metres of water. The government’s advice is that the location of the wreck and its dimensions give certainty to the fact that HMAS Sydney has indeed been found. The debate, however, will now continue as to the precise circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Sydney. That debate will now be aided by undersea photography that will emerge as a result of the discovery of the wreck site. It is important that we have now moved to protect the site of the wreck of HMAS Sydney. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has used interim orders to declare both sites to be historic shipwrecks under the Historic Shipwrecks Act, thereby preventing any removal or disturbance of the shipwrecks without formal approval. I wish to thank all of those involved in the search for HMAS Sydney. The Finding Sydney Foundation has done research work over many years to identify the most likely location of the wreck, and it has organised the current search. The crew of the SV Geosounder, the ship that conducted the search, are to be congratulated for their fine work, as is the Royal Australian Navy for the excellent support they have given to the search foundation. I also thank the governments of New South Wales and Western Australia and the former Australian government for the financial support that they committed to this project. This is a historic day for the nation and it is a sad day for the nation. It is a historic day for the Royal Australian Navy and it is a sad day for the Navy. It is also a deeply sad day for the families of those who lost loved ones on the Sydney. Today in this parliament we honour the memory of those who served their country with courage and with pride. We honour also their families, who now suffer a renewal of acute loss and grief. 1869 14:25:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —On indulgence, I strongly support the remarks of the Prime Minister and congratulate the Sydney search group for their determination to find the wreck of HMAS Sydney. HMAS Sydney and the 645 men who went down in 1941 were lost, but never Australia’s pride, resilience and determination. The very deep wounds in Australian families, in the Royal Australian Navy and in our nation can now begin to heal. I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks in relation to this. I also recognise the fact that the member for Dunkley and others were instrumental in seeing that the funding was made available for this search. 1869 1869 14:26:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an earlier question concerning his visit to Sudan in 2006. Did the Prime Minister attend any business meetings in Sudan in June and July 2006 involving Beijing AustChina Technology and corporate representatives of the Sudanese government or any other companies? 1869 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The answer to the honourable member’s question is no, no-one accompanied me on that visit. I am advised that that company has also been a significant financial contributor to the National Party. 1869 1869 14:27:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of the Australian government’s approach to developments in Tibet? 1869 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the honourable member for her question. The Australian government remains deeply concerned about developments in Tibet and neighbouring areas. The government greatly regrets the violence and deeply regrets the loss of life. These are significant developments, and they have been the subject of comment not just by Australia but by the international community. I reiterate the call I made on Saturday, 15 March: that Australia of course recognises China’s sovereignty over Tibet—that is not in question—but China should act with restraint in these matters and should deal with protesters peacefully and peaceably and should allow the peaceful expression of dissent. The Australian government again calls for restraint—indeed, restraint from all parties—and calls for the violence to end quickly and without further casualties. I raised the Australian government’s concerns about human rights, including human rights in Tibet, directly with the Chinese foreign minister, Mr Yang, during his visit to Australia on 5 February. Australia regularly raises these issues with China, including through its regular human rights forum dialogues—the next of which is proposed for later this year. The Australian government believe that China’s best interests are served by implementing policies that will foster an environment of greater respect and tolerance. We remain concerned about serious inadequacies in the protection of Tibetans’ civil and political rights. Australian officials, both in Canberra and in Beijing, have discussed these developments with Chinese officials, both in Canberra and in Beijing, in recent days. That discussion will continue. I said that not only Australia but also the international community had made public remarks. In recent days the French foreign minister, Mr Kouchner, said: We asked for restraint on the part of the Chinese authorities. We asked for human rights to be respected. The United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has called for dialogue and for all sides to refrain from violence. The United Kingdom foreign minister, Mr Miliband, said that he believes there are two important messages: One is the need for restraint on all sides, but secondly that substantive dialogue is the only way forward. We obviously see that there are real strains there but they need to be addressed in a way that balances restraint and dialogue. I very strongly agree with the sentiment of that remark; it reflects the Australian government’s position. Members would be concerned to be assured about the welfare and safety of Australians in the area, particularly in Lhasa. My most recent advice is that some 14 Australians were in Lhasa or thereabouts. They have all been contacted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They are all safe and arrangements are being made for some of them to exit the area. The department’s travel advice for China was updated overnight, on 17 March. It continues to advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Lhasa and advises Australians to exercise a high degree of caution in the rest of Tibet, particularly in areas adjoining provinces bordering Tibet, following demonstrations there. I conclude where I started: the Australian government remains deeply concerned about developments in Tibet, and I am sure that concern is reflected by all members of the House. 1870 1870 14:31:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in light of your response to the previous question about business meetings in Sudan, can you explain comments reported today by the Vice-President of Beijing AustChina Technology, Maggie Zeng: Our company needed to do some business in Sudan in 2006, Kevin went with us. We were just doing business with some companies in Sudan, including some telecoms companies. 1870 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The first point is: I am not certain who that individual is. Secondly, during the visit to Sudan I had no meetings whatsoever concerning telecommunications of any description, nor was I in Sudan with any representative of that company. Furthermore, on the broad question of why members of parliament use sponsored travel, particularly when they are in opposition, if you had been shadow foreign minister for as long as I was, you would know there is no travel budget provided through the parliament. As a consequence, you rely upon private sponsorship. The way to maintain public accountability in this is to make sure that your pecuniary interest register declares all such sources of sponsored travel and is done so in full conformity with the laws of the country. That is my response to the honourable member’s question. 1870 1870 14:32:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 Mr ZAPPIA —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the latest developments in global financial markets and the consequences for Australia? 1871 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. The parliament would be aware that financial markets in the United States and around the world are going through a period of great turbulence and severe uncertainty. This instability began last August, when we saw the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. The losses as a result of the subprime market now are estimated to be in excess of some $140 billion, and it is expected that the final losses will be substantially higher. As a consequence, financial institutions have become more reluctant to lend money to one another, and this in turn has led to a general tightening of credit markets. Credit has become less available and, as a result, credit has become more expensive. The United States Federal Reserve has taken action in two areas to deal with the challenges currently confronting their own financial markets. Firstly, it is making more liquidity available to a wider range of financial institutions. Over the weekend, the Fed provided capital through an intermediary to Bear Stearns, a major US financial institution exposed to significant subprime related losses. Secondly, the Fed is reducing interest rates. This morning the Fed cut the discount rate on the funds it lends directly to financial institutions from 3.5 per cent to 3.25 per cent. In the six months since September last year, the Fed’s key interest rate has been reduced from 5.25 per cent to three per cent. This tightening of liquidity in financial markets has had a significant impact on US equity markets as well, causing steep falls in share prices—and not just in the United States. Now we see an impact on the real economy in the United States; more than 85,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of the year. Working families in Australia—and the Australian economy more generally—are not immune to developments in global financial markets. Turbulence in global financial markets is putting upward pressure on interest rates through rising credit spreads, at a time when Australian interest rates are already rising as a consequence of domestic inflationary conditions in our domestic economy. This is a double whammy when it comes to the impact on working families dealing with their mortgages. The government will take hard decisions to help Australia achieve long-term low inflationary growth, and that means taking the measures necessary to boost productivity growth on the one hand while on the other hand taking some of the pressure off inflation by ensuring that public demand is kept under control. Of course, there are some voices in the Australian parliament and in the public debate now who do not believe that inflation is a problem. The member for Higgins contributed last year, saying that inflation was just about right in terms of the level it had reached then. We have had the member for Wentworth describing inflation as something of a fairytale. But the bottom line is this: we have to deal with inflation because higher rates of inflation, fuelled by higher rates of government spending—which we saw in times past—in turn push interest rates up. When the Liberal Party was in government, on the question of expenditure, on the question therefore of contributing to inflationary pressures, it directly contributed to overall upward pressure on interest rates, and the people paying that price today are working families. Of course, on the question of overall inflation and the causes of it, the Reserve Bank of Australia Governor, Glenn Stevens, said last week: ... aggregate demand in the Australian economy rose strongly through 2007 … at a pace well above the economy’s likely growth of potential supply. On the supply side, our response, as the Leader of the Opposition would be aware, is to act on skills and infrastructure. On the demand side, what we are dealing with—through the finance minister, the Treasurer and others—is a record of profligate government spending which we inherited from our predecessors. If those opposite do not believe that, read carefully the biography on the former Prime Minister and the record it contains of the member for Higgins’s views about the profligate spending habits of the former Prime Minister—not out of our mouths but out of the Liberals’ own mouths. These things require a concrete course of action, pursuing prudent fiscal policy to moderate demand, and that is the sort of budget we will be delivering when we get to May. This is our response—a five-point attack to deal with inflation, the core of which is to make sure that we restrain overall demand by producing a conservative budget outcome. Global financial markets are in a state of turmoil. As a consequence, Australia cannot be made immune from the wash-over effect of those financial markets. We, through the government, through the Treasury, are maintaining close contact with the regulators of Australia’s financial institutions. But, when it comes to the impact of fiscal policy on the overall economic wellbeing of this country, we will be pursuing a rigorous, robust and conservative approach to the management of this country’s public finances when it comes to the upcoming budget, unlike the government which preceded us. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to table the document he read word for word. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister reading from a document? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the document confidential? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Yes. 1872 1872 14:38:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in relation to your trip to Sudan in 2006, did the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provide any assistance, and did you seek it? 1872 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I do not have the details of the trip to Sudan on me, but my recollection is that, through the High Commission in London, I sought assistance in obtaining a visa to visit Sudan. My reason for going to Sudan was to investigate circumstances in western Darfur. I then travelled to western Darfur. My reason for so doing was that the situation on the humanitarian front in western Darfur at the time was deteriorating grossly. At that time there was not a lot of evidence of activity on the part of the previous government on that. I went there with the single objective of trying to shine a light on that problem, and I did so. As a consequence, I had discussions with relevant representatives of the government in Khartoum and relevant Darfurian representatives, most particularly on the state of circumstances in western Darfur. 1872 1872 14:39:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent contributions to the debate about the magnitude and nature of the inflation challenge in the Australian economy? 1872 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question, because inflation is one of our most pressing domestic challenges. It hurts working families, it puts upward pressure on interest rates, it erodes living standards and it threatens future growth and job creation. In order to fix the problem you need to be up-front and honest about it. As the Prime Minister has indicated again today, inflation is at a 16-year high—and, of course, the member for Higgins last week accepted full responsibility for that 16-year high. These inflationary pressures have been building in our economy for some time. They are the product of a lack of investment in capacity and the product of a previous government that was engaging in reckless spending. Last week in Canberra the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia gave a very important speech about inflation to Treasury officials. He made three very important points. First, he repeated the bank’s view about inflation being elevated and that it will remain elevated for a considerable period of time. That was point No. 1. Second—point No. 2—he said that inflationary pressures were broad based. Third, he made the very important point that the surest way to higher average interest rates is to accept higher inflation. Of course, not everybody agrees with the Governor of the Reserve Bank—most notably the member for Wentworth. He is so out of touch with Australians he does not think that there is an inflation problem in this country. He does not have a clue what life is like around the kitchen table. The pretender from Point Piper does not understand that inflationary pressures are eroding the living standards of working families. Last year, he said inflation and interest rates were overdramatised—that was simultaneously with him supporting Work Choices, which was ripping away the wages and working conditions of many people in our community. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was asked a question about the current economy; he was not asked about alternative views and he was not asked to give an opinion on other members of the parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer was asked about recent contributions to the debate. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Mr Speaker, I am talking about the contribution to inflation from the reckless spending of those opposite. In fact, the member for Wentworth admitted last week that he multiplied a grant application by a factor of five, from $2 million to $10 million—yet another example of reckless spending. There are numerous examples of reckless spending, as the Treasury pointed out only last week. Last week the member for Wentworth gave a 4,000-word speech arguing against fighting inflation. He argued against it. He also denied that we had a skills crisis in the economy. He went on to say that we were heading for a recession and then accused this side of the House of talking down the economy. What a record! Of course, he was then severely embarrassed when he claimed the Treasury had recommended a figure to the government when it came to the minimum wage. He was severely embarrassed about that and, when he was repudiated by the head of Treasury, he attacked the integrity of the head of Treasury. You cannot believe anything the member for Wentworth says. He never lets the truth get in the way of his political ambition. He will say and do anything. Thankfully, this side of the House understands the size of the inflationary problem and the need to deal with it. Those on that side of the House are the best friends that inflation ever had. 1873 1873 14:44:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the answer he gave just a moment ago in which he discussed the speech made by the Gov-ernor of the Reserve Bank of Australia last week. He described that speech as a com-prehensive speech about inflation—and so it was. How does the Treasurer explain that the governor, in this comprehensive discussion of inflation and its causes, did not refer to any of the Treasurer’s claimed causes of inflation, such as a chronic skills crisis and infrastructure bottlenecks, let alone the reckless spending of the previous government? Who is right: the Treasurer or the governor? 1874 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The governor is comprehensively right and the member for Wentworth is comprehensively wrong, because what the governor talked about was elevated inflation—pushing up interest rates. The approach of the member for Wentworth is very simple—if people put their heads in the sand about elevated inflation, they condemn this country and householders with a mortgage to permanently higher interest rates. That is the recipe of the member for Wentworth. He has an approach which is dangerous. He has an approach which will condemn people to paying permanently higher interest rates because he will not deal with the causes of inflation and has no program to do so. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Leave not granted. 1874 1874 14:46:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What steps is the government taking to reduce the burden of red tape on businesses? 1874 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —The government has inherited economic circumstances that are challenging. We have a major inflation problem in this country—upward pressure on interest rates and government spending that is growing currently at 4½ per cent in real terms. The government is committed to tackling the inflation challenge both in the short term and in the medium term. The critical part of the medium-term attack on inflation is getting better productivity—getting it up from near to zero, where we have inherited it—and ensuring that we have greater pressure on red tape, which will get deregulation moving in this economy so that businesses are unbound and able to create more jobs, greater wealth and higher economic growth. The attack on red tape is a critical part of the government’s agenda to bear down on inflation in the medium term. Red tape imposes costs on business, it reduces innovation and, in some cases, it is designed to protect individual businesses against prospective competitors, against innovation and against attacks from outsiders. There are a number of things the government plans to do. Some of these are already in train. The first and perhaps most obvious is that the government has appointed a minister in the cabinet—me—as Minister for Finance and Deregulation. This was a recommendation from the former government’s Banks inquiry, which it chose not to proceed with. We have also appointed Dr Emerson, the member for Rankin, as the assisting minister. Secondly, we have established a working group as part of the COAG process to accelerate and intensify the process of pursuing harmonisation of regulatory arrangements across the states and territories. There was an agreement on this at COAG last year but, unfortunately, there has not been a huge amount of progress in the intervening time. We have turbocharged that process in order to get some outcomes, and that will be reported at the COAG meeting later this month. We are also pursuing internal red tape within the bureaucracy. My department is chairing a working group within the federal bureaucracy which is designed to deliver cuts in red tape within Commonwealth processes, which will indirectly benefit business and the wider community. Finally, we are developing a culture of continuous improvement in regulation. We should not need to have reviews once every 10 years like the former government did. We should not need to have a Banks inquiry or a Bell inquiry into red tape, because our regulatory system should be delivering feedback all the time so that we can build in a process of continuous improvement. This is crucial to reviving productivity in the Australian economy. I am pleased to see that a number of early decisions have been taken by this government to unleash business and to unleash competition. For example, the government decided to get rid of the monopoly wheat export marketing arrangements that we inherited from the previous government—and the opposition still cannot make up its mind whether or not it supports the government’s initiative—and to liberalise arrangements in aviation between Australia and the United States in order to provide greater competition and greater opportunities for business in the United States. The previous government talked a lot about removing red tape. It talked a lot about reducing the burden on business. It said when it took office it would cut red tape by 50 per cent. Does anybody believe that red tape was even reduced, let alone by 50 per cent? The answer of course is that very little was achieved—just two reviews, one of which disappeared without a trace, and with the second we are doing our best to follow through with some of the recommendations. I note that the Business Council of Australia is about to release another report which, amongst other things, will deal with these issues. I would commend that report and the views of the Business Council to the members of this parliament. The Business Council has played a very important role in putting pressure on governments on these issues, and I applaud its efforts. I hope that the opposition’s response to this report is a little more intelligent than its response to the most recent Business Council report about government spending. The member for Wentworth, in response to the Business Council’s claim that there is serious excessive spending and that the government needs to reduce spending, said, ‘They are just the voice of the big end of town.’ I have news for you Malcolm: you are the big end of town! And the big end of town does not even agree with you. You cannot even get your own mates to agree with you. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will address his remarks through the chair and refer to members by their titles, and not expand the question too far. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I apologise, Mr Speaker. The government are serious about pursuing economic reform and we applaud the contribution to the debate of organisations like the Business Council. Deregulation is central to our agenda—tackling inflation problems, tackling productivity and tackling the barriers to greater wealth creation, greater job creation and greater innovation in our economy. The former government talked a lot about doing something about red tape, but they did very little. We are not on about wild promises; we are on about delivering some outcomes. We are rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work. 1875 1875 14:52:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has confirmed that the government is considering a new tax on plastic shopping bags. I also refer the Prime Minister to the new increased road user charge for trucks agreed between state and federal Labor governments. Does the Prime Minister really understand the impact on grocery prices for all Australian families of new Labor taxes on plastic shopping bags and road transport? 1876 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The Environment Protection and Heritage Council, including all state and territory governments, previously committed to the phase-out of free single-use plastic shopping bags by 1 January 2009. This commitment was made by the previous Howard government, and that position has been supported by this government. Voluntary measures have been trialled but have not been as successful as governments of both persuasions had hoped. This government is still working with states and territories to analyse options for phasing out plastic bags. The Environment Protection and Heritage Council expects to discuss this issue at its upcoming meeting on 17 April 2008. The government has not decided on its preferred option, but let me tell you this: we will not be imposing a Commonwealth levy on plastic bags. Action on plastic bags should not be used as a government revenue raiser. On the broader question of the impact on working families’ budgets, the best thing that we can all do to improve the lot of working families is to get rid of Work Choices. The best thing we can do to help working families is to make sure that their penalty rates cannot be ripped off them, that their overtime rates cannot be ripped off them and that their basic, most elementary payments cannot be ripped off them. That is a set of laws that you imposed on working families, and you still stand by them. 1876 1876 14:54:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. What is the current status of the assessment of AWAs by the Workplace Authority? What impact is this having on small businesses and Australian businesses at large? 1876 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Robertson for that question. I know she has a deep concern about the impact of Work Choices on working families in her electorate. During the last few sitting weeks, we have revealed a number of statistics that, to coin a phrase, members of parliament need to ‘really understand’. One of the statistics that members of parliament need to really understand is the dimension of waste of taxpayers’ money that was engaged in by the former government on Work Choices propaganda: $121 million, which we know, and as has been revealed in this parliament, caused a plague of mousepads, leftover pens, fridge magnets, pamphlets and all sorts of other paraphernalia. The members over there might think that that is moderately humorous, but let us remember that money was ripped out of the purses and wallets of hardworking Australians in order to pay for the propaganda that the former government, the Liberal Party, engaged in in the run-up to the election. A second statistic that members of the House need to really understand relates to the dimension of rip-off of working Australians by Work Choices. I have had the opportunity in this parliament over the last few weeks to confirm that 89 per cent of AWAs sampled removed at least one protected award condition, 83 per cent excluded two or more and 52 per cent excluded six or more. On the question of rip-off— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I see that they are interjecting about salary. Listen to these statistics about salary. On the question of the dimension of the rip-off of Australian working families engaged in by the Liberal Party, by the members who sit opposite, I referred in the parliament last week to a sample of Australian workplace agreements that showed approximately 45 per cent of the AWAs provided between $1 and $49 per week below the required rate of pay for protected award conditions, 50 per cent provided from $50 to $199 per week less, approximately five per cent provided $200 to $499 per week less and approximately half of one per cent provided for more than $500 per week less than the required rate of pay—statistics that members opposite might need to really understand. Maybe when they come into this place pretending that they care about the future of Australian working families they should start by actually explaining how it is that in government they supported extreme laws like Work Choices and they continue to do so. Today I can reveal new problems that are confronting the Australian community because of Work Choices. These are problems particularly confronting Australian businesses. I can reveal that there are new statistics from the Workplace Authority about the backlog of Australian workplace agreement processing. There was, of course, an initial backlog of 54,000 agreements that was created because of the shambolic way in which the former government introduced the so-called fairness test into law. It announced a test it had not formulated, it legislated retrospectively for the test and there were weeks when agreements were backlogging up and no-one knew how to process them. The initial backlog was 54,000 agreements. I can indicate that, to the end of February 2008, approximately 298,524 agreements have been lodged for assessment. Approximately 160,154 of them have been finalised, which means there are approximately 138,000 backlogged agreements waiting to be finalised. At the average rate of processing countenanced by the Howard government, processing this backlog would take 8½ months—8½ months when employers and working Australians would have no idea whether or not the agreement that they were working under was lawful. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —They were happy enough to sign it. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The party of Work Choices, right on cue! They have never met a rip-off they are not prepared to defend, even when the people they are ripping off are businesses who are caught in this processing nightmare. Now, at the average rate of processing countenanced by the Howard government, these agreements would take 8½ months to process. Let me tell you who needs to be apologising to Australian businesses. It is conceivable that, after five, six, seven or eight months of delay in processing, a small business in this country could be told that its agreement had failed. If you were told that your agreement had failed a fortnight after it was made, you would pay up the back pay. It might be a bit inconvenient, but you would deal with that. If you were told it had failed eight months after it had been made then that quantum of back pay could break a small business. That is the shambles that was Work Choices, brought to this country by the Liberal Party of Australia. They sit there and pretend that they care about Australian business when they are responsible for this red-tape nightmare. Like other messes left by the Howard government, we will clear this up. We are accelerating the rate of processing so at least employers and employees know what is going on. Of course, today we have passed the legislation which ends the making of Australian workplace agreements—the first step in getting rid of Work Choices, which failed working families and failed businesses. 1877 1877 15:01:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to letters now being sent to pensioners about the increase in deeming rates for seniors and retirees, which, of course, has the effect of cutting their pensions. Given that this cut, decided by his own minister, will affect over one million pensioners, does the Prime Minister stand by his guarantee to pensioners that they will not be a dollar worse off under his government? Does the Prime Minister really understand the impact of government policies on vulnerable people? 1878 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. As you know, deeming has been a policy which has been in operation now in this country for more than 15 years. When the previous government were elected, I understand they put in place new deeming arrangements from 1996. There are a range of changes for pensioners that come into effect from this Thursday, 20 March. They are as follows: (1) the first $125 payment of the increased utilities allowance, which pensioners will get every quarter; (2) the first payment of the increased telephone allowance, increased by $11 a quarter for those with a home internet connection; (3) indexation increases to the pension of 1.7 per cent or $9.10 per fortnight for singles; and (4) the deeming rates will increase by half a per cent, as the honourable member referred to before. Previous deeming rates have been changed over time by the previous government—both up and down. Let’s not try to gild the lily, shall we? The net result on the pension rate will therefore depend on individual circumstances. If pensioners’ assets have reduced in value due to volatile share-market activity, this will be taken into account in their pension assessment. If the value of shares has decreased, Centrelink recognises that therefore the total value of an individual’s asset has also decreased, so the income able to be derived from that investment will be reduced. Deeming has been around for a long time. It was applied by the previous government at approximately this time each year to adjustments for those who are on the pension. These adjustments have been made consistent with the previous timetable. I conclude where I began: in terms of these additional payments which will be made for the first time to those on the pension—in particular, the first of the $125 quarterly payments of the utilities allowance—our intention is to try and make the financial circumstances of those on these fixed incomes a little bit better. It is very tough out there, given the cost-of-living pressures they are under with groceries, petrol and a whole range of other things as well. This is intended as a modest measure to assist those who are finding the cost-of-living pressures from their weekly basket of goods difficult to handle, but a new $500 utilities allowance should help at the margins. 1878 1878 15:04:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on the government’s progress in implementing the fair, balanced and flexible workplace relations policies it took to the last election? 1878 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Banks for his question. He is a man who you can always hear in this parliament, no matter what the circumstances. Of course, today this House took the step of passing Labor’s transition bill, which will go to the Senate later this week. This bill will end forever the making of new Australian workplace agreements. From its passage by this parliament and from its proclamation, Australian workers will no longer have to worry about walking into work only to be confronted by an Australian workplace agreement that rips away their basic terms and conditions. When that debate was finalised in this place, there was a remarkable scene. This was the issue that was at the heart of the last election campaign, the issue on which members of the Liberal Party fought for many months and the issue about which government ministers day after day under the Howard government used to walk to this dispatch box full of brimstone, fire and defence of Work Choices, yet when it came today in this parliament to deal with the bill that would end the first part of Work Choices, what did we see? We saw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition here as the relevant spokesperson. We saw the member for Warringah here, presumably on duty. We saw the member for Cowan sitting on the back bench. Apart from that, we saw nothing. They no longer have the courage to come into this place and defend what they believe in. What they believe in is Work Choices. When it came to dealing with this legislation, which is of so much importance to Australian working families, there was one honest man on the opposition side in that debate, and that was the member for Fisher. I would like to quote the member for Fisher, because I believe it is important in indicating what will happen in the future should the Liberal Party ever be re-elected. He said: I have a little difficulty with the position of the coalition— which he described as meaning that ‘we are not going on to oppose Labor’s bill’— While the government does have an obligation to bring in this bill, on the other hand I would like to have been able to vote in the parliament on the basis of the principles on which I stood for re-election on 24 November… There is one honest man on the opposition benches. Apart from an absence of passion and defence of Work Choices as they cowered in their offices, not supporting and not opposing the legislation, there was one other remarkable thing that was missing from the chamber. Members of parliament might have thought they heard the corridors resounding to a shout of ‘Miranda’ during the debate in the parliament. They might have thought that Picnic at Hanging Rock was on the TV again. But it actually was not a shout of Miranda; it was a shout of ‘Malcolm’ as the member for Wentworth did not turn up for his allocated speaking spot in the debate. When called upon— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The first answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave went for six minutes. This answer, I understand, has now been going for around four minutes, if not more. She is now hallucinating at the dispatch box. I ask that you bring her back to the question at hand. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There was no point of order but I do suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that, given the careful wording from our learned colleague who asked the question, she is now stretching her response. She will bring it to a conclusion. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will conclude shortly. The only hallucination in this parliament was the prospect that the member for Wentworth would come in and stand up for anything, because he is obviously leaving his options open on Work Choices for later leadership ballots within the Liberal Party. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will bring her response to a close and be relevant. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —On the question of the workplace relations legislation, the bill has cleared the House of Representatives. There will be a Senate inquiry that reports later today. We will, of course, be mindful of what has occurred in the Senate inquiry, but there is no reason why this bill will not clear the parliament by the end of this week other than a desire by the Liberal Party to keep Work Choices staggering on. 1880 1880 15:10:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments he made on 2 October last year that he had asked Labor’s national secretary to conduct an internal investigation into the Transport Workers Union slush fund, allegedly used to illegally support Labor candidates. I also refer the Prime Minister to his comments on 8 October that the investigation was still underway and that the national secretary would make a statement about the findings. Prime Minister, has the Labor Party national secretary made any such statement? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no Transport Workers Union slush fund money was used to support Labor candidates at the last federal election, including the candidates featured, signing a pledge to that union, in the TWU election brochure I have here—namely, the members for Charlton, Robertson, Dobell and Lindsay? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the past, speakers have ruled out of order questions of this nature, which go to the organisational responsibility of the party rather than to the parliamentary wing of a political party. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The middle part of the question, which directly went to whether the national secretary had done this or that, was out of order. The introduction and the latter part of the question, I will allow. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, there is a rich history in this place of such questions being asked, including, I recall, questions to the previous Prime Minister about the activities of the Liberal Party and to the previous Deputy Prime Minister about the activities of the National Party. I ask that you reconsider the decision if you are heading down the path of ruling that part of the question out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have made a ruling where I have allowed the introduction and the last part but not the bit in the middle that asks the Prime Minister what the actions of the national secretary were. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order, the middle part of the question is, and I quote: I also refer the Prime Minister to … comments on 8 October that the investigation was still underway and that the national secretary would make a statement about the findings. That is the middle part of the question, which relates specifically to comments made by the Prime Minister. So I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that that part of the question is in fact in order because it relates directly to comments made by the Prime Minister himself. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney for their submissions, but I am standing by my earlier ruling. I make the observation that it is very difficult when these questions arise about statements that have been made by the Prime Minister before becoming the Prime Minister. I allowed the earlier questions today because I understood the intent with which the questions were being put about the Prime Minister’s ability to carry out his duties. This goes to matters that are in the political party arena. To that extent the Prime Minister may comment, which is why I am allowing those aspects of the question. 1880 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am particularly grateful for the intervention by the member for North Sydney, because he was the minister at the time. When these matters came to the public debate, he was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Insofar as I can work out, the minister in that capacity referred these allegations to a range of different investigative bodies. He referred these matters to (1) the Australian Electoral Commission, (2) the Australian Taxation Office and (3) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Workplace Authority and the Australian Industrial Registry also undertook inquiries—that is five. Referring matters to specialised areas of government at both a state and a federal level ensures that the body with the appropriate legislative responsibilities and investigative powers can undertake a thorough examination of the issues. The appropriate course here is to allow these investigations, which are on foot, including that of the AEC, to proceed. On the statement by the national secretary of the Labor Party: I will check where that is up to and whether his investigations have concluded. I say again that I encourage anyone who has any information relevant to these matters to submit it to the relevant authorities, of which there are a large number conducting investigations based on the actions by the minister when he exercised a ministerial office on this side of the House. 1881 1881 15:16:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. What is the government doing to place downward pressure on the cost-of-living increases for working families? In particular, what is the government doing to protect working families’ weekly budgets for groceries and for petrol? 1881 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for Bass for her question. Australians have been dealing with increases in the cost of living and financial pressures for some time. Families and individuals with a mortgage have been dealing with 12 interest rate increases in a row and the highest underlying inflation in 16 years. Within those inflation figures there is cause for concern. The price of everyday, unavoidable purchases for working families has been going up even more than the average inflation rate. Inflation is concerning, of course, but, when the price of basic purchases which cannot be avoided is going up more than the average inflation rate, that is a cause for particular concern. Since 1996 in Australia, food inflation has increased by 43.6 per cent. The price of food has gone up by 43.6 per cent. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Moncrieff! DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The comparable figure in the United States is 25.1 per cent. The figure in the United Kingdom is 11.6 per cent, while the relevant Canadian figure is 22.1 per cent. So food inflation in Australia has been much higher than in countries that we normally compare ourselves with. Of course, the response of the previous government was to shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Well, Australian working families have never been better off; therefore there is nothing we could or should do,’ but this government has a different approach. Whilst recognising that there are a range of factors which lead into increases in grocery and food prices, it is appropriate that we ensure that the grocery market in Australia is as competitive as it can be. There are a range of factors leading to these increases, as we have always said. Whether it is the drought or the growth in demand for food from Asia, there are a range of factors. But the fact that Australia has had the highest food inflation amongst the major OECD countries is cause for concern and presents a good reason for further examination to get all the issues on the public record and all the policy proposals on the public record. We believe that competition is the best way to put downward pressure on grocery prices in Australia. That is why, on 22 January, the government instructed the ACCC to commence a formal inquiry into grocery prices under part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act, implementing another election commitment of this government. This has been supported by a diverse range of groups, from Choice, on the one hand, to the National Farmers Federation, just today. I endorse the comments of the National Farmers Federation, which in its release earlier today said: CONSUMERS – increasingly attuned to rising food bills – are justified in wanting to know what is driving higher food prices. Likewise, Australian farmers are just as eager for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to get to the bottom of where the money is going, the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) said today. I also endorse the comments of the vice-president, Charles Burke, who said: … The truth is farmers only ever receive a small portion of the price paid at the check-out … There appears to be an increasing gap between farm-gate and retail prices, therefore, this is a good opportunity to find out exactly what is happening in the supply chain. I also note that the Leader of the Opposition has called for the terms of reference for this inquiry to be expanded. I am not sure whether he supports it or opposes it or neither supports nor opposes it, but he has clearly called for the terms of reference to be expanded, so presumably he supports it. The closing date for submissions to the inquiry has now passed, and there will be a range of hearings across the country in every state and territory, covering both rural and metropolitan areas. The inquiry has wide-ranging terms of reference and will examine competition and cost pressures at every point in the supply chain, from the farm gate to the checkout counter. In addition, one practical measure the government can take to assist families in dealing with cost-of-living pressures is to give them more information about supermarkets in their area and which is generally cheapest. This will assist in a modest way to correct the imbalance between retailers and consumers and to bring more transparency— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Moncrieff! DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —to the grocery-pricing process. The ACCC is working with the government on developing a basket of goods which can be surveyed to give consumers more information about which supermarket in their area is generally the cheapest. This information will be included on a dedicated website linked to the ACCC website, implementing another election commitment of the Rudd Labor government. Consumers will of course then be able to make their own decisions, based on their own experience, and will compare quality, service delivery and price, based on their own experience and the information available on the website. Of course, it will not be possible to have the price of every good in every supermarket in Australia, but it is important to remember that, the more information consumers have, the more transparency and information we have in the grocery market in this country. Another unavoidable expense for many Australians is, of course, petrol. The House is aware of the steps that the new government has taken since its election to introduce more transparency and competition into the Australian petrol industry. The community is particularly concerned about petrol prices in the lead-up to long weekends and holiday periods. In the lead-up to Easter, the increased investigatory powers that the new government has given to the ACCC will be particularly important. On Friday, the ACCC chair, Graeme Samuel, after consulting with the government’s nominee for the office of petrol commissioner, wrote to petrol companies seeking any advance information available to explain any divergence between the Singapore price of oil and the price of petrol in Australia over the Easter period. Honourable members will recall that the divergence between the price of oil in Singapore and the price of petrol— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, which goes to relevance: could the Assistant Treasurer, when he is talking about the impact of the petrol commissioner, explain when the petrol commissioner is actually going to start work? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Dickson will resume his place. The Assistant Treasurer will bring his response to a close. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —He clocks on about 11 years too late. That is when he should have clocked on—you should have done it 11 years ago. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Assistant Treasurer will ignore the member for Dickson. The member for Dickson will cease interjecting. Assistant Treasurer, bring your response to a close. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honourable members will recall that, on the last occasion the price of oil in Singapore diverged from the price of petrol in Australia, the ACCC exercised its powers given to it by the Rudd government. After those powers were exercised, the divergence disappeared and the difference between the price of oil in Singapore and the price of petrol in Australia returned to more normal levels. The House can be assured that the ACCC will not hesitate to use its formal investigative powers over the Easter period. It also can be assured that this government will take every step— 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Last week I raised the question of answers in this place taking the form of ministerial statements. I believe that this answer is beginning to take the form of a ministerial statement. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question was in order. The response is relevant but lengthy. The Assistant Treasurer will bring his response to a close. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —In conclusion, the House can be assured that the government will take every step to put downward pressure on the prices which cause concern for everyday Australians—something the previous occupiers of these benches abjectly failed to do for 11 years. 1883 1883 15:25:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given the importance of Australia’s strong regulatory and monitoring regime in ensuring our financial system is resilient and secure in the face of international shocks, such as the current global credit crisis, is it still the government’s intention to cut $129.8 million in funding to ASIC, as recently announced by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation? Does the Treasurer really understand the impact of this significant budget cut on Australia’s independent corporate watchdog? 1883 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question; it is a very important question. We have experienced regulators in this country. They are first-rate and there could not be a period in our history when they have been more important. We are talking to them daily about international financial turbulence. We have talked to them about their budget. For the next two years, we have rescinded the proposal that we took to the last election for very good reasons—because our regulators need to be as strong as they possibly can be. They need to receive the full support of the government. They are receiving the full support of the government and the full financial commitment of the government. 1883 1883 15:26:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Now that the wrecks of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran have been found, will the minister update the House on further immediate actions to be taken? 1884 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 Mr SNOWDON —I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. With the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge the service, bravery and sacrifice of the 645 men, several of whom were from Air Force, that went down with the Sydney and, of course, the 78 personnel who were lost from the Kormoran. I think it is important that we offer congratulations to the Finding Sydney Foundation and their search leader, Mr David Mearns, who is an internationally renowned shipwreck investigator, who has added another two incredible finds to his reputation this week. He previously found Her Majesty’s ship the Hood and refound the Bismarck. Today, further sonar work is being conducted around the wreck of HMAS Sydney and the debris field at increasingly higher resolutions. The Finding Sydney Foundation also hope to collect additional high-resolution images of the bow of the Kormoran. The Geosounder, which is the vessel they have leased from Singapore, will be heading back to Fremantle Port later this week to collect a remotely operated vehicle with video filming capabilities that is able to operate at a depth of 3,000 metres to further examine the wrecks of both the Sydney and the Kormoran. Defence will be conducting extensive analysis of the imagery of the HMAS Sydney wreckage to see whether it is possible to determine what may have caused her to sink, with such a tragic loss of life. The outcome of that analysis will inform us as to whether or not any further inquiry might be appropriate. I should make it clear here that the wrecks—both the Sydney and the Kormoran—will not be disturbed in any way, and only recorded and photographed. These sites of both nations’ war dead will be treated with absolute respect. Already the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has declared both sites as historic shipwrecks, as the Prime Minister pointed out, with a protection zone of 200 hectares around the wrecks under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. It is important that we understand that this declaration will give legal protection to these vessels, their crews and the relics, from damage, disturbance and removal. Under the Historic Shipwrecks Act there will be significant penalties for anyone who engages in underwater activity within 200 hectares of the protection zone. This penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 or five years in jail. I will also be asking the environment minister to consider further levels of protection for these wrecks such as Commonwealth heritage listing, which will require the development of a management plan for the wrecks. Further actions and a management plan will also involve consultation with other Commonwealth agencies such as the commemorations and war graves area of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As we care for the wrecks, what must not be forgotten are the families of those men who lost their lives so long ago. The government will examine the possibility of conducting a formal commemorative service on the anniversary of the sinking of HMAS Sydney in November of this year. We will also be setting up for those family members a 1800 number so that families can make a call to the Department of Defence to get information that may be available. In the first instance, the Department of Defence will be attempting to contact those family members for whom we have records to inform them of the progress. The hotline service will provide up-to-date information on the status of the search. The number will be released along with updates in coming days. In addition, the Department of Defence will also maintain an up-to-date website to inform the general public about ongoing developments. 1885 1885 15:31:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. In the light of comments made by the South Australian Minister for Health, John Hill, that GP superclinics ‘don’t necessarily have doctors in them’, and that no decision has been made whether the superclinic that the minister is establishing in Modbury will have doctors, can the minister assure patients that every federally funded GP superclinic will actually be staffed by doctors? 1885 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for his question. He would be well aware that he is slightly misrepresenting the South Australian minister here. Maybe members who are not from South Australia would not be aware that there is a GP Plus healthcare strategy in South Australia, which is a strategy about investing in primary care where centres are run by the South Australian government—some have doctors and some do not. Those that have been— Opposition members interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —In South Australia, the South Australian GP Plus clinics—some have doctors and some don’t. The 31— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat until the House comes to order. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The 31 GP superclinics announced by the federal government will all have GPs in them, as our commitments have made clear. The South Australian government and the federal government will be working together on a number of sites. A number of those sites are going to be jointly funded by the state government and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will require that the parameters set for our superclinics will be met by any state government. I think that it has been quite mischievous of the member to be raising this issue when he knows full well that the South Australian strategy, although complementary to that being supported by the Rudd Labor government, is not the same as that being initiated by the Rudd Labor government. These superclinics we are very proud of. They are an opportunity for the federal government to use their substantial contribution to ensure that we do get doctors, nurses and allied health professionals working together for the benefit of the community, providing better chronic disease care management—making sure that parents of young children can go to the one place to get the assistance of a doctor, a dietitian, a physio and others. These are an opportunity for us to make a real difference to the services that are provided in these regions. I know members on this side of the House—including, I am sure, the member for Makin, where the Modbury superclinic will be established—are very pleased that there is a Commonwealth government prepared to invest in health services across this country, prepared to put money into health services in communities where they are needed, and make sure that the Commonwealth investment is used to make sure that we can attract, in particular, doctors to a number of places where there are shortages and where we can work with state governments to complement the money that they are going to put into these sectors as well. In the member for Makin’s electorate, there is going to be a superclinic in Modbury. There are going to be 31 other superclinics, and they will be designed— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Is there a GP shortage in Modbury? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition cannot ask a supplementary question by interjection 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —to make sure we can deliver the best possible high-quality services to those communities. 1886 1886 15:35:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister outline how the Rudd government is delivering on its election commitment to take action on climate change? What are the dangers of inaction? 1886 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Petrie for her question. There is a wide dimension of dangers of inaction in relation to addressing climate change: regional security, our environment, the economy and our society. At the last election the Australian people made it clear they wanted a government that was prepared to rise to the tackling of climate change. Since the election, the Rudd Labor government has set about delivering on our commitments—commitments to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to some 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050; a commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol as the first act of the Rudd government; and a commitment to implement a $500 million national Clean Coal Fund and a $500 million Renewable Energy Fund. Through my own department, we are implementing a range of commitments that will change the way the Australian community goes about energy and water efficiency. These include low-interest green loans for household energy and water efficiency improvements, along with customised home energy audits, expansion of the Solar Cities program with new solar cities in Perth and in Coburg in Victoria and grants of up to $50,000 from 1 July this year to make every school a solar school. Crucially, these initiatives are intended to complement emissions trading, which sits at the heart of our efforts to reduce emissions, and today the government have announced a detailed timetable for the design and implementation of emissions trading. We have set out a detailed timetable, which will see emissions-trading schemes commence in 2010. We will take a careful and methodical approach to finalising the design of emissions trading. An exposure draft of emissions-trading legislation will be released in December 2008 but community and industry, I must stress, will be invited to have their say on a green paper to be released in July 2008 outlining key design issues and options. Emissions trading is a significant undertaking and it has been introduced in response to a significant challenge. Reports that some members may have seen today from the United Nations Environment Program suggesting that the rate at which some of the world’s glaciers are melting has more than doubled are very troubling and concerning indeed. For those of us that have followed closely the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change these reports are yet again a very clear symbol, a very clear sign and now very clear evidence of the urgency with which we must address climate change. The member asked me about the dangers of inaction. It is a danger we see almost daily when people engage in a confected debate which raises the spectres of the costs of action without ever recognising the implications of unabated climate change for our economy, for our environment and for our society. It was a debate that was engaged in by the member for Barker in this place last month, when he said: If we are going to have problems as a result of climate change ... I think the most sensible approach would be to adapt. He then said: In the end, some of the other suggestions that have been put forward are going to come at a great cost to the Australian economy. We heard another contribution to this debate from the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, on 5 March in Washington, when he referred to discussions of climate change science as ‘intellectual bullying and moralising’. He said, when he was introducing these remarks: The left liberal grip on educational institutions and large, though not all, sections of the media remains intense. The government is getting on with the job of addressing the great challenge of climate change. It is not caught up in false, arid and ancient debates. This government is not scaremongering about the costs of acting on climate change whilst never acknowledging the dangers to our economy and our way of life from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. And, if there is a danger in climate change debate, it is the danger of 11½ years of delay, inaction, scepticism and scaremongering by members on the other side on this issue. I will just make this final point. When the Assistant Treasurer came to the box and produced what I thought was a compelling answer in the House, the Leader of the Opposition said to him in an interjection, ‘We’ll be back to get you when we get a price on carbon.’ RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson interjecting— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —And he has just confirmed those comments. This underscores the different approaches between a government on one hand and an opposition on the other whose only approach to climate change is to scaremonger on the costs of action to deal with this issue. The fact of the matter is that it is the costs of inaction that outweigh the costs of action, something the government understand. We are getting on with the job of taking responsibility for securing Australia’s long-term sustainable prosperity, unlike those on the other side. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 1887 Questions to the Speaker 1887 1887 15:41:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the question just answered by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts I seek guidance as to ministerial arrangements with regard to climate change in this House. I am following the guidance which you yourself gave to me. Last week on Thursday a question on emissions trading was given to the minister for the environment. He declined to answer it. He has given today an extensive answer in relation to emissions trading and again last week— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have got the point that the member for Flinders is making. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr HUNT —We seek to know who is responsible for climate change in this House on that side. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! As I recollect, the details of ministerial arrangements and the division between ministers of responsibilities for ministers in the other chamber have been circulated. I thanked the honourable member for giving me notice of this last week of this as a dorothy dixer, but I do not thank him for now raising it again. But I will try to do justice to the point he is making. The general principle that should underpin question time is that this is an opportunity to put the executive to the test about areas of public policy and it would seem appropriate that the executive from time to time would decide who is the appropriate minister to answer the question. It is on that basis that I proceed in this way. 1888 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 1888 1888 15:43:00 Mr RUDD,MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister may proceed. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Further to my answer to an earlier question, I was asked about government assistance when I went to Sudan and Darfur. Apart from the assistance given to me by the High Commission in London for a visa, there was an officer from the Australian embassy in Cairo who accompanied me to Sudan and assisted in arranging the program that I was on. Also, when I was in Sudan and then travelled to western Darfur, I was hosted by World Vision and I thank them for that. That was done through the agency of Tim Costello. 1888 Questions to the Speaker 1888 1888 15:44:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 554 of House of Representatives Practice, dealing with length of answers. Given that, prior to the election, the Prime Minister said that he was going to have a more productive House that was— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely, this is ironic and is clearly out of— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney will get to his question. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Page 554 of House of Representatives Practice refers to the length of answers and says that there has been a history in this place of calling for quorums on each occasion that a minister’s answer goes for more than five minutes. Given that today we had four answers in excess of five minutes each, and it is a pattern of behaviour from this government, I ask that you look into the issue of the length of answers by ministers to their own questions, and, significantly, if there is any opportunity for us as a parliament to ensure that the answers are of a shorter nature and more relevant to the questions that are being asked. 1888 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —Can I just make the overarching point that it is not my intention to take questions on matters of the proceedings, but on this occasion, to assist the honourable member for North Sydney, I am happy to make some comments. The member for Flinders did the appropriate thing and raised this by way of a point of order on one of the answers given, and I made a comment on that. I think that if we look at House of Representatives Practice in detail, it indicates that, whilst from time to time occupants of the chair have tried to curtail the length of ministers’ answers—and to the certain extent that is what I have done—the chair ‘has no power to require that it be followed’. That is one of the difficulties. Can I make the observation that if backbenchers can do a good job of explaining a case in a 90-second statement or a three-minute statement or, indeed, make the case for a number of things in a five-minute adjournment speech, I think that all of us could probably make do with five minutes. Today actually was not the worst day for the length of answers, but I think that this is something that the whole House has to deal with. It is not something that is in the power of the chair to actually put in place. 1888 Personal Explanations 1888 15:47:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Once again, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said today in question time that I had said, ‘Inflation is a fairytale’. That is not correct. What I said is that inflation is too serious a challenge to be trivialised by the Treasurer’s fairytales and falsehoods about our economic history. 1889 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:47:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 1889 Ministerial Statements 1889 1889 15:48:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —by leave—Increasing Australia’s long-term productive capacity is the key to maintaining downward pressure on inflation and, therefore, downward pressure on interest rates. As Labor announced prior to the election, a key element in the government’s plan to increase Australia’s productivity is our deregulation agenda. For the first time, Australia has a cabinet minister for deregulation. This high-level oversight of the government’s deregulation agenda is essential for getting things done. The Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation, Dr Craig Emerson, and I are working in cooperation with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments Business Regulation and Competition Working Group to tackle areas of regulatory duplication or inconsistency between different levels of government, such as occupational health and safety laws. At the federal level, we are already at work undertaking a stock take of existing regulation and taking action where we find unnecessarily burdensome or ineffective regulation. In partnership with the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law, I have set up the Financial Services Reform Working Group to cut back 50- to 80-page product disclosure statements to the essential information that consumers actually need to know. And, in the coming months, I will be working with other portfolio ministers to deliver better regulation and better outcomes for the Australian community. The Rudd Labor government is working towards a culture of continuous regulatory improvement. Under our government, we want more productive relationships between regulators and those they regulate. We want to actively seek out and respond to ideas for improvement all the time. An important part of this commitment to better quality regulation is ensuring that any proposed new regulations are thoroughly scrutinised so that they are introduced only where necessary and at minimum cost to business and consumers. I am pleased to announce to the parliament today further details of Labor’s commitment to the best practice regulation requirements and the continuing role of the Office of Best Practice Regulation in their administration. The Rudd Labor government fully endorses the six principles of good regulatory process identified by the 2006 Banks Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business. These principles state that governments should not act to address problems until a case for action has been clearly established. In acting, governments need to consider the benefits and costs of a range of feasible policy options and then select the one which provides the greatest overall net benefit to the community. Effective guidance should be provided to regulators and regulated parties about the regulation’s policy intent and expected compliance requirements. Then there should also be mechanisms to ensure regulation remains relevant and effective over time as well as effective consultation with regulated parties at all stages of the regulatory cycle. The Australian government’s Best Practice Regulation Handbook, released in August 2007, sets out best practice regulation requirements in line with these principles. The Rudd Labor government is committed to not just maintaining but further strengthening these requirements. Since Labor took office last year, the Office of Best Practice Regulation, or OBPR, has moved into the Department of Finance and Deregulation. This arrangement better reflects the central role of the OBPR in improving the quality of new regulation through administration of the best practice regulation requirements. Despite this administrative change, the OBPR will retain its distinct identity. It will continue to be a one-stop-shop to assist departments and agencies to meet the government’s requirements and to assess and report on compliance. Compliance with the procedures and processes outlined in the Best Practice Regulation Handbook remains mandatory for all Australian government departments, agencies, statutory authorities and boards that make, review or reform regulations. This includes not only ‘black-letter law’ but also quasi-regulation such as rulings, guidance notes and standards. The level of regulatory impact analysis required is greater the more significant the regulatory proposal is likely to be. A preliminary assessment must be undertaken for all regulatory proposals. Proposals likely to involve medium business compliance costs must also have a further full quantitative assessment of compliance cost implications using the business cost calculator or approved equivalent. Proposals likely to have a significant impact require even greater analysis, including compliance cost quantification, to be undertaken and documented in a regulation impact statement (RIS). The OBPR has responsibility for certifying that compliance costs have been quantified and for assessing the adequacy of RISs. Proposals can generally not proceed to the decision-making stage until OBPR certification has been received. In performing this role, the OBPR is concerned only with the standard of analysis undertaken. It does not endorse or support particular regulatory options or outcomes. Such deregulation policy matters will be dealt with in a separate area of the department as part of the government’s broader agenda for reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses and consumers. To perform its watchdog role effectively, the OBPR needs to exercise its decision-making functions in an independent manner. The government has put in place procedures to ensure that neither ministers nor their staff can seek to intervene in or influence the OBPR’s deliberations. Decisions on the adequacy of a regulatory impact analysis and compliance with the best practice regulation requirements will be made independently by the Executive Director of the OBPR. As the OBPR is now part of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the department’s secretary will be able to support the independence of OBPR’s decision making on best practice regulation requirements, helping shield the OBPR executive director from any undue influence, and appropriately advocating and defending the OBPR regulatory assessment process. The OBPR will also continue to prepare the annual Best practice regulation report. This report outlines compliance with the best practice regulation principles on an agency by agency basis, and its public release is an important element in ensuring transparent and accountable regulation making. Publication of the report will be prepared and authorised by the Executive Director of the OBPR and presented to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation as a final report. These existing arrangements are important to ensure any new regulation is effective and any compliance burden is as small as possible. Keeping the regulatory burden down is vital to ensure we do not tie people up in unnecessary red tape and compliance regimes. In a number of areas the Rudd Labor government is moving to further strengthen the transparency of the regulatory impact analysis process. Rather than waiting until the end of each reporting year to publish adequacy data, the government will require that, in all but exceptional circumstances, a RIS and the OBPR’s assessment of its adequacy will be made public before regulations come into effect. The best practice regulation requirements will also be amended to require that OBPR assess and make public its assessment of the adequacy of any post-implementation review. The government is truly committed to ongoing, continuous regulatory reform. That is why we have put deregulation front and centre of our agenda to improve Australia’s productivity, to keep inflation as low as possible and to remove unnecessary barriers to people finding well paying, secure jobs. I commend the statement to the House. 1891 15:56:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Dickson for speaking for a period not exceeding eight minutes. Question agreed to. 1891 15:56:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —At the commencement of this government, Prime Minister Rudd outlined a process by which he claimed the incoming government would be more accountable, open and transparent. He said that one of the processes by which the government would deliver on that promise would be for ministers to deliver ministerial statements. At the time, there was no qualification made that ministerial statements needed to be of substance, and today proves that very point. This ministerial statement is certainly light on substance and really is a tick-the-box exercise for the minister. The coalition welcomes any proposal for genuine deregulation. This statement today focuses on the best practice for regulation the government intends to maintain—which, on the reading of it, is merely a continuation of the practices introduced by the coalition government. This is just another example of ‘me-tooism’. It is proof that the government, even at this early time in its first term, has no plan for the future, and it is proof that it is simply trying to remodel coalition government initiatives and policies. Of course, the question has to be asked: ‘When the coalition has a proven track record of decreasing regulatory burdens on business and increasing productivity, why wouldn’t you?’ In its annual review of reform, Going for Growth, the OECD rated Australia first in terms of both having the lowest overall level of regulation and imposing the least impact on economic behaviour. I quote from the OECD report: In the last decade of the 20th century, Australia became a model for other OECD countries in two respects: first, the tenacity and thoroughness with which deep structural reforms were proposed, discussed, legislated, implemented and followed up in virtually all markets, creating a deep-seated “competition culture”; and second, the adoption of fiscal and monetary frameworks that emphasised transparency and accountability and established stability oriented macro policies as a constant largely protected from political debate. Together, these structural and macro policy anchors conferred an enviable degree of resilience and flexibility on the Australian economy. The combination resulted in a prolonged period of good economic performance that shrugged off crises in its main trading partners as well as a devastating drought at home. The short-term outlook is for continuing strong growth of productivity and output, low inflation and budget surpluses accompanied by tax cuts. This flattering testimony from the OECD is slightly embarrassing for the minister, because it not only gives a glowing endorsement to the coalition but also takes the wind out of the minister’s crusade to wind back apparent restrictive regulatory costs on business. In fact, productivity improvements across the economy mean that the average worker now produces over 20 per cent more than he or she did in 1996. That is, what used to take Australians five hours to produce now takes four hours. The minister’s statement does not tell us much, but it does tell us that the government think that the coalition did so well with deregulation that they will continue with the best practice that the coalition introduced. The minister states that the government endorses the six principles of good regulatory process identified by the 2006 Banks task force. It was the coalition who established the 2006 Banks Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business; it was the coalition who implemented the six principles of good regulatory process identified by the task force; and, in 2007, it was the coalition who launched the Best Practice Regulation Handbook, which sets out best practice regulations requirements in line with those principles. Now Labor are trying to sell regulation best practice as their own. The record of the Rudd government so far on red tape is definitely bad. Similarly to their statements about being economic conservatives, the ALP are all talk and no action in this area. In particular, the most important new regulation introduced by the Rudd government—and certainly Labor’s first substantive piece of legislation—the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008—clearly fails the tests set out in the minister’s statement. The minister has indicated that policy proposals that are likely to have a significant impact should be subject to detailed analysis, including compliance cost measurement, to be undertaken and documented in a regulation impact statement. The transition to Forward with Fairness bill does have an RIS; however, it is totally inadequate by the government’s own test. It is only a couple of pages long and does not measure a single compliance cost change. This is clearly against the guidelines issued only a few moments ago. Where is the analysis of whether Forward with Fairness will actually reduce business compliance costs, as the ALP repeatedly argues? It is a question that the minister might like to answer. Evidence presented at the Senate inquiry over the past two weeks has highlighted a high level of confusion and difficulty for business, particularly small business, once Labor’s transitional workplace relations legislation is enacted. Business has raised concerns about increased costs associated with the reinvigoration of the award system, as has a member of the Labor Party, with Senator Marshall suggesting last week that the ALP plan for award modernisation without disadvantaging workers or increasing employer costs is contradictory and an impossible ask. Where is the analysis of the costs imposed on business from the abolition of AWAs and award rationalisation? These huge gaps suggest to me that either the government has no plan for reducing red tape or it knows that its plan with Forward with Fairness will increase red tape and costs on business. Today’s ministerial statement also says an assessment of an RIS will be released publicly before regulations come into effect. Will the government do this for the transition to Forward with Fairness bill? Or will the government put pressure on the Office of Best Practice Regulation to clear the bill, even though the minister explicitly rules this out? I note that two other significant Rudd government changes do not contain an RIS. Those are the changes to tax deductibility for political donations contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 and the removal of the higher education workplace relations requirements contained in another bill. The purpose of ministerial statements is to deliver a statement from the government, by the minister, on an issue of substance. This is a particularly important issue for all business, not just for large business but, most importantly, for small and medium business. The expectation is that if the minister is going to make a ministerial statement to this parliament to address the very important issue of deregulation and reduction of red tape for small business, then he should make a statement which business can rely on and which business can look to in order to see some substantive outcome. The reality is that this government is full of rhetoric. The Rudd government’s actions on this show that today’s statement is without substance. The minister should take the first opportunity to address the concerns and the questions that I have raised as part of my contribution to this ministerial statement, but the reality still is that this was a policy announcement that was not substantive in nature and was an abuse of process of this chamber. I think that it shows the contempt and the arrogance of the minister so early on. (Time expired) 1893 Miscellaneous 1893 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(h) and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 12 March 2008, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Shortland, McMillan and Gilmore. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 1893 Petitions 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I present petitions in accordance with standing order 207. 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions from certain citizens have been lodged as follows: HH4 Mr Jenkins 104 1893 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that war crimes committed in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War remain uninvestigated. Your petitioners therefore request the House to ask the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to raise with the government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh the importance of fully investigating war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and bringing the perpetrators of such crimes to fair and just trial. 104 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 104 residents of Western Australia) HH4 Mr Jenkins 48 1894 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: That unexploded cluster submunitions disproportionately kill and maim civilians, including a high percentage of children, delay relief efforts in post-conflict countries as well as disrupting long-term development, and continue to kill and maim long after they are deployed and the conflict has ended. We note that Australia does not possess cluster munitions and does not use them. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to Legislate a ban on the production, transfer, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians; Pass a motion supporting the Oslo Declaration committing Australia to working towards an international treaty that would ban the production, transfer, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians globally. 48 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 48 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 104 1894 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the undersigned note that like anti-personnel landmines, anti-vehicle mines are indiscriminate in who they effect, that they disproportionately kill and maim civilians, they delay relief efforts in war affected countries and they go on killing for decades after the conflict has ended. We note that Australia’s existing stock of anti-vehicle mines is obsolete and only used for training purposes, so now is the perfect time to commit to supporting a ban on these indiscriminate weapons. We welcome the Australian Government’s support for further restrictions on the use of anti-vehicle mines, but believe such measures to be inadequate to address the humanitarian problems caused by anti-vehicle mines. We, your Petitioners, call on the Federal Government to: Legislate a ban on the production, transfer, importation and use of anti-vehicle mines in Australia and by Australians other than by the Australian Defence Forces for training in demining and avoiding the hazards of anti-vehicle mines; and Pass a motion supporting the development of an international treaty that would ban the production, transfer, importation and use of anti-vehicle mines globally. 104 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 104 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 90 1894 To the Honourable the 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 many well-known public figures of this country who have publicly rejected the actions of the current Federal Government in its Northern Territory Intervention Strategy and Legislation and expresses our deep concern about it because: the Government’s strategy has been implemented with no consultation with Indigenous community leaders; the bulk of the $587 million allocated is to be spent on administration and bureaucrats rather than directly assisting Indigenous Communities; quarantining of welfare payments will result in many families, who are already struggling, being worse off; removal of the entry permit system exposes communities and children to further risk. We call on the incoming Federal Government to revisit the Northern Territory strategy and legislation in consultation with Indigenous leaders as a matter of urgency and to review its appropriateness for the goal of protecting Indigenous women and children in the Northern Territory or any other part of Australia. 90 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 90 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 833 1895 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We, the undersigned, call on the House of Representatives to urgently draft and pass legislation enabling the provision of special funding to subsidise the cost of standard-of-care chemotherapy treatment for the lung disease called mesothelioma. We believe that the best treatment available should be made accessible to all victims, where medically appropriate, at a price everyone can afford under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) listing, regardless of where victims live or how they contracted the disease. Furthermore, we respectfully request that the House take note that: An independent report has found up to half of all Australians with mesothelioma aren’t gaining access to this standard-of-care treatment for the disease, while others receive fully subsidised access to the same therapy. That the report found extreme access inequities exist between mesothelioma patients in different States, among those attending different hospitals, and between those exposed to asbestos via occupational hazard and those who cannot establish how they were exposed. We respectfully request urgent attention and action to address the inequity of access to treatment that currently faces victims of mesothelioma in Australia: 833 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 833 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 284 1895 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House the drastic need for the Commonwealth to allocate sufficient funds from the $22.3 billion AusLink 2 program to: Upgrade the Port Keats Road to sealed, all weather condition. The Port Keats Road provides access to Wadeye, the largest Indigenous town in Australia; and also several thousand other indigenous residents. The economic and social prosperity of the people of this region depends on the upgrade of this road. Your petitioners therefore requests the House commit to this project. 284 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 284 residents of the Northern Territory) HH4 Mr Jenkins 1713 1895 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. Centrelink and in particular Morwell Centrelink has given us very bad customer service and is generally unwilling to help even when legislative (laws) criteria’s are met. We request the House take action to remedy the situation and consulting with the Customers of the Commonwealth is advised. 1713 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 1,713 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 320 1895 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, particularly those residents in the Division of Wimmera/Mallee Victoria, points out to the House that Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water has proposed Natimuk Lake, 2.5km from the township of Natimuk, will not be required when the federal, state and locally funded Wimmera Mallee Pipeline is completed. The importance of environmental values has been recognised; however, the GWM proposal fails to recognise the social value of safe recreational waters to inland country communities and families, especially those which don’t have a town pool. Your petitioners therefore request that the Federal Government ensures the Victorian State Government, GWM Water and other relevant authorities acknowledge the enormous social value of safe recreation water to country communities. Considering the huge community financial investment in the pipeline project to create water savings, we ask that permanent water be guaranteed for recreational purposes, in particular Natimuk Lake. This water must be allocated by the State Government as a community service obligation when the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline water savings are available. 320 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 320 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 3254 1896 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, particularly those resident in the Division of Mallee, points out to the House that GWM Water has proposed Green Lake and Dock Lake, south east of Horsham, will be designated as low-priority water storages when the federal, state and locally funded Wimmera Mallee Pipeline is completed. The importance of environmental values has been recognised; however, the GWM proposal fails to recognise the social value of safe recreational waters to inland country communities and families. Your petitioners therefore request the Federal Government ensures the Victorian State Government, GWM Water and other relevant authorities acknowledge the enormous social value of safe recreational water to Country communities. Considering the huge community financial investment in the pipeline project to create water savings, we ask that permanent water be guaranteed for recreational purposes, in particular Green Lake and Dock Lake. This water must be allocated by the State Government as a community service obligation when the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline water savings are available. 3254 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 3,254 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 269 1896 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. 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. 269 HH4 Mr Speaker Mr Speaker (from 269 citizens) Petitions received. 1896 Bills R2934 1896 Bills R2918 1896 Bills R2913 1896 Bills R2914 1896 Bills R2940 1896 Bills R2939 1897 Bills R2941 1897 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 1897 Miscellaneous 1897 16:07:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —As required by resolutions of the House, I present a copy of the Register of Members’ Interests for the 42nd Parliament. I ask leave of the House to present copies of notifications of alterations of interest received from 20 June 2007 to 17 October 2007, noting that the House was dissolved on 17 October 2007. Leave granted. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —I present the copies of the notifications. 1897 Governor-General's Speech 1897 Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Mr Hale: That the Address be agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call Mr Bidgood, the member for Dawson, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. 1897 16:08:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 1 Mr BIDGOOD —When the laws that govern a nation are unjust then those laws and the government that created them must be changed. This is what the people of Australia comprehensively did on 24 November 2007. They rejected the coalition of conservative parties and their policies on Work Choices and nuclear power. In the seat of Dawson there was a primary vote swing to the Australian Labor Party of 16.9 per cent and 13.2 per cent on the two-party preferred vote. This wiped out 32 years of National Party rule. Yes, it is the first time since Dr Rex Patterson, the former Whitlam Labor government minister—the only person to hold this seat for Labor for nine years until 1975. Ironically, on election day, I met him at the polling booth, where he said to me: ‘I think you could just do this.’ Dr Rex is highly regarded. The people of Dawson still talk about how his visionary plans for the region were years ahead of anyone else of his time. Yes, he is a true Labor Party hero. Members of any political party should be warned: a 10 per cent margin is not a safe seat, especially when gross injustice has been done to working people and their families, when the laws of the nation allow wages and conditions to be legitimately ripped away from them. No-one should ever forget that. Ten per cent is not safe in those circumstances. The Bible says: ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.’ The previous government had no real vision for the future of this nation. They had lost their way. The Rudd Labor government has a very clear vision. Labor is about justice for all, regardless of wealth, race, religion, political view, sexuality or birthright. Labor is about treating everybody equally—a real fair go for all. Labor is about the freedom of speech, association, rights and liberties. Labor is about the strong helping the weak. Labor is about a bright vision for the future. Labor has a plan and a strategy that will invest in health, education and research, housing and key infrastructure to produce the productivity of this nation for the benefit and common good of all. In the first 100 days of this Rudd Labor government we have delivered on our promises to, first, sign the Kyoto agreement; second, apologise to the stolen generations; and, third, introduce legislation to scrap the unfair Work Choices laws. The Australian people, under a Rudd Labor government, have a nuclear-free future. We will not waste $25 billion on 25 nuclear power stations around this country which in 50 years time would have cost hundreds of billions of dollars to decommission. The people of Dawson and Australia have rejected that nuclear notion and have given a mandate to the Rudd Labor government to invest in green, environmentally friendly clean coal technology and to invest in solar, wind, wave and hot-rock thermal technology. Under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan, the Labor future for energy in Australia is safe. Our great-grandchildren will look back and thank this generation of leaders for creating a safe, renewable and sustainable energy system. I am so proud, humbled and honoured to be a part of this government. I am elected to serve, and I commit to serve with all my energy, as a representative for the people of Dawson, and to serve their interests well. We are all the product of our own experiences—where and what circumstances we were born into. My political philosophy has been shaped by my development as a person and will guide my time as a representative in this place. Primarily, I am utilitarian. I believe that the role of government is to bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people. I believe in the fair go for all Australians. I love the ‘have a go’ culture: ‘Give it a go and, if you fall over, here’s a hand up, mate—and have another go.’ That is what I love about our Australian attitude. It is positive and encourages people not to give up. If at first you do not succeed, try again. I believe in community and grassroots democracy. It is all about everyday people wanting to live a healthy, peaceful life, free from the fear of poverty, homelessness and war. My mother, Milly, was a single parent. I was fostered out when I was born at St Andrews Hospital, by the railway tracks in Bromley-by-Bow in the East End of London in 1959. I can truly say that I was born on the wrong side of the tracks. I was ‘adopted back’ when I was one, when my mother married my stepfather, Michael Patrick Lynch. He was ‘Dad’ to me. Dad was a labourer on building sites—a man who worked hard all of his life for very little reward. He passed away in February 2000. He would have been so proud to have seen me standing here today—St Patrick’s Day—in parliament. My mother, Milly, is still alive, aged 87. She lives in Southend-on-Sea in Essex, England, where we moved in my first year of life and where I grew up sharing a house with my grandparents. I know what crowded housing is all about; I have lived it. My mother may be frail in her body but she is strong and young in her spirit and will argue her point strongly. Not a lot has changed there. When I left school I went into the print trade as an apprentice darkroom technician, planner and platemaker for the presses. As a young apprentice in the print trade in England, I witnessed firsthand the workings of the Conservative Thatcher government against the printers, the miners, the steelworkers, the car workers and the shipbuilders. I saw firsthand the way the government marginalised generations of the working class in my community and kept honest people trampled under foot. Three and a half million people were officially unemployed in 1982 in the UK. Living through that injustice instilled in me—long before Work Choices—the notion that working people deserve a fair go and that government has no place in making the lives of working families worse off. The government of the day, whoever that may be, should lift up working families, not put them down. That is why, as a Christian, I feel at home in the Labor Party. It is the party that stands up for social justice for all people, not just those who can afford it. My faith is what drives me spiritually, with the conviction that society can change when people change their way of thinking and leaders make plans that benefit the whole community, not just one selfish part of it. Prior to entering this place, I owned and managed two medical centres in Mackay as the financial director. I understand firsthand the issues that face small businesses. I have proven that you can run a successful business and look after your workers. I also understand the needs of the health system in this country. The provision of health care is a core Labor priority. That is why we need Labor’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to end duplication and cost shifting, and we are committed to getting it right. Already, $150 million has been invested to fund 25,000 additional elective surgery procedures for those waiting beyond recommended times. Every child needs access to good health and a decent education from day one in order to have the best foundations in life. That is why we need Labor’s plan to appoint Professor Barry McGaw to chair a new national curriculum board to create consistent curricula across Australia in maths, English, science and history. Equality of opportunity in these fundamentals is not negotiable, and we are committed to getting it right. My electorate of Dawson is in the heart of Queensland, spanning from Mackay, Proserpine, Airlie Beach, the Whitsunday Islands, Bowen, Ayr, Home Hill, Stuart and Oonoonba to the Ross River in South Townsville. Stretching over 19,000 square kilometres, it is a seat of wonderful diversity, from agriculture to fishing and from sugar to meatworks and mines. Dawson is a true economic powerhouse of the Australian economy. We need to move on and develop the economic triangle from Mount Isa to Townsville to Mackay. We need to have Chalco based at Abbotts Point, 20 kilometres north of Bowen, and a baseload power station between Bowen and Collinsville to power North Queensland. These are some of the key infrastructure, along with road and rail, that will boost the export productivity of the nation. I will be lobbying my fellow members of government and advocating these issues. Mining production value in Queensland as at 2007 equalled $25.3 billion, according to the Queensland Resources Council. From that, 36,000 jobs were created, and one in four of those are in the Bowen Basin. Queensland will need another 15,000 skilled resource workers by 2015. The sugar and coal industries are key economies in Dawson. The sugar industry has created many of the great townships of Mackay, Farleigh, Proserpine, Ayr and Home Hill in my electorate. Theirs is a rich history and they have an exciting future under a Rudd Labor government. Indeed, many of my constituents are descendants of sugar industry pioneers, among them South Sea Islanders, Italians and Maltese—those manual canecutters who slogged it out in the tropical Queensland heat to earn a hard living off the land, to build a life and raise a family in the region. They have come up the tough way, building their lives over the generations. Dawson is a region founded on sugar, and the sugar industry has a friend in Labor. There are exciting projects like the Rudd Labor government’s investment, direct to canefarmers, of $200 million to help them in managing the water to reef run-off. There is also the $15 million commitment into research grants into Next Gen Ethanol, which offers real possibilities to the region for innovation allowing for continuous sustainability and growth of the sugar industry. Especially in times of low international sugar prices, we the Labor government will add value to the sugar industry by encouraging research in these areas. My vision for the future of Dawson is for real investments, not just lip service. This includes real investment in education and training to address the skills shortage which has so acutely affected regional Australia. The Rudd Labor government’s investment in 450,000 new training places and our commitment to upskilling our workforce into the future is essential to deliver real results. There is also our investment into developing a $14 million mining technology and innovation skills centre in Mackay, which is a specialised centre that will deliver terrific long-term outcomes for all of Australia. Investment in such essential infrastructure is needed to secure our future prosperity. We need to work to ease capacity constraints in our economy. In Dawson we are powering on and contributing to the nation’s bottom line. We on this side of the House are heading in the right direction on skills and training. We put priority on investing for the future: real commitments, real investment and real results. The Labor Party is the miner’s friend—always has been and always will be. The coal industry has a true friend in the Labor Party, a true friend that will not give up on the industry. Dawson’s economy relies on a sustainable coal industry, and I applaud our government’s clear commitment to clean coal technologies, a technology that will ensure a real future for our coal industries. The $150 million fund—$50 million by government, $100 million by industry—will deliver clean coal technology to cut carbon emissions and clean up the industry. The workers in the coal industry have a true friend in Labor. These workers, above all, want health and safety and a fair go at work. They want their union by their side, and they see that Labor has a plan to secure the future of the coal industry. Another key industry is tourism and it continues to contribute significantly to employment in the region. Tourism, especially international tourism, is something that I am very passionate and determined about, as I can see great potential for Dawson to build on its image as a dynamic international tourist destination. To develop a greater range of tourist experiences, in partnership with the industry, is an achievable goal. Already, within my electorate, the world renowned Whitsunday region increased total visitations by nine per cent and the Mackay region increased total visitations by 11 per cent for the year ended 2007. Sports tourism is another aspect that has potential in our region. One thing about the people who live in Dawson is that they love sport. I thank the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, for coming to Mackay during the election and promising to fund $8 million into the Mackay rugby league and junior rugby league stadium. The people of Dawson voted to scrap Work Choices and move forward with fairness in the workplace. The people of Dawson voted to say no to 25 nuclear power stations in Australia. The people of Dawson voted yes to new leadership, yes to fresh ideas, yes to an education revolution and yes to a government with vision. The Rudd Labor government has that vision for the future. I pay tribute to the tireless work of over 300 Labor Party members and supporters throughout the entire electorate who have worked selflessly towards electing me into a Rudd Labor government. There would be no Labor Party without these true believers: the rank and file. A special thanks must go to my committed campaign team. I thank my campaign director, Frank Gilbert, and his wife, Julieanne. It is amazing to think that I campaigned for Frank in this seat after I had just arrived from the UK in January 1993, and also in 1996. It is especially pleasing for him to see this victory in Dawson. I want to say thank you to my old friend, and assistant campaign director, John Pollitt. He single-handedly managed my successful Mackay City Council election campaign in 2004. He is in the gallery today. John, I salute you for all the hours and hard work you have put into this victory. Thanks go to my campaign office manager, Nurse Wendy Clement, and her husband, Jeff. Wendy and Jeff gave so much time and energy. Thanks for everything. Thanks also to my campaign team: Deborah Green; Dennis Bailey; Andrea Pozza and his fiancee Zoe; Therese Kingston and Muddy Waters; James Sullivan, who organised the pre-poll booths; and all of the branches of the ALP in Dawson. I could not have won this victory without you, the true believers. Thank you, one and all. Thank you, Queensland Labor campaign organisers Chris Forrester, Antony Chisolm and Lynis Powell; Queensland president Ron Moynahan; and state secretary Milton Dick. Thank you, Sharan Burrow of the ACTU. Thank you for your support, Dave Smith, from my union, the ASU. Thank you, Dave Hannah, from the BLF—the building labourers will always be special to me. Thank you, Andrew Vickers, Tony Maher from the CFMEU, and Bill Ludwig and Bill Shorten from the AWU, whom I am pleased to see is now the member for Maribyrnong. Thank you to the entire Your Rights at Work campaign team across the great Australian union movement. Locally, Lara Watson was the Dawson Your Rights at Work organiser. Thank you for the ‘Rock off Johnny’ concert and all that you did. We won’t—or can’t—forget it. Thank you to the rank and file of the MUA locally in Dawson for their dedication, especially Laurie Horgan and Gary Bell. It really is ‘all the way with the MUA’. Thank you to Glenn Hall from the ETU and Shane Brunker from the CFMEU. Thank you to Les Mofit of RTBU and Margie Dale of QCU Townsville. Thank you to the Queensland state member for Mackay, Tim Mulherin, and the state member for Whitsunday, Jan Jarrat, for their wisdom and advice. To my former Labor councillors who I served time with on the Mackay City Council for the last four years, Don Rolls, Kev Casey and Greg Thomsen, I thank you for your support. To my friends in the gallery today, Rex Small, Brendan Greenhill and Lee Webster, I thank you for your friendship and support. To my friend and the pastor of Christian City Church Mackay, John Gilbank, I thank you for all your prayers—more will be required. To Kevin Rudd, Kim Beazley, Simon Crean, Wayne Swan, Martin Ferguson and Kirsten Livermore, I thank you all for visiting me and for giving your time in Dawson. Thank you to Senators Chris Evans, John Hogg, Claire Moore, Joe Ludwig, Kerry O’Brien, Kate Lundy and Kim Carr and to the new Senator-elect Mark Furner. Thank you also for coming to support me in Dawson. I want to personally thank Senator Jan McLucas, whom I first met during Cherry Feeney’s two federal campaigns. Jan, you really have been a great help in this victory. It was your encouragement and support that convinced me to stand and you were there at key times during my very long campaign. I congratulate the new mayors in Dawson on their election on Saturday, 15 March 2008. Well done to Les Tryell in the Townsville City Council, Lyn McLaughlin in the Burdekin Shire Council, Mike Brunker in the Whitsunday Regional Council and Col Meng in the Mackay Regional Council. I promise to work with you all, regardless of political lines, for positive outcomes for our people. The recent flooding in my electorate has been nothing short of devastating. From Ayr, Bowen and Proserpine to the Whitsundays, it really has been a big wet. Indeed, in Mackay, this year’s rain has been the worst seen in 90 years. Over 600 millimetres of rain fell in 24 hours. There has been $170 million worth of damage—and rising—done to date, which has left 8,000 homes affected; 400 families cannot return to their home for six months. My electorate office has also has also been completely knocked out and my staff have been working out of my home office while we wait six months for new premises. Thank you Jane Casey, Adel Howland, James Sullivan, John Pollitt and Andrea Pozza; you are a great staff team. You are the mobile office. Since the flooding, the community have rallied together and responded magnificently in their moment of crisis. Their spirits have been comforted and lifted by the visit of His Excellency the Governor-General; the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd; and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh. Thank you, Prime Minister, for your immediate action in releasing $1,000 per adult and $400 per child in emergency relief payments. Thank you also for giving half a million dollars while you were on your visit in Mackay to match the Queensland government’s half a million dollars in its flood appeal. That will help all flood-affected areas in Queensland. On behalf of the people of Dawson, I say, from my heart, thank you. I sincerely congratulate and thank all the volunteers and emergency service workers on the ground. They have been working around the clock to help local families and small businesses get back on their feet as soon as possible. I say to the SES, the Red Cross, all the emergency services and Meals on Wheels: you are the true community heroes; you have done a magnificent job and we are proud of you. There is no greater honour than to be elected to serve, represent and be a real voice for the community in this parliament. I promise to honourably represent my constituency, following in the footsteps of great community leaders such as William Forgan Smith; Dr Rex Patterson; and, in the state seat of Mackay, the former state opposition leader against the Bjelke-Petersen government, the late, great Edmund Casey. For me, Australia truly has been the lucky country and the land of opportunity. From the East End of London to Southend in Essex, then to the east end of Mackay and now to the east wing of parliament, it has been a long journey and one that I only ever dreamed of. Mackay has given me among the things that I cherish most in life. It is in Mackay that I have built a home and raised a family. My daughters—Jazmin, 12, and Zoe, six—and son, Jade, nine, are my pride and joy, born to my former wife, Dr Rachel Bidgood, at the Mackay Base Hospital birthing centre. Unfortunately, the kids cannot be here today, but I have a photo of us together on the night that we won Dawson. I am so proud that they could share that historic moment with me. I want to thank my partner, Davina, for her love and support over the last couple of years. To conclude, I promise to continue to listen and act on behalf of the people of Dawson. Rest assured that I listened when the prospect of a nuclear Australia was rejected by the constituents of Dawson. I listened when the people said they did not want unfair industrial relations laws. I will work for the people and, in government, make their voice heard. Labor will give voice to the voiceless, homes to the homeless, power to the powerless and strength to the weak. This Rudd Labor government stands for the rights and freedoms of association for the common good of all. The Labor Party stands united with the workers of this great nation of Australia, and this unity is the strength that will deliver a great future for Australia. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I indicate to the chamber that here endeth the first speeches. 1902 16:36:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —I congratulate the member for Dawson on his maiden speech. We all remember our maiden speech. I cannot help but think that his skills in oratory might have been honed on a soapbox in Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to that office, an office that was also occupied by your father. We have enormous respect in this House for the way you have carried out all of your duties and responsibilities as Deputy Speaker and also Speaker. I would like to congratulate you very sincerely on your election to that position. I would also like to record my thanks to the voters in Boothby who, on 24 November, re-elected me as their representative. I will do my best to see that their views are faithfully represented in this chamber. It is a great honour for anyone to be a member of the House of Representatives in the federal parliament. Since Federation in 1901, just over 1,000 people have served in this House. It is an honour that none of us takes lightly. I regard it as a great honour, and I am glad that I have the opportunity to continue in this role. A lot has been written and said about the 2007 campaign in the electorate of Boothby. The Labor Party said a lot about it before the campaign, during the campaign and after the campaign. I do not seek to add to the commentary on the 2007 campaign, but I will say that a lot of hard work went into it and that I would not have missed a second of anything that happened during it. Since 2004, I, as the member, and my team have doorknocked over 10,000 homes on our spare Saturday and Sunday afternoons. I have held thousands of conversations with the local people and their families on their doorsteps, sometimes from behind their doors. I heard directly from them about the issues that they would like to see action on—the issues that are important to them. I have many memories of these conversations. For instance, I remember being at a railway station at 7 am and explaining to a constituent the intricacies of our tax plan and the low income tax offset, which had been released only the day before. It is the sort of thing that you are expected to do as a member—to be on top of everything. I found many people in their front gardens when I came to talk to them, and they spoke of their enormous frustration over the lack of water and lack of security for Adelaide’s water supply. This was one issue that many voters in Boothby wanted to see action on. The crippling drought and the severe water restrictions were almost always a topic of conversation at the door or in the front garden. Last week, I presented a petition from 7,000 constituents calling on the South Australian government to do more in providing security for our water supply and to revisit the water restrictions, including the bucket policy. The petition was distributed last September, and I am pleased that the South Australian state government has moved, slowly, to begin work on a desalination plant and that it has modified its water restrictions in the face of overwhelming community opposition. I am also pleased to note that it is the Liberal Party in South Australia that is now setting the agenda on a whole range of things. They have a vision for South Australia and a comprehensive plan to deal with the drought and our reliance on the Murray. At the beginning of the year, I flew over the Murray, from Mildura to Murray Bridge, and it was clear that, where once lagoons supported bird life, all that was left was a salt pan. Beaches were exposed in the river which were previously the river bottom. The state of the Murray, the drying up of Lake Alexandrina and what that means for the environment of the Coorong are the reasons I supported the $10 billion plan for water security in the Murray-Darling. It is worth noting that the new government is over 100 days into its term. This plan was 90 per cent complete when it was presented to Labor on the change of government, but we still have not seen any action on it. This is a very important issue for my constituents, and it is one that I will take an interest in as long as I am the member for Boothby. The environmental issues raised by constituents ranged from local to global. I am pleased that the Liberal Party supports the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. While our concerns about signing it were legitimate, once we were on track to meet our commitments it made little sense to continue to decline ratification of the protocol. I pledge to work with local groups to help restore our coastal dunes, eradicate weeds in our local reserves, improve the quality of the Sturt River and Sturt Creek and help reduce the bushfire risk to homes in the Hills Face Zone. In January, our local community had a serious bushfire which threatened homes in Brownhill Creek, Mitcham and Belair and which consumed over 20 hectares of bushland. The CFS and MFS responded with every asset they had and were able to contain the fire within three hours of its outbreak. It is 25 years on from Ash Wednesday, and this recent fire has been a reminder that many of our built-up areas are too vulnerable to the threat of bushfire. This makes it absolutely critical that households eliminate any fuel loads on their property and have a detailed fire safety plan available that they can implement when they make their decision to stay or go. Local and state governments also have a role in helping to reduce the risk of flammable weeds and in ensuring that fire services have the assets that they require. I have spoken on this previously, but we have a particular problem in our area with feral olives; they are highly flammable. It requires a concerted effort from all levels of government to reduce this fuel load. On the issue of fire assets, the helicopter did fantastic work filling up from the Playford Lake and dumping its load on fires. However, I wonder whether the time has come for us to consider having an Erickson sky crane full-time in South Australia. The one currently based in Canberra is available to us. But fires occur very quickly. This latest fire broke out at 4 o’clock and was contained by 7 o’clock, with the work dealing with the logs and so on continued overnight. Another issue which I will continue to speak out about is the quality of local infrastructure. You do not have to travel far to realise that the quality of infrastructure in Adelaide is very poor by comparison with other capital cities. During the campaign, while talking to people at railway stations last year, it was clear that people are fed up with the lack of investment in infrastructure by successive state governments. Breakdowns are a common occurrence on the South Australian rail network, and delays on our simple train system are part of commuters’ daily routine. Something else that I have also spoken about is the vision of a north-south road corridor. The RAA visited me on this issue last year, and I took up the issue of the north-south road corridor and putting a stretch of South Road from Sir Donald Bradman Drive to Darlington on the national road network, which allows it to receive AusLink funding. I was very pleased that, after a lot of lobbying, the Prime Minister made this announcement in August last year. While I am disappointed that it will not be my side of politics that will now be in a position to fund this north-south road corridor, I am pleased that the Labor Party made a similar commitment to the one made by the Howard government, so this important project will go ahead. I welcome the $500 million which was committed by the Labor Party to continue the work on this vital piece of infrastructure. It is not clear to me how much the South Australian state government will be contributing over the same period—we had a proposal that it would be matching funding—but I do welcome the $500 million which has been committed by the Labor Party to work on grade separations and an upgrade of South Road between 2009 and 2014. Another issue which concerns residents is law and order and crime. Just last month, there was a serious incident in my electorate involving over 100 youths from the southern suburbs swarming on a party. Police cars were vandalised. It was apparent that people had used the internet and SMS to descend on what was a child’s party. This now means parents have to have security for children’s parties, and we also have an issue with gangs in the southern suburbs. One of the things I was very keen to do, had the Howard government been re-elected, was push for CCTV cameras to help local policing. With the City of Holdfast Bay, we were able to get a CCTV camera in Moseley Square in Glenelg. This was the major priority for the Sturt LSA and also for the southern suburbs. That has been welcomed by the community, it has been welcomed by traders in that area, and it has also been welcomed by the police. The Labor Party made a number of commitments in the electorate of Boothby during the campaign. They made a commitment for $3 million for a feasibility study on alternative rail routes through the Adelaide Hills. They made a commitment for $2 million for a performing arts centre at the Brighton Secondary School. They made a commitment for $1 million for an upgrade of the Marion Sports & Community Club. They made a commitment for $130,000 for lights at the Blackwood Football Club. And they made a commitment for $20,000 for the Sturt Baseball Club for nets and for junior sport. Of those commitments, four were taken from my future plans, but I am pleased that they did take up my future plans, and I look forward to these commitments being delivered by the Labor Party as soon as possible. These are all worthy projects which have my support and, I am sure, the community’s support, and I will be asking that this money is forwarded to the local groups as soon as possible. There are many features of the electorate of Boothby which I have spoken on in the past. One of the things that make it special is that we have a number of landmark institutions in disability services: Minda Inc., Bedford Industries and CanDo4Kids, which used to be the old Townsend House. While these names are not always known interstate, they are certainly outstanding facilities. Bedford is now the second largest provider of disability employment services in Australia. Also, Townsend House has been providing education for children with multiple sensory disabilities for over 130 years. As the local member, I have been pleased to have a great relationship with all of these organisations, and I look forward to working with them on any issues that they would like addressed. There are a number of issues that the parliament will have to consider. One of them is, obviously, the ageing of our population. It is expected that, in less than 40 years, a quarter of our population will be over 65. As a result, we are going to have much lower growth of the labour force, and this means it is absolutely critical that we improve workforce participation. This was a focus of the previous government. There are a number of areas for older workers, for men aged between 25 and 54 and especially for women in their late 20s, 30s and early 40s where our participation rates are much lower than those of comparable countries. We can do better there, and we will need to do better if we are going to maintain our standard of living into the future. The most recent unemployment figures show that the unemployment rate is at four per cent. This is before the new government has made any changes to any of our settings on workplace relations or tax—although it is our tax policy that the new government will be implementing. However, I saw in the newspaper that Access Economics believe that, as a result of Labor’s strategy on inflation, we will see the unemployment rate go up to five per cent. That will mean that 100,000 people who would otherwise be in work will be put out of work under this government’s economic policies. Recently I visited the Mitsubishi car plant in my electorate. As members would be aware, a decision was made in February to cease operations in Australia this month. The plant has been operating since 1964. At the time it was opened, it was one of the jewels in the crown of South Australian manufacturing. It has been an important source of employment in the southern suburbs. My principal concern is for the workers at Mitsubishi. I am pleased to say to the House that the support they have had from the company, from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, DEEWR; from the South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, DFEEST; and from a whole host of businesses and training providers has been outstanding. The way that all of the workers are getting advice about their futures has been well thought through. I think it is certainly a very good example of government, the company and business working together to find jobs for these skilled workers. In concluding my speech in the address in reply debate, I would like to say that it is a great honour to represent the electorate of Boothby. It is a fantastic electorate to represent and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to continue my work as its member. 1906 16:55:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, it is nice to have a friend and fellow Tasmanian in the chair for this address-in-reply debate, to have a friend who is also returning to parliament, the member for Hasluck, to have my friend the member for Lowe at the table and to have new members with me as well. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —What about us? TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Yes, what about us? 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I am just about to get to you. Congratulations to returning members and to new members. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am in the unusual but certainly not unique position, having two other members in this House in the same position, of being a new member again, a resurrected MP, which is probably rather apt around Easter time. My return journey to this place, like that of my colleagues no doubt, has taught me some very valuable lessons, some personally very painful I must say and others very salient—salient perhaps for others in this House, new and renewed, high and low. Today gives me an opportunity to share some of these, if I may. As I said, this journey is both a personal and a political journey. At its heart are the people and communities of the north-west coast of Tasmania and King Island—that is, the electorate of Braddon. I have the privilege to live in and represent a truly beautiful part of the world. Physically, the electorate of Braddon, from east to west, takes in the townships of Port Sorell and Latrobe, the city of Devonport, the towns of Ulverstone and Penguin, the city of Burnie and the towns of Somerset, Wynyard, Stanley and Smithton—and the gem in this north-western crown is King Island itself. To the south lies the fertile rugged hinterlands of pasture, mountains and forests and to the west lies the magnificent rugged west coast with its mineral wealth, forests and abundant fishing, bordering on the electorate of Lyons, so ably represented by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we talk about economic activity, several traditional industries are associated with Braddon. It is renowned as a major food-producing area, particularly in relation to vegetable growing and processing. I have always said that the soil is so fertile where I live you could throw a toenail in the ground and grow a foot. It is so wonderful. Dairy, beef and fish are iconic products of the region, along with forestry, papermaking and mineral producing. Our region also is, as some may not know, a quality producer of fine carpets and towels. Braddon’s tradespeople are well known for their practicality and skills. The region has a long history of light industry often associated with the larger more traditional manufacturing and processing industries. Newer industries have emerged along with an economy that is becoming more diversified, so necessary in the light of challenges facing our more traditional manufacturing industries. Light industries and an innovative range of service industries have grown up around the wind energy industry, for example. Innovative companies service the agricultural and horticultural sectors. Local small and highly creative IT companies have emerged. Viticulture, with the production of wine and with the spirits industry, continues to expand. Tourist ventures further seek to cash in on this magnificent environment. There are many strengths in our region and in our communities. Businesses leaders and organisations strive to build on those in partnership with local, state and federal governments. But, like so much of regional and rural Australia, my region faces many challenges. My region is an ageing one—we still lose many of our young to other parts of Australia and the world, often to seek better education and careers prospects; many never return, however, to work and live and settle with their families. Comparatively low educational standards, low university participation rates and low retention rates to years 11 and 12 are hindering productivity and employment opportunities for many of our young. The reliance on attracting and retaining professional services and skills is doubly difficult because of this, a problem I know we share with many regions. Whilst unemployment has declined in our region, we still have a comparatively high national rate of youth and long-term unemployment. This, along with the ageing population, puts even more pressure on the demand for social services, benefits, health and wellbeing services, and social and physical infrastructure such as housing, aged-care facilities, communications and transport. My region is positively responding to many of these challenges, and I look forward to encouraging and supporting individuals, businesses and communities in this process. I am really proud to say that many of this new government’s policies are designed to support this process and that I have been able, in the last few years, to actually have some input into some of these at the national and electorate level. I first campaigned as a federal candidate for Braddon in 1996 and managed a three per cent swing to Labor in very difficult electoral times. I continued to campaign between 1996 and 1998 and, with a swing of around 10 per cent, won the seat in 1998 with a campaign that cost around $17,000. If my memory serves me correctly, the polling said we could not win. In 2001—again, against the odds—we had a further three per cent swing in Braddon to Labor. For me and my region, the period 1998 to 2004 was indeed a time of exciting change, opportunity and challenge. The innovative Cradle Coast Authority came into being and, with politically and organisationally rejuvenated local councils and regional leadership, the region began to coherently adjust to the changing economic and social challenges facing us. A dynamic state government led by the late Jim Bacon promoted and nurtured a resurgent, outward-looking and more confident Tasmania, and the north-west coast contributed to and benefited from this renewed sense of optimism. Much of this legacy is still with us as we seek to consolidate and then expand on our successes and come to grips with the challenges that continue to face us. One of these challenges is sociocultural in nature. It involves a need to adopt practical, realistic expectations of service availability, delivery and costs. This is never more so than in the area of health services, matching traditional expectations with modern standards of sustainable service delivery, safety and cost. In 2004 I lost my seat. Needless to say, I was devastated, along with my family and hardworking and loyal staff. I am confident, however, that what happened in Braddon, rather than to Sid Sidebottom, is a salient lesson—not just for me but, I humbly suggest, for others, both politicians and political operatives, in this place. Indeed, another returning member, the member for Canning, has returned to the House, and I thank him for his personal support. I see a parallel between the 2004 election and its result in Braddon and this election past in November 2007. In both cases, Braddon reflected the national verdict and, I suggest, for primarily the same reason: crossing the line between acceptable practices and policy and those which were not—in short, violating the fair go principle. Until the 1998 election, Braddon had voted conservative for nearly 25 years after a long stint of voting Labor. The change coincided with the introduction of the GST by the Howard government which disadvantaged many low-income people in Braddon. I would like to claim that my standing as a candidate made a significant difference this time; however, the pollsters told me: ‘minimal’. In 2001, federal Labor was preferred again to a Howard government intent on selling off Telstra, increasingly strident about industrial relations and pursuing social policies that divided rather than united Australians—sound familiar?—even if many in Braddon sympathised with Mr Howard’s strong anti-boat-people policies. But many of these same folk saw the policy for what it was; the methods became increasingly objectionable. In contrast with many other parts of the country, Labor’s vote in Braddon went up by about three per cent, reflective again of a good national campaign led by Kim Beazley in the face of the after-effects of 9-11, the Tampa affair and ‘children overboard’. On 9 October 2004, I lost my seat in a major swing against Labor of around seven per cent. I can honestly tell you that I knew this was going to happen when I heard of the extent of Labor’s forest policy on the Monday of the final week of the campaign, when Mark Latham delivered his bombshell in Hobart and immediately flew out of the state. Howard’s subsequent forest policy was far less explosive in comparison, although still substantive in effect, but it was greeted with enthusiasm by the industry and many in my electorate, in comparison with the Latham blitzkrieg policy. The images of workers greeting and cheering John Howard at the Albert Hall in Launceston later in the final week all but ended the campaigns in Braddon, Bass, McMillan and Eden-Monaro. While some analysts will say that to blame the forest policy for the loss of these seats is somewhat simplistic—and I will grant that the Latham Labor campaign was becoming progressively more volatile and problematic the further the election campaign went—I have no doubt that the loss of Braddon was guaranteed. Indeed, the last EMRS poll taken in Tasmania late in the campaign had Labor in Braddon at around 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote leading into the last week. However, we literally saw—and I mean literally saw—and heard prepolling voters turn dramatically away from us after the Monday with the same message: ‘Your radical forest policy was a disaster for our region and working families.’ The people of Braddon voted accordingly and I have always said that I can understand why. Call me vain, but I never interpreted it as an anti-Sid vote, and that is why I announced on the day after the election that I would seek preselection again—to put right what I believed was a wrong policy and, most importantly, what I saw as a betrayal of working people. It was not just the end in this case; it was also the means. To announce without consultation and without notice a policy which so affected the lives and jobs of so many people in my electorate and state, both directly and especially indirectly, was both an insult and terrible politics. It was not fair in any sense of the word. Labor had to go in Braddon and so did I as its representative. I cannot deny that I was bitter over what happened, and it took me over 12 months to come to terms with this loss. However, my family and close friends were very supportive and I took heart from the many people I met who encouraged me to stand again. The Labor Party was also supportive and I thank all those who helped and encouraged me to keep at it. I also had a chance to directly help correct our flawed forest policy, which I was able to do through direct personal lobbying and nagging over three years. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —You have always been a nagger! 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I am very pleased to nag but will never reach your Olympian nagging heights! I was therefore very proud when our Prime Minister chose Smithton and the historic mill of the Britton Bros to announce our forest policy and $20 million industry package. This, along with our other working family positive policies and our industrial relations policy, saw an 11 per cent swing back to Labor in Smithton and other forest booths. I felt in no small way vindicated in my stance and grateful to a party and a leader prepared to do the right thing by once again balancing the important needs of industry, working families and the environment and by putting that policy out publicly and early. The rest is history. The return of Braddon to Labor was no accident. The voters of Braddon perceived unfairness and arrogance in Labor in the 2004 election. The same verdict played out for the Howard government in November 2007. I would like to place on the record that the 2007 vote was not primarily a reflection of the work of my predecessor, Mark Baker, as such—and I thank him and his team for their hard work from 2004 to 2007. It was, I suggest, a repudiation of the methods and arrogance of John Howard and his government. Just as Mark Latham adopted without consultation or notice a radical policy which affected the lives and jobs of working people in Braddon, so too did John Howard with his so-called Work Choices legislation, which cruelly offered little choice to workers. This was introduced only after he had won the 2004 election and gained control of the Senate. It stirred a dispirited union movement into a grand cause, which in turn rallied many working families and individuals to action. Federal Labor joined this cause and, for the first time in many years, the Labor movement united in a common campaign against an unfair industrial relations system. Mums and dads, grandparents, uncles and aunts and the young rallied against this attack on the fair go. Mr Howard’s self-professed aspirational nationalism had nothing to do with uniting the nation. People in Braddon saw through this and they saw that it had a lot to do with Mr Howard’s political aspirations. Kevin Rudd, on the other hand, captured the mood, interest and aspirations of millions of Australians, in stark contrast to the old politics of the Howard era of wedge politics and pandering to interest groups. The people of Braddon know what is fair and reasonable and, just as they did in the elections before and no doubt will continue to do in the future, they voted accordingly in 2004 and 2007. There is nothing fickle about this. They vote primarily on what they perceive to be a fair go for the majority and, as much as I suffered from it in 2004, I would not want it any other way. I sincerely thank the electors of Braddon for again choosing me to represent them both in Canberra and at home, and I will do so to the best of my ability and energy. I have a new team on board and already we are flat out with constituent enquiries. My journey back was encouraged and supported by many people, many of whom are in this place and gave that as a result of my association with them as a former member and colleague. I hope that I do not embarrass anyone, as some belong to the other side, but they were concerned for me as a friend and individual and shared the similar prospect of winning or losing. I thank in no particular order and with equal gratitude, and I pray I have not left anybody out, the following: Kim Beazley, Martin Ferguson, Julia Gillard, Craig Emerson, Michael Danby, Steve Gibbons, Julia Irwin, Brendan O’Connor, Simon Crean, Carol Brown, Kerry O’Brien, Kirsten Livermore, Dick Adams, John Murphy and Harry Jenkins. My friend and colleague Senator Nick Sherry and his office were constant supporters and provided invaluable help. In particular, I thank my special mate and confidante Sally Young, along with my lovely cousin, Tresa, and Shane, Robyn, Marcus, Richard and Leonie. Andrew K. from Canberra gave up his annual leave to come down and work on my campaign, and I will always be grateful. Special thanks also go to Tracey Winters, Kim Pagan, Sally Pugsley and Michael O’Connor for their individual friendship and encouragement. Kerry Whittle, Norm Britton, Leigh Jordan, Matt Tidswell, Steve Allen, Justine Keay, Beth Lockett, Ken and Brenton Best, Grace Matcham, Dee Alty and Julie Collins were always there with their support and encouragement, as were my local Labor Party branches. I also want to sincerely thank Labor’s National Secretary, Tim Gartrell, Elias, David Feeney, Paul Foster and Monique Woodham-Earsman for their terrific support. I was very proud to work alongside my very active local Your Rights at Work team, so ably led by Jill Batt, and I thank them for their hard work, determination and solidarity. So too do I thank the many unions who backed me in my campaign. My friend Christian Zahra, the former wonderful member for McMillan, never stopped encouraging and supporting me even though he too lost his seat in 2004. Christian Zahra was probably the most inspirational of my parliamentary peers from my first class, the class of ’98, and was a major reason why I am fortunate to be a member of the class of 2007—thank you, matey. I am already missing our games of squash. The driving force behind my campaign was the indomitable, hardworking, superorganised, ultranagging political warrior and all-round good bloke John Dowling. I thank you, John, from the bottom of my heart. I was so very proud when you were recently appointed state secretary of the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party. In speech after speech there comes a time when new and returning MPs reach a point of almost emotional saturation—where there is an extra deep breath, a slight pause, sometimes a moist eye, and the gathering of the self—when they reflect in an instant on the influence, love and support of their loved ones. My mum and dad were alive to see me elected to this House in 1998 and 2001. They both died before I lost my seat in 2004, but I know they would be pleased to see their ‘Pete’ not throw the towel in after 2004 but keep pressing on to finish the business. They are constantly in my heart and they are certainly with me now. I also love and thank my brothers and sister—Geoff, John, Essie and Jenny—and their lovely families. My strongest supporters and the ones who love me most—so often undeserved by me—are my family: my lovely wife, Bron, who asks and expects nothing of me but encourages me to find personal happiness and fulfilment—whenever and if ever; and my two beautiful sons, Julian and William, who have always supported my endeavours whether they be in career, theatre or politics. I thank them for their love and indulgence. I thank all members and wish you a very successful and happy parliamentary career. 1911 17:15:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —When the February unemployment figure of four per cent was released last Thursday, we did not hear much about it from the government. All we hear from the Treasurer is how he wants to modernise the economy, whatever that is supposed to mean. He provides very few particulars. He was asked last week a dorothy dixer about unemployment and he gave what is fast becoming his stump speech—an explosion of complete incoherence and utter confusion. His first quarter headline CPI, which in this context is the ‘competence performance indicator’, is not good; and his underlying measure of CPI, his ability to answer questions coherently, is even worse. Late last year the member for Higgins said that the now Treasurer reminded him of ‘a political cyborg who runs a line over and over again in the hope that journalists will pick it up’. Well, the cyborg is malfunctioning. It needs reprogramming; it needs help. It is the cyborg, not the Australian economy, that is in desperate need of modernisation! The Treasurer thinks he can get away with commenting on the Australian economy in a way that persistently misrepresents our economic circumstances and our economic history. And it is not just our history that he misrepresents; he misrepresents all the members of the opposition who speak about the economy. Only today he said again in question time, as did the Prime Minister, that I have described inflation as a fairytale. So once again I wearily rose to my feet on a point of personal explanation and corrected it. The Treasurer knows full well that I have never said inflation is a fairytale. Inflation is a very significant economic challenge, particularly in these times where we have high economic growth and historically very low unemployment—and I have said that again and again. What I have criticised the Treasurer for doing is telling falsehoods and fairytales about our economic history and, in particular, the history of inflation. There is a transcript of my remarks in that context from 23 January—a public document that is on my website—but he misrepresents them every time he has the opportunity. But the person whom the Treasurer, the cyborg, misrepresents the most is surely the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There is nobody in Australia at present who is more misleadingly cited than the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Last week the governor gave a very comprehensive speech about inflation, its causes, its remedies and its context in modern Australia—it was a speech in the Australian Treasury seminar series—and today we had the Treasurer claiming that this supported his views about inflation. The Treasurer wants to set up a straw man to the effect that the opposition does not believe inflation exists. Of course, the Reserve Bank supports the Treasurer’s views that inflation exists. But nobody has denied that and nobody has denied that it is a challenge. Where we take issue with the Treasurer is not in the form of the straw man, the bogus proposition that he puts up as our case; our criticism of the Treasurer is that he is misrepresenting a very serious challenge and that, in doing so, he is talking down the strength of our economy and exacerbating inflationary expectations. Every time he opens his mouth on this subject, the Treasurer says that inflation has been caused by the ‘reckless spending’ of the Howard government, by a ‘chronic skills crisis’—that is his phrase—and by a failure to invest in remedying what he describes as infrastructure bottlenecks, the ones we are most familiar with, being the problems at ports that export raw materials, particularly coal. There are certainly infrastructure bottlenecks in our society. There are certainly skills shortages in a number of industries—we would say many sectors now—where there is strong demand. But it is untrue to say that there is a chronic skills crisis, because, by saying that, it suggests that there is a shortage of skills right across the economy, that it is pervasive, that it is chronic, that is of long endurance and that it is not being addressed. Yet we know from the many speeches and papers given by the Reserve Bank—you only have to look at the speech last week by the Reserve Bank Governor—that our inflation has not come from wages. It is obvious that a chronic skills crisis would cause wage inflation right across the economy. That is why you would not want to have a chronic skills crisis. The Reserve Bank Governor said he is not saying that wage earners have been responsible for inflation. He said: This episode— this episode of elevated inflation through which we are living at the moment— has not been caused by some exogenous ‘break out’ in wages. Until recently, it was, in fact, possible to say that wages growth had been remarkably steady at an aggregate level in the face of a very tight labour market, with relative wages across industries and regions doing what one would expect given the shocks hitting the economy. At one stage, I described this as a textbook case of adjustment, in a labour market made much more flexible by a long sequence of reforms. That statement, which is in the same terms as many remarks from the Reserve Bank, underlines the nonsense that is being spread by the Treasurer. Yes, we have skills shortages, particularly in those areas with the strongest demand, the mining sector being the classic case. But, because we have a flexible labour market and because we have an efficient labour market, workers have been able to move to the areas of greatest demand and, remarkably, we have not seen the type of wage inflation that we had in the past. If you go to the conclusion of the governor’s speech, and this is a speech by the governor that the Treasurer calls in aid for himself, it rejects the notion of a chronic skills crisis—it does not even mention the term—but it makes it clear that it is not skills shortages that are driving inflation. He compares our economy today with the circumstances of the 1950s and the mid-seventies, when in the early fifties CPI inflation reached 25 per cent and in the mid-seventies it reached about 18 per cent. He said: This time, we are grappling with a peak CPI inflation rate that looks like it will be around 4 per cent in CPI terms, and trying to assess how soon it can reasonably return to 2-3 per cent. I should add that the average headline CPI throughout all of the 47 quarters of the Howard government—including the December quarter of last year which was, of course, only partly under the Howard government—is exactly 2½ per cent, right in the midpoint of the RBA’s range, so it is mission accomplished in terms of inflation targeting. But the governor went on to say: This is a far cry from the problems of yesteryear. He then said: The reason we are doing better this time around is not hard to fathom ... a flexible exchange rate, a reformed and flexible industrial environment, better private-sector management ... stronger fiscal and monetary policy frameworks have made a lot of difference. The fruits of those decades of effort of reform are an economy that, for all its strains, is doing well under the circumstances. And further: Our challenge is to keep those improved structures in place and to develop them further, in the period in which we have the privilege of having some influence. That is a balanced description of our economic circumstances. Yes, inflation is an issue; it is a challenge; it is consequent upon, as the governor says, the extraordinary improvement—a good, positive shock—in our terms of trade. We have been able nonetheless to manage our economy, thanks to the sound economic management during the Howard and Costello years, with low unemployment, high economic growth and inflation managed within the range. Why does it matter that the Treasurer misrepresents our economic history? Well, the fact is that inflation is a function of expectation. He chose to misrepresent our economic history and, for purely politically partisan purposes, to try to paint a picture of a new government that had been handed an economic mess. That was the picture he tried to create, presumably so he and the Prime Minister could be given the credit for resolving it. The fact is that we have a very strong economy. We have very considerable international pressures and threats. We are strong and we are resilient, but we are not immune to the rest of the world, and everything that senior officials say in this country is taken seriously in the rest of the world. When our Treasurer said in early February, just before the bank board met, ‘The inflation genie is out of the bottle,’ and, ‘Inflation has been on the march for two years,’ the headlines around the world described a country where inflation was out of control. He has the effrontery to call the Reserve Bank Governor in aid in support of this nonsense. The Reserve Bank Governor is there saying, ‘Yes, it is an issue. Yes, we are going to tackle it. That is why we’ve put up rates.’ That, of course, is what central banks do: they put up rates when the economy is growing and they want to moderate growth, and they pull them off—as Governor Bernanke is doing in the United States—if the economy is heading in the other direction and they want to avoid slowdown or, as in the United States, a recession. What the Treasurer has done, instead of talking about our economy in a measured, objective and informed way, in a way that assists the markets to understand and deal with the complex challenges we face, is create his own ‘Wayne’s world’ parallel universe in the hope that if, cyborg like, he continues to repeat one falsehood after another often enough, it will be picked up. This ‘cyborgitis’ is infectious, because the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has been infected by it. Only last week he said that on 20 occasions the Reserve Bank has called for the national coordination of infrastructure. The national coordination of infrastructure may or may not be a good thing. There are advocates for it, there are sceptics about it, but we would all like to see better and more timely investment in infrastructure. I particularly committed to that when I was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we undertook the National Plan for Water Security, which was a $10 billion investment, almost all of it in water infrastructure—and what could be more important than that? The Howard government committed the $2 billion Australian Government Water Fund—again, almost all of that went into water infrastructure—not to speak of the investment in transport infrastructure through AusLink. So, yes, investing in infrastructure where there is a real net benefit is a good thing—we all agree with that. But the Reserve Bank has not called for the national coordination of infrastructure on 20 occasions. It is absurd. It is a falsehood. It is made up. It is no different from the approach that the Treasurer takes: find a falsehood that serves a political purpose and just repeat it and repeat it in the hope that it will be accepted. The former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and his predecessor, Mr Keating, both said that when you change the government you change the country. Well, we have certainly seen a lot in our country change since the election of the Rudd government. Since the election, business confidence has declined and consumer confidence has plummeted. Since the change of government, inflationary expectations have risen particularly, as is plain, among trade union officials. That is precisely why the Reserve Bank is not as confident as it was six or nine months ago that wage pressures will continue to be ‘a textbook case of adjustment’. Is this all just an unhappy coincidence? When the coalition took office on 11 March 1996, the Reserve Bank’s cash rate was 7½ per cent. The coalition’s goal was to eliminate Labor’s $96 billion worth of debt and take pressure off interest rates. It is a matter of public record that this was achieved. Labor’s debt was paid off and interest rates came down, no thanks to the Labor Party, which opposed that form of fiscal prudence. Australians found the coalition’s commitment to fiscal consolidation and good economic management highly credible. They had confidence in the coalition. How do we know that? For a start we can look at the measures of confidence. In 1996 there was not a 15-point drop in the Westpac-Melbourne Institute measure of consumer confidence in two months, which is what has happened under this government. In fact, the index jumped seven points in the month of March 1996, when the coalition took office. On average the Westpac index was 11 points higher during the coalition years than it was under Labor, and the National Australia Bank’s quarterly business confidence index jumped by almost 12 points in the March quarter of 1996, the fourth largest in the history of that index. When the coalition took office, inflationary expectations fell; they did not rise. What has happened with bank interest rates under the Rudd government? The US subprime crisis has started to affect banks’ wholesale borrowing costs. That started in last August, long before the election. The cost of some of our banks’ funding base rose and now, I think it would be fair to say, all of the banks have significantly increased wholesale borrowing costs. They chose to wait until after the election to pass on those increased wholesale costs, and some people have suggested this was due to the Treasurer. I would not make that claim. Those costs inevitably had to be passed on at some point in time, and I imagine many banks balancing, on the one hand, their commitment to their customers and their desire to maintain the loyalty of their customers and, on the other hand, the speculation—and it genuinely is speculation—as to how long this disruption in global credit markets will continue. There is a key issue here. It is one of confidence. Confidence is absolutely essential to financial markets; it is everything. Once the participants in financial markets lose confidence in each other, they will not lend to each other. You can see the consequences of that now in the credit crunch. Bear Stearns, the fifth largest investment bank in America, nearly collapsed and was taken over by JP Morgan at a tiny fraction of its value a few months ago with the support of the US Federal Reserve. That was decisive action by the US Federal Reserve to stop a bank collapse that would have had shocking global ramifications. What caused that lack of confidence? If people do not have confidence in other institutions they will not lend; if investors do not have confidence in markets they will not invest. These elements of confidence are fundamental to the security of our economy. That is why the Treasurer is so reckless in his constant refrain of running down our economy and talking up a skills shortage across a number of sectors of the economy into a chronic skills crisis. Instead of speaking about inflation in measured and objective terms, he talks about it as though it is another crisis. (Time expired) 1915 17:36:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I want to commence by acknowledging the Ngunawal people, the traditional owners of the land upon which we meet. I also pay my respects to the Noongar people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land that encompasses the seat of Hasluck, in Western Australia. I said in my first speech in this chamber, in 2001, that during my time in the parliament I hoped to participate in and be witness to real and meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, something I believe is essential for Australia to become a united and just nation. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Instead it seemed that the country became driven by the values that divide us—blame, suspicion, self-interest and greed—rather than the values that unite us—respect, empathy, compassion and equality of opportunity. I truly hope that this 42nd Parliament, commencing as it has with a national apology, will witness a huge leap forward for social justice. I have been a member of the Labor Party since the early 1980s. The day of the national apology, 13 February 2008, led by our Prime Minister, was the proudest day of my party membership. I was asked recently by a year 7 student at St Brigid’s College in my electorate whether we intend to commemorate the day every year. My reply was that I sincerely hope so. This opportunity to speak in the debate on the address-in-reply can be described, perhaps oddly, as my second first speech. As one joker quipped to me, ‘You can’t be a maiden twice.’ I do not resile from anything I said in my first speech, but I can say on this occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis—with respect  to you, to the chamber and to my fellow Labor colleagues and especially to the class of 2001—as they say in the classics: ‘I’m back.’ I have wanted to do that for some time! Perhaps contrary to the perception created by my last remarks. I believe I am older and wiser since last I was here. It is with a sense of achievement but also humility that I stand in this House again as the elected member for Hasluck and make this speech. I know it will not be as eloquent or as profound as the first speeches delivered by my colleagues in the class of 2007. They are an awesome group who have spoken from the heart, full of passion, commitment and vision. I am proud that my name will stand in the history books as one of them. The 42 members of the class of 2007 include 11 outstanding women, 10 of whom are Labor women. At the opening today of the refurbished ‘women in parliament’ exhibition, I was reminded that we still have a very long way to go before our parliament is truly representative of our community. Since Federation, of the 1,059 people elected to the House of Representatives only 77 have been women. Forty of the current 150 members of the House are women—only 26.7 per cent. This is another list that records my name. I am pleased that Labor’s representation is better, albeit only marginally, with 27 of the 83 members, or 32.5 per cent, and 13 of the 28 senators, or 46.4 per cent, being women. I hope to see the numbers on this list grow exponentially. With my re-election to the seat of Hasluck in 2007 my name joins yet another list in history. I am one of a select group of over 80 people who have regained a House of Representatives seat after losing their seat at an election. Seventy-eight people have served two separate terms, returning after a defeat, and another eight people have served three separate terms—that is, returning after two defeats. I said a ‘select group’; I perhaps should say it is a select and diverse group, as it includes great leaders such as Ben Chifley and WA’s own John Curtin as well as the infamous Hugh Mahon, the only person ever to be expelled from the Australian parliament—alas, another Western Australian. There are six current members of the House who share this extraordinary experience with me—the members for McEwen, Canning, McMillan, Paterson, Lilley and Braddon. The most special to me and the one whom I wish to welcome back, acknowledge and say, ‘Well done, mate,’ to is the member for Braddon, Sid Sidebottom. I know that he, along with me, will today be thinking of former colleagues who also lost their seats at the 2004 election, especially talented, passionate people like Christian Zahra and Michelle O’Byrne. I wish they were both sharing this with us today, and perhaps they are. I would like to salute their service. It is also appropriate for me to acknowledge Stuart Henry, the former member, who was defeated at the last election and to thank him for his hard work on behalf of Hasluck constituents during the last parliament. The lesson of our individual experience is that politics is not always fair or just—it just is. In life we learn and grow stronger from the tough times and the personal challenges. We learn that it is always better to live in the moment. So, whilst I again have this moment, this privileged opportunity to represent and advocate for my community of Hasluck, I promise to do so passionately and diligently. I thank the voters of Hasluck for the chance to do so and I thank the Labor Party for entrusting me with the responsibility of contesting the seat at the 2007 election. Behind every member in this place stand many others. In my case I have a loving partner and family, a circle of close and dear friends, a magnificent campaign team, a strong union and an army of true believers. I am grateful to them all. I especially want to record my appreciation of Catrina Tierney. No words will ever express the feelings I have for her and the thanks I wish to extend. I hope it is enough to simply say that I would not be here without her. She, along with Juliana Plummer, John Halden, Hayden Falconer, Liz Nedela, Terry Healy, Ron Sao and my partner, John Walker, held the key roles in my campaign team. I would also like to record my appreciation of my doorknocking mates James Turnball, Tristan Cockman and Peter Collins. I thank others like Marcia Maher, Paul Cheah, Nita Sadler, Di Meakins, my ‘bookends’ Brian Wright and Mat Nugent, the Your Rights at Work campaign team—especially Chris Merfield—my crew of truck drivers, the branch members, the local residents and supporters for their good wishes and their tireless hard work on the campaign trail. I wish I had time to name them all, but with over 750 volunteers it is simply not possible. Their unquestioning support was both heart-warming and humbling. I am also fortunate to have behind me many women in WA and around Australia who supported my decision to stand again, including EMILY’s List. I am and always will be a campaigner for women’s rights. I want to pay my respects to the women who have come before me who have made it possible for women like me to get here. I hope that leap in social justice I want and referred to in my opening remarks will include, among other things, pay equity for women in Australia. The Hon. Kim Beazley, Senator the Hon. Chris Evans and Senator Glenn Sterle cajoled, nagged or counselled me through the decision to stand again. For their benefit and for the benefit of the record I will now admit that they were right. I thank them for their support and encouragement. It was a big decision and a hard one for me. It is difficult to run for a marginal seat, especially when you know what the task requires—and, believe me, I knew exactly what the job entailed. I was joined in that task by a number of outstanding candidates in WA who were not successful: the former member for Swan, Kim Wilkie, but also Sharon Theile, John Hughes, Peter McFarlane and the two whom I worked most closely with, Liz Prime and Peter Tinley. I want to thank them and their families for their friendship and support, for the campaigns that they ran and the sacrifices they made to help Labor achieve its election victory. As I said earlier, politics is not always just or fair. It was a hard contest for the seat of Hasluck. I am part of the Hasluck community; it is where I live. They are the people I had the privilege to represent as the first member for Hasluck. From Midland to Maddington, Gosnells to Guildford, Kalamunda to Koongamia, I know the diverse communities that make up the electorate of Hasluck and the local issues that concern them. Hasluck communities are full of good people—genuine, hardworking Australians doing their best for themselves and their families. As the local member, I established a good reputation and was known for being active in the local community. We ran a strong local campaign highlighting the ways in which the Howard-Costello government had lost touch with Australians, and I believe this, combined with Kevin Rudd’s positive plan for Australia’s future, was responsible for the increase in our support among Hasluck voters. I said I had returned to the parliament older and wiser. I have learnt a lot since the 2004 federal election, especially about government and my great home state of Western Australia. I thank the Hon. Bob Kucera for offering me the opportunity to work as his chief of staff when he was Minister for Disability Services, Sport and Recreation, Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, Seniors and Volunteering. It provided me with even greater insight into the lives of people encompassed by the portfolios, especially people with disabilities and their carers. I understand the level of unmet need in the areas of supported accommodation, respite and therapy. I share the frustration felt by many in the disability services sector about the inadequate levels of funding committed to the Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement. This must become a priority area for reform and improvement. In a nation that reveres sport, it is ironic that we do relatively little to genuinely sustain and support recreation and sport in our community. Whether it is providing the funding necessary to establish and maintain community sporting facilities or supporting and developing the volunteers who are critical to the operation of most of our sporting clubs and associations, we do not do enough. I was appalled to discover that, other than a grant of $8.5 million from the Keating government in 1995, the federal government had provided Western Australia with no funding for sports infrastructure since the Empire Games, now called the Commonwealth Games, held in Perth in 1962. It was a fabulous year, the year of my birth, but that is simply not good enough and must be addressed. My thanks also go to the Hon. Alan Carpenter, Premier of Western Australia, for the opportunity to work in the Premier’s Policy Division of the Western Australian state public service. There is a dedicated group of policy officers employed in the division and I enjoyed working with them. Doing so restored my faith in the public service and made me realise that effective government can and will make a difference to people’s lives. Where there is a will there is a way. That is why ending the blame game between Commonwealth and state governments is vitally important. I note the announcements by the Treasurer last week following the meeting with all state and territory treasurers, and I welcome this commitment to try and genuinely tackle the issues associated with Commonwealth and state funding. Most Australians expect all levels of government to work cooperatively and efficiently in the interests of the whole community—a not unreasonable expectation. I would like to wish ‘Carps’ and his team the best for the coming WA state election. I have said that I have learnt a lot since the 2004 election. I am pleased to say that the voters of Hasluck showed that they had also learnt since 2004. They know they had many rises in interest rates after John Howard and Peter Costello promised to keep them low. They know that many people are doing it tough with rising mortgage payments or rents, high childcare costs and high petrol and grocery prices. They know that, under the Howard government’s extreme workplace laws, the basic conditions which make up the take-home pay of working Australians, like overtime and penalty rates, were under threat. They know that the Howard government wasted a decade with their inaction on climate change. They were disturbed by the controversies that plagued the Howard government: the disgraceful AWB wheat payments scandal; the circumstances of the detention and treatment of Australian citizens such as Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez and David Hicks; and, of course, the deterioration of the war in Iraq and Australia’s role in it. Wherever they lived—in the suburbs of the cities of Swan and Gosnells at either end of the electorate, where they are experiencing both the pleasure and the pain of urban renewal, rapid growth and development, or in the foothills and surrounding suburbs where there is great anger at the Howard government decision to allow a brickworks to be established on Perth airport land in the middle of a residential area—the 2007 election presented all Australians with a choice about the sort of future they wanted for themselves and their kids: did they want more of the same or a change for the better? After more than a decade of John Howard’s leadership, the electorate were ready to make a change. They want a better and fairer future. They want high-quality, affordable health care for themselves and their families throughout their lives. They want a national dental program that fixes people’s teeth when they need it, not months or years later. They want real investment in healthcare services and cooperation that ends the blame game between federal and state governments over funding.  They want better education services and fair funding for Australian schools. They know that learning does not start at school; it starts on the first day of life. They want investment in the early years of a child’s development. They want high-quality, affordable schools and child care, whether community, government or private, with great teachers, good carers, good discipline and sufficient resources. They want every child to have the chance of a quality education. They want to know that their kids or grandkids have real opportunities for postsecondary education and skilled employment. They want more university and TAFE places closer to where they live. They do not want to see kids who are making an effort missing out on a place because they cannot afford to pay. They want safe and fair workplaces that appreciate the realities of family life and respect the dignity of working people, where everyone has the right to a fair go no matter how they are employed or engaged—employee, contractor or small business person. They want a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. They want action on climate change and sustainability. They want to secure our water and energy future. They want a national government that is wise to the pressures on our natural environment and that is proactive in protecting and conserving it. They want a federal government that is committed to nation building and investing in our infrastructure, like a high-speed national broadband network, to meet the challenges of Australia’s future. They want Australia to be a proud and independent nation that is a good international friend and a strong voice for human rights and freedoms. That is the sort of future that I want, too. I am honoured to be part of the Rudd Labor government. In closing, I will borrow from my leader’s style and ask: do I believe the Rudd Labor government can build a better future for Australia? The answer: yes, we can. Thank you. Debate (on motion by Mrs Moylan) adjourned. 1919 Bills R2937 1919 Bill returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. 1919 Debate resumed. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—The question is that this bill be now read a second time. 1919 17:54:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —in reply—I thank those members of the House who have contributed to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 and the creation of Infrastructure Australia. I want to make some comments in summing up those contributions. One statement in particular was made by the shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Wide Bay, in his speech in the second reading debate that was illustrative of where the coalition are at when it comes to infrastructure development. This statement, I think, epitomises the coalition’s lack of understanding of the infrastructure challenges faced by Australia today. After the member for Wide Bay, along with a number of other coalition members, spent a considerable amount of time blaming the states for the nation’s infrastructure problems, after he tried to mount an argument that spending money on infrastructure is inflationary and after he pointed out that any new infrastructure prioritised for development will not actually be built for years to come, the member for Wide Bay asked the following question: So what is Infrastructure Australia going to do that is not already being done under the current AusLink process? I think the member should have a look not just at the legislation but at the speeches given by government members during this debate. We know that for almost 12 years infrastructure was not given priority by the previous government. There was no federal infrastructure minister, there was no leadership and it was easier to blame the states than to get on with the job. However, it is clear that, when it comes to planning on infrastructure, we need to do much more than just have the AusLink process. We need a coordinated approach to infrastructure that is whole of government and that recognises that there are relationships between our transport infrastructure —that is, roads, rail, shipping and aviation—and our water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, communications infrastructure and social infrastructure. We need to do much better on these issues in future than we have done in the recent past. The idea of Infrastructure Australia conducting an audit and producing an infrastructure priority list for the nation beyond the term of an electoral cycle is a critical element. In last year’s budget, the coalition established AusLink 2, which was to run in future years with a budget of $17 billion. But in the election campaign it promised projects worth more than $20 billion. That showed pretty clearly that the planning mechanisms had not lasted from budget day to the days of the election campaign, and that of course excluded the other areas of infrastructure from the national debate. We know that CEDA has stated that investment in infrastructure generates higher returns than investment in other sectors of the economy, yet in the economic debate in the parliament the opposition has confused the issues of capital expenditure and recurrent expenditure. It has failed to acknowledge the importance of capital investment in infrastructure. For the previous government to have sat back and filled its coffers with over $390 billion additional revenue from the mining boom and let Australia slip to 20th out of 25 OECD countries for its investment in public infrastructure is economic mismanagement at its worst. In terms of the role of Infrastructure Australia, it is quite clear that we have a commitment to re-engage the Commonwealth with our cities policy. We are the most urbanised country on earth. We need plans for regional development, but we also need plans for our cities, and our Infrastructure Australia agenda is a part of that. Business group after business group—for example, BCA, Australian Industry Group, Engineers Australia and CEDA—have called for national coordination of infrastructure, but nothing happened under the previous government. Indeed, the member for Barker made an extraordinary contribution in the second reading debate in the House when he said: Infrastructure Australia is not actually an original idea. It was the Howard government that in 1996 conceived the idea of a national infrastructure council. That is an extraordinary comment to make in 2008. It is an acknowledgement that they had thought about it in 1996, but they just did not do anything about it for 12 long years. Indeed, the opposition spokesperson, the member for Wide Bay, has stated: Infrastructure failures have damaged our growth and our quality of life over the years. He was absolutely correct when he said that. That identifies the problem and we have identified the solution—doing something about it, getting that coordination going, saying no to the blame game and no to a disjointed approach to infrastructure and saying yes to national coordination, and working with the different tiers of government but also, importantly, with the private sector. The Rudd Labor government are firmly focused on the future. We know that there have been 20 warnings from the RBA about unsustainable inflationary pressure being put on the economy. We have had back-to-back interest rate increases. We know that infrastructure shortfalls are costing us 0.8 per cent of GDP and that our infrastructure backlog is conservatively estimated at tens of billions of dollars. We know that working families are experiencing long-term water restrictions and slow internet speeds and are spending too much time in their cars commuting rather than being at home with their children. Infrastructure has a social implication as well and we need to integrate economic policy with social policy. On our 99th day in office, the Prime Minister and I, along with the member for Blair and the member for Oxley, turned the sod on a critical road project in south-east Queensland—the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. It represents a $700 million injection of funds for stage 1 of the Wacol to Darra project, which will eventually upgrade a road used every day by 80,000 cars and trucks. In other critical areas like broadband, we have rolled up our sleeves. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, announced last week the panel of experts to assess proposals to build a new national high-speed fibre broadband network. There is much more to do and it does take time for infrastructure, from conception to finalisation, to be put into place. That is the reason for more urgency in this debate. Infrastructure Australia will drive investment where it is needed most. Infrastructure Australia is much more than just AusLink; it is a different way of proceeding in acknowledgement that the old ways simply were not working. I have been extremely pleased with the support, particularly from the business community, for this infrastructure agenda. Last Friday, I addressed a gathering of hundreds of businesspeople in Melbourne. All of them were extremely supportive of this agenda. The announcement of Sir Rod Eddington as the chair of Infrastructure Australia has been extremely well received by those engaged in the infrastructure agenda and by the broader community. I think the fact that someone of his stature has been prepared to take up this position shows how serious the Labor government are about our economic reform agenda for this term of government by placing Infrastructure Australia as one of the central features. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 1921 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 1921 18:06:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5): (1)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 18-19), omit  paragraph 5(2)(j), substitute “(j)       any functions that the Minister, by writing, directs Infrastructure Australia to perform, provided that the Minister shall first table in each House of the Parliament a description of the additional functions the Minister proposes that Infrastructure Australia perform.” (2)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 23-26), omit subclause (3), substitute “(3) Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i), if it thinks fit.”   (3)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 27-28), omit subclause (4). (4)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 29-31), omit subclause (5). (5)    Clause 29, page 16, line 5, after subclause (1), insert “(1A) Before appointing the Infrastructure Coordinator, the Minister shall consult with the Chair and members.” There are five opposition amendments but they deal with just three issues. Essentially, the opposition have agreed to permit passage of the bill, but we think there are some ways in which Infrastructure Australia can be improved and our amendments seek to address those issues. The first amendment refers to directions to Infrastructure Australia by the minister. Under the bill, the minister may give a direction to Infrastructure Australia without reference to parliament. All of the functions of Infrastructure Australia are essentially prescribed in the bill, so they are authorised by the parliament. But the minister can on a whim, whether wisely or unwisely, add other duties as he sees fit. I think that these should also be subject to the same kind of parliamentary scrutiny that applies to the original functions allocated to Infrastructure Australia. In the interests of transparency, directions by the minister to Infrastructure Australia should be tabled in each chamber rather than, as is currently proposed, just being buried in the annual report of Infrastructure Australia. It could be a year, even two, after the minister has given an instruction that that advice is actually made known to the parliament and to the people of Australia. It is in the interests of transparency and open government—words that the incoming government likes to use quite often—that any additional instructions given by the minister to Infrastructure Australia be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. The second issue deals with a range of measures. The bill, as it is currently drafted, stipulates that Infrastructure Australia may evaluate infrastructure proposals on advice from the minister. In effect, Infrastructure Australia is unable to initiate independently an examination of its own. A good example is the government’s saying that all of its election promises will be delivered ‘no ifs, no buts’, to quote them exactly, so Infrastructure Australia would be wasting its time if it wanted to investigate any of Labor’s election promises. Indeed, since Labor has already spent all of the money that has been allocated to AusLink under the budget process, there will not be much capacity to deliver any money for any priorities that might happen to be developed by Infrastructure Australia unless that money is going to be provided outside the forward estimates process. In effect, Infrastructure Australia is virtually immune from examining any of the ALP’s infrastructure election promises. I, for one, would like to see a number of those promises examined to see how well they fit into the priorities. At the present time, the minister and I are having a little debate in my local newspaper about the importance of the upgrade to the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. The minister thinks it is worth only $200 million, but I think it is worth at least $700 million under the current program. Nevertheless, Infrastructure Australia will not have an opportunity to decide whether the minister is right or whether I am right—whether the Australian Automobile Association is right or whether the transport ministers are right—about this being the highest valued project in Queensland. The government has said it will spend only $200 million—that that was its election promise and it will be delivered lock, stock and barrel—no matter how many more accidents there might be, no matter how many more compelling arguments might come forward. I think this is a restrictive component of the legislation that constrains the capacity of Infrastructure Australia to engage in infrastructure reviews of its own volition. If it is a body that is to be trusted and to be relied upon, it should have the capacity to instigate inquiries that it considers important, whether or not the government gives it that direction. The third and final group of amendments provides for the minister to consult with the board of Infrastructure Australia before appointing the infrastructure coordinator. The coordinator obviously fills an important executive position. It would be incomprehensible that Infrastructure Australia could work well if the minister of the day were to impose an infrastructure coordinator that did not have the support or confidence of the members appointed to that authority. Whilst respecting the right of the minister to make the final appointment, he should be obliged to consult effectively with the chair and members of Infrastructure Australia so that he can be certain that the person who is the best for the job is appointed. (Extension of time granted) In reality, Infrastructure Australia must have confidence in its staff, and, if people are imposed upon it from outside, it would not help in developing effective working relationships. The opposition support the bill, but we think these three groups of amendments would make it a better organisation that is more independent, more capable of doing the work and more capable of delivering good outcomes for the government and for the people of Australia. 1923 18:12:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —The government will not support the amendments that were moved by the opposition. I will just go through them and briefly indicate why. The first amendments referred to are amendment (1) and amendment (4), which is linked to amendment (1). The opposition has indicated that the proposed amendments seek to place under parliamentary scrutiny the minister’s power to give Infrastructure Australia new functions. The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, as it currently reads, allows the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia to perform other functions. The opposition’s amendment that seeks to require the minister to first table in the parliament a description of any such additional function would do nothing other than introduce delays into Infrastructure Australia’s work program. I bring to the opposition’s attention that division 4 of the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to prepare a report on its operations after the end of each financial year. This report must be given to the minister for presentation to the parliament. Transparency is built into this bill, and the opposition’s proposed amendment does not add any further value. Indeed, opposition amendment (4) becomes redundant if amendment (1) is not carried. I would like to point out to the opposition that clause 5 covers the fact that directions relating to the functions of Infrastructure Australia are not legislative instruments. Clauses of this type are good drafting practice, and they avoid potential ambiguity. Removal of this clause, as suggested by the opposition, would have no effect other than to decrease the clarity of the bill. Amendments (2) and (3) are the second lot of amendments that are related, and both are opposed by the government. The bill, as it currently reads, ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most. It would not be an efficient use of Infrastructure Australia’s time to be reviewing thousands of business cases it might randomly receive from individual organisations, nor would it be a good use of its time to duplicate work that is being undertaken by other bodies or other ministers. It is for these reasons that subclauses (3) and (4) have been drafted as they currently read. I note that the member for Wide Bay expressed concern in his speech on the second reading that Infrastructure Australia is unable to independently consider the ALP’s election promises. I would say to the member that we do take our election commitments very seriously. We do have a mandate for them. Election promises were developed after wide consultation with stakeholders. The expenditure that we will put into the Pacific and Bruce highways, for example, is absolutely critical, and we are committed to it. We are also committed to providing critical water infrastructure for our cities. We are committed to providing support for water infrastructure in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are committed to communications infrastructure through our national broadband plan. We are committed to these projects, we have a mandate for them and we intend to implement them. Unlike the previous government—which, upon coming to office, put its commitments into core and non-core categories so as to justify breaking them—we are absolutely committed. For the National Party to come in here and talk about transparency is, quite frankly, extraordinary. Amendment (5) moved by the opposition is opposed by the government in the interests of transparency. Firstly, as the position of infrastructure coordinator is created by the Infrastructure Australia legislation, it is by definition a statutory position. Secondly, on 5 February this year, the Australian government introduced a policy implementing transparent and merit based assessment in the selection of statutory officers working in or in conjunction with APS agencies. The appointment of the infrastructure coordinator will follow the rules set out in this policy. The merit based selection of statutory office holders includes requirements for the oversight of the advertising process and assessment of the applicant’s claim to be undertaken by the secretary of my department and the Public Service Commissioner; selections to be made against a core set of selection criteria; and a report, endorsed by the Public Service Commissioner, to be provided by the secretary to the minister, recommending short-listed candidates. Where the minister wishes to appoint someone not recommended by the panel, the minister will need to write to the Prime Minister setting out reasons. (Extension of time granted) The member for Wide Bay should have a look at the cross-government reforms introduced by the Rudd government, because they make it very clear that we will have merit based selection and that it will be transparent. This is a reform that was never there under the previous government. In conclusion, I say to the opposition that this legislation finally gives priority to national infrastructure under the Rudd government. We see it very much as part of our five-point plan to fight inflation. We see it as a necessary reform. I note that the opposition now has a shadow infrastructure minister, the member for Wide Bay, and I congratulate him on his appointment to that position. But why was there no infrastructure minister during the 12 years of the Howard government? When it comes to infrastructure, you do need someone who will be responsible for more than just transport, and you need to link that—as the new government have done in our department—with regional development and local government as well as with transport. But you need in Infrastructure Australia a body which will be a critical statutory advisory body that will give advice to the government about our national infrastructure priorities. And you do need to engage the private sector in this debate. The business community have welcomed this reform. All around the country I am attending conferences, boardrooms and representational meetings from people who are very enthusiastic about this reform. I would hope that this legislation will pass not just this House but also the Senate this week. We are determined to get on with the job of nation building in the fine Labor tradition that we have inherited. I commend the bill to the House unamended. 1925 18:20:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I thank the minister for his response, although I have to say that his words really confirm the need for these amendments. When he spoke about his concern that there might be delays as a result of the minister giving a direction under the special powers to be granted to him, he ignored the importance of accountability. Indeed, he confirmed in his comments that the first the parliament would know about these extra instructions would be when an annual report is presented. We all know that it could be at least a year, and maybe longer, before anyone could make an assessment about whether the direction given was an appropriate one. We are not really talking about delays; we are talking about 14 sitting days. That is not an extraordinary period of delay to achieve an acceptable level of accountability. Let me go on to talk about the minister’s concern that Infrastructure Australia may just waste its time by dealing with a whole lot of submissions that are put in by various people around the country. Frankly, I hope that Infrastructure Australia will listen to the input of people around Australia who have views on issues that are important. One would assume that a body of that substance, with a $20 million budget, will actually develop some priorities for itself. It will be under no obligation to respond to issues raised with it by the community, but it ought to have a right, where it sees an issue is important, to actually take the initiative and put some time and effort into it. No-one is suggesting that it should waste its time. In fact, I believe that, if Infrastructure Australia thought something was worth doing, the community would think it was worth doing. For that reason I do not think that the proposed amendments will delay Infrastructure Australia inordinately. In fact, the amendments give it the opportunity to cut through where it needs to cut through, to deal with key issues that perhaps the minister had not even thought of—and there may be some of those. I know that we have a very wise and all-knowing minister, but there will be things that will come forward where the wisdom has not been residing in the government and may come from somewhere else. I think Infrastructure Australia should be able to address those issues if it sees fit. Finally, in relation to the appointment, I am sorry that the list of criteria that the minister has outlined does not relieve me of my concerns. The previous government had similar kinds of checks and balances. The reality is that we have already seen with this government that, when it wants to appoint its mates to do a particular job, the measures put in place have not prevented that. I am keen to ensure that Infrastructure Australia has a staff that it can have confidence in and that they can work constructively together. They are the reasons for these amendments and why we are pursuing them. We think these amendments would make the bill better, and I urge the government, as the Senate deals with these issues, to give this a bit of additional thought and perhaps recognise the wisdom of some of these proposals and take them on board. 1925 18:23:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I want to respond with a few points. Firstly, the legislation very specifically sets out that I can ask Infrastructure Australia to inquire, but I cannot ask it for a result. That is very explicitly ruled out in the legislation. Infrastructure Australia cannot be given direction as to what it will find. That is very clear in the legislation. That is the first point. The second point is that we have already announced that Infrastructure Australia will develop its infrastructure priority list. We have announced the timetable for that, and it will report to the March 2009 COAG meeting. I have already had two meetings of the COAG infrastructure working group, which has established the criteria for the audit and submissions from the state departments and the federal department, so that, when Infrastructure Australia does get going, it hits the ground running. We are absolutely committed to that happening. The budget of Infrastructure Australia is modest. I do not want Infrastructure Australia to be potentially diverted in terms of its work and operation. The figure used by the member for Wide Bay was of course its four-year budget. The idea that it will be able to respond to individual constituents about specific infrastructure issues is simply beyond its capacity. It is important that Infrastructure Australia engages in nationally significant infrastructure. It is important that it not be diverted away from the important task that it has been set. The final comment I would make is in relation to appointments. The appointment of Sir Rod Eddington as the chair of Infrastructure Australia has been welcomed by the business and financial communities. He is someone with extraordinary connections and experience with not only domestic infrastructure but also global infrastructure, and he has prepared a substantial report. To have someone from the National Party talk about the appointment of mates is quite unbelievable, when we have appointed someone like Sir Rod Eddington to the chair. That is our bona fides on this agenda. There will be a strong team put— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —That’s what we are worried about. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Let the member for Wide Bay say that he opposes Sir Rod Eddington’s appointment as chair. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and business groups in this nation have welcomed it, and I think that shows the significance with which we are prepared to proceed on this issue. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Truss’s) be agreed to. 18:32:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AR Bevis) 59 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Downer, A.J.G. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 80 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. 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. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 1927 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 18:39:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 1927 Governor-General's Speech 1927 Debate resumed. 1927 18:39:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —It is a great privilege to have been elected to this House for a sixth time. As I said in my address-in-reply speech in 2005, I still have that feeling of wonder that we are able to reinvent the process of democracy every three years—the apparent simplicity of it all, yet the sheer incredibility of it when one looks at how utterly few and endangered are the true democratic societies of our world. That feeling of wonder has not diminished. If anything, world events and the fragility of some so-called democracies show us that more than a facade of polling day is needed to ensure that a country is truly democratic and that its peoples can express their views and opinions without fear and cast their votes without intimidation. Indeed, apart from free and fair elections, strong democracies also have a judiciary free from political interference and a parliament with a strong opposition. So, although I find myself on the opposition benches, as I did when I first entered this place in 1993, I appreciate the importance of being a strong opposition and keeping the government accountable, and I remain steadfast in my advocacy on behalf of the electors of Pearce. May I therefore begin by thanking the electors for re-electing me and my campaign team who made the way smooth during the course of this election campaign and who organised the campaign with great skill and efficiency. The team was led by campaign chair, Mr Lane Taylor, assisted at all times by his wife, Julie, and from time to time by his son, James, and daughter, Jessie. No candidate could ask for a steadier hand on the tiller than Lane Taylor’s. He has been an important support person right from my first election in 1993, and his wise counsel and calm demeanour have always been generously offered. I want to record my appreciation to my family and to all the campaign team members and my staff: Jana Allan, Anne Bagot, Amy Chadbourne, Richard Johnston and Neil Oliver, a former state member of parliament who came out of retirement to assist. Ron Farris, my longstanding friend, was a tower of strength, assisted by my former personal assistant, Kirstin Mardardy, and Stuart Burling and a host of loyal supporters who manned the campaign office and helped out on polling booths on election day. They are too numerous to mention personally, but to each of them I say thank you. Members and executives of the division of Pearce, led by president, Rod Henderson, have been unstinting in their support and I am indebted to them, as I am to the Western Australian Liberal Party. To know that these people care enough about preserving our democratic way of life and the laws being passed in this place is heartening and inspiring. These are the people who volunteer to ensure that the wheels of democracy remain oiled and functioning strongly. In February, I had served 15 years as the member for Pearce. I always feel proud of the contribution that people within the electorate make to their communities, to their state and to their country. It has been a privilege to represent their interests in the federal parliament and to support the many initiatives that the communities foster. One of the marvellous things about being elected as a member of parliament is the opportunity not only to see the problems and challenges that face many people on a day-to-day basis but to see the triumph of the human spirit and to experience the kind personalities and the generosity that is so often extended. During the address-in-reply debate in 2005, I raised several issues which I wish to revisit briefly. I raised mental health as an issue that was pressing due to the steady rise in the number of people who were homeless, often because their mental health issues were not diagnosed, treated and managed. The Howard government made a substantial funding commitment and, indeed, provided leadership in taking up mental health issues in consultation with the states. Attention to mental health policy was urged in no small measure by my former colleague the then member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Warren Entsch, whose representations were tireless. I think the House is grateful for his advocacy in that regard. I see the current Prime Minister taking an interest in homeless people. I sincerely hope that the momentum of the previous government in addressing these issues will not be lost, as the issues of mental health and homelessness have taken on a more urgent dimension with changes to the social security pensions and work requirements and the current crisis in housing affordability. Indeed, I intend to raise this with the parliamentary Standing Committee on Community, Families, Housing and Youth, to which I have been elected deputy chair. I thank my colleagues in that respect. For people on low and fixed incomes trying to find affordable rental accommodation, the current housing affordability crisis is a tragedy. The supply of public housing is failing to keep up with demand and the level of rental subsidies is falling short of the mark with the rapid escalation of rent, which is heading to an average of $400 per week in Perth—a trend that is followed by most of the other states and territories. Having spoken in the previous address-in-reply debate on the issue of children in detention and my concerns about indefinite detention, I was pleased to be able to support the private member’s bill put forward in the last parliament by the member for Kooyong to amend the Migration Act to ensure that families with children were housed in community housing rather than in detention centres. That amendment bill was passed in this place and the operation of that law is, I understand, working very well. For those being held in detention indefinitely, the amendment bill gave greater transparency and accountability. The oversight role was given to the Ombudsman, who is now required to report to this parliament, followed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which must report every six months to both houses on the reasons why someone is in detention for more than two years. I am pleased to learn that the Ombudsman, in the most recent report, has reported on some of those issues and that the current minister is trying to find a way to deal with some of the more intractable cases, as difficult as these are. In 2005, I said on Aboriginal reconciliation and Aboriginal health: It is a matter of enduring shame that so many Aboriginal people still live in circumstances long unacceptable to most of us. I also made the point that, while practical measures are important, there is a pressing need to recognise the injustices and the ill-conceived policies of the past, no matter how well-meaning they were. In that respect, I again pay tribute to the former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs the Hon. Mal Brough for progressing the practical measures so urgently needed and to the current Prime Minister for the apology extended to Indigenous people at the commencement of this 42nd parliament. Whatever progress we have made in these areas and more, there are great challenges ahead. The Howard government presided over an incredibly stable economy characterised by low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the retirement of $96 billion of debt. With the $8.5 billion in interest saved annually, tax cuts were possible and both business tax and the personal rate of tax were cut substantially. Industrial disputes fell from 79 working days lost per 1,000 employees to a very low 15 working days lost per 1,000 employees. Keeping inflation low is one of the greatest challenges facing the government. Inflation and interest rate rises hurt those on fixed and low incomes in particular, and everyone in general, as it erodes savings and increases the price of day-to-day necessities. If wages and industrial disputes are allowed to escalate, inflation will quickly erode any value both to those working and to those relying on fixed incomes and pensions. The work of reform needs to be continuous, as we live in a dynamic, global system. Without constant attention to education and training, we will soon fall behind other competing countries. Education continues to be a major focus for me. I want to see the young people in Pearce continue to have options to enter university, vocational education and training, traineeships and apprenticeships so that they will find fulfilment in their long working lives as well as being able to contribute to the prosperity of their families, their community and the nation. Pearce does have several TAFE colleges, as well as several agricultural colleges, and these play a vital role in providing options for rural and regional students in higher education and vocational training. I pay tribute to the work of those teachers and administrators, who maintain a high standard despite the constant struggle to attract sufficient funding. Agriculture is a multibillion-dollar industry and, in my view, we do not place a high enough value on clean food production and those who labour to provide food both at a domestic level and to boost our balance of trade through the international export market. We have some of the most efficient farmers in the world, yet they continue to battle unfair international competition, with some countries providing significant levels of government subsidies to their growers. In addition, our growers often meet much more stringent regulations—and quite rightly so, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott; it is an issue which you would fully understand and appreciate—on the use of chemicals, pesticides and hygiene, while products from competing countries, whose standards are not as good, often make their way onto our grocery shelves at very competitive prices. Besides addressing the unfair competition, we need to support our farmers by ensuring that we have the best agricultural scientists, land managers, agronomists, farm machinery mechanics, engineers, water scientists and the whole range of people that work hard to grow high-quality, clean produce by staying at the forefront of agricultural science. Wherever you turn in Pearce—whether it is farming, where there is a critical shortage of farm labour; the hospitality industry; mining; retail; the sciences; or medicine—all areas have difficulty attracting qualified staff. The education policies of the Howard government saw record increases in the number of students enrolling in medicine—nursing went up by 47 per cent and medicine by 63.5 per cent nationally between 2001-05. In the past five years the number of medical students in Western Australia has doubled, and this has necessitated an expansion in the number of clinical training places. I look forward to working with the community, the University of Western Australia and Notre Dame University to influence a decision to fund clinical training places in regional hospitals so that the current pressure on the major city teaching hospitals does not see new graduates leave Western Australia. I strongly support the proposal put by the universities for regional training places, as doctors trained in regional hospitals are more likely to settle in those regions when they complete their training. Education and training remains one of the key issues, and I will continue to build on my support for community initiatives to improve training and education options for the local community. Other issues that I believe need to be addressed in this 42nd Parliament include federal-state relations. Given that Federation was created in 1901, we must turn our minds to building a federal system of government that recognises contemporary issues. There is a need for much clearer delineation of responsibility between state and federal governments and a need to stop the blame game. I am not a centralist, because I believe such a policy requires total conformity and diminishes the ability of individual communities to shine by building on their natural attributes. Conversely, a decentralised system encourages diversity and competition. This resonates with the electors of Pearce, as I know they work hard to convince the WA state government of the merit of investing in their region—a lot of the time without any great success under the current regime. Of the regions, Pearce will be the key to managing the rapid growth that is taking place in Western Australia. By 2015 the population of the state of Western Australia is projected to reach 2.3 million—almost double what it is now. This is double the growth projections for New South Wales and Victoria. Diversity and decentralisation will therefore be pivotal to managing the explosion of growth in Western Australia, and planning for that needs to be taking place now so that it is managed in a way that recognises the sensitive environment of the outer metropolitan regions. Pearce includes the Hills, the Swan, the Chittering and Avon valleys, as well as many rural areas that need to preserve local flora and fauna and to manage land degradation and water conservation issues. The need for careful and sensitive environmental management is critical. There are, of course, many other issues in an electorate as diverse as Pearce that will make demands on elected members at all levels of government. It has been no secret that, since 2000, I have taken a particularly keen interest in the issue of both type 1 and 2 diabetes. The number of people with diabetes continues to escalate in our community. Such is the concern internationally that the United Nations passed a special resolution last year for the first time recognising diabetes as a problem of international dimension. If we are unable to stem the growth in the number of people presenting with diabetes, the burden on the budgets of all countries, both developed and developing, will be unsustainable. So I hope to continue the work in this parliament that I started in 2000, the work of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group, ably assisted by my colleagues the member for Lyons, Senator Barnett and the member for Moore. We are hoping to have a few more people on board. Many members of this chamber and of the Senate have taken a keen interest in the work of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. After Easter, the New Zealand parliament will pull together a group of people from the Pacific to try and engage parliaments in the region on how we deal with the diabetes pandemic within the western Pacific. This parliament is committed to making poverty history; it is one of the millennium goals. As quickly as we make progress on a number of fronts—in forgiving debt and in other measures to help deal with this problem—diabetes threatens to undo much of the good work. Diabetes is a very serious health problem that leads to many complications, and the cost to national budgets, not to mention the cost to the quality of life of individuals diagnosed with diabetes, is extremely high. So we are hoping to progress this matter in other parliaments and, very shortly, to look at this issue in the western Pacific. We also made representations both to our own ministers in the latter part of our term in government and to the current ministers to make sure that every Australian child who has type 1 diabetes who needs a pump to deliver insulin has access to one. We are hoping that the government in its forthcoming budget will honour the commitment made by the Howard government to make this possible for children and young adults with type 1 diabetes. With the best of care, their life term is likely to be 15 years less than the rest of us. Insulin pumps often deliver far better outcomes in regulating the amount of insulin they have and that, in turn, prevents many of the complications that come from diabetes. Many in this House have heard the incredible speeches given by young people coming to this House for the Kids in the House functions. We have had two of them over the last few years, and they have been touching indeed. So I am hopeful, as I said, that the current government will understand the urgency and importance of that measure and make money available in the forthcoming budget to improve the health outcomes of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Finally, as has been my practice in the past, I will continue to actively visit the many country towns and suburbs that make up the electorate of Pearce. I want to meet local people and more fully understand their aspirations and assist them in ensuring that those aspirations become a reality so that they have effective representation—an effective voice—in this place. Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned. 1932 Miscellaneous 1932 1932 1932 19:00:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I move: That the following order of the day be referred to the  Main Committee for debate: Address in Reply to the Governor-General’s speech—Resumption of debate. I point out to all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of my learned colleague the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to. 1932 Committees 1932 1932 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Dr Stone to be a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in place of Mr Cobb. Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid —Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) 19:00:00 —by leave—I move: That Mr Cobb be discharged from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and that, in his place, Dr Stone be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. 1932 Bills R2953 1932 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 1932 Bills R2925 1932 Debate resumed. 1932 19:02:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to speak against the government’s Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008, an appalling piece of legislation, on which it went to the polls pre election. In summary, this bill will allow the government to spend not only the interest but the principal of the $2 billion Communications Fund that was designed to future-proof the unique communication requirements of remote, rural and regional Australia. Furthermore, this bill allows the interest and principal to be spent on any communications project, not necessarily in rural and remote Australia, that Prime Minister Rudd or communications minister Senator Conroy consider politically expedient. The bill allows the Rudd government to buy shares or other interests in companies, make unconditional grants to telcos or even directly purchase assets and equipment connected to a broadband network. Any revenue the government may earn from its share purchase, unconditional grants or asset purchase will not necessarily go back to regional and remote Australia but will simply go into consolidated revenue. In summary, the bill allows for the rape of regional, rural and remote communities by taking away the future-proofing Communications Fund, leaving them vulnerable to being left behind on the wrong side of the digital divide. By way of background: the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee was established by the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. It was established to review the adequacy of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia and to report to the responsible minister. The passing of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill in 2005 created the $2 billion Communications Fund. This added to a $1.1 billion plan for direct capital investment under a Connect Australia initiative as the future-proofing package to support the full-scale sale of Telstra. On 26 September 2005, the coalition government allocated funding to the fund with moneys invested in a short-term deposit with the Reserve Bank, while a low-risk investment framework and management by the Australian Office of Financial Management was agreed. This package aimed to ensure the ongoing adequacy of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia. The income stream from interest earned on the $2 billion fund investments—estimated to be up to $400 million every three years—was quarantined to be used to finance the government’s response to independent reviews of regional communications services. The fund was also to be used to fund infrastructure for regional communities, such as additional mobile towers, broadband provision and even backhaul fibre capabilities. In September 2007, the coalition government reinforced the Communications Fund as a perpetual fund by the passage of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007, which required the fund to maintain a minimum principal of $2 billion. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008—this insidious piece of legislation brought to the House—seeks to repeal this safeguard. After paying off $96 billion of Labor’s debt, after inheriting a $10 billion deficit in the budget, after saving over $8 billion in interest by getting rid of this debt, we were able to save for the future. The previous Treasurer, the member for Higgins—one of the greatest treasurers this nation has ever seen, as I think we would all agree—allowed the nation to save and indeed allowed an investment of $2 billion for the interest to be used to safeguard telecommunications services and to build on those services for the bush. This piece of legislation will amend part 9C of the Telecommunications Act 1999 to enable this money—this hard-earned money that was put aside after paying back Labor’s exorbitant debt—to be used for purposes relating to the creation or development of a broadband telecommunications network, if required. The final decision on the use of the fund will be made, apparently, in the context of the government’s overall fiscal strategy. Why doesn’t cabinet simply come out and say, ‘We have no idea what we’re going to invest in. We have no idea what to spend this money on. We understand that industry does not want the government’s money, that industry is prepared to go it alone and fund the investment itself, but we still want to take this money away just in case our overall fiscal strategy requires money to be spent somewhere in the digital divide.’ Where I come from, out in industry, that type of comment or that type of position gets people sacked; clearly, in this House, it gets them into cabinet. At the very time that metropolitan areas are benefiting from competition between telecommunication providers and the rollout of new services and technologies, the Rudd Labor government are trying to rip away from the bush the remedy to the digital divide and to spend taxpayer money on a vague city-centric plan that Minister Conroy cannot even describe. It would be one thing if the government had a plan for how they would spend the money and knew the type of network they were trying to design and what the intended outcomes were. But at present there is not even a hint of that. There is a vague seven-expert panel being put together to review and provide comment back to the minister. Rural, regional and remote communities welcomed the former coalition government’s commitment to ensuring that they had access to modern telecommunication services, with targeted and strategic assistance that was available not just as a one-off initiative but in perpetuity. But now all of that is out the window. All of the certainty, all of the future-proofing and all of the understanding that their needs would be met in the future are gone. So much for the Rudd government governing for all Australia. Now the Labor government wants to raid not only the interest from the fund but the fund itself. It is one thing to pull the cookie from the jar and eat it behind the back. It is another thing to pull all the cookies out and then pick the jar up and toss it out the window—the very fund itself, taking not only the interest but the principal, taking away the very support that those currently most disadvantaged rely upon to ensure that they can be full participants in an information society. The former coalition government put forward a clear plan to ensure that fast broadband, wireless and other ancillary services were available for the people of rural and regional Australia. That plan did not require Rudd’s hand caught in the cookie jar. It did not require a raid on the communications plan. It did not require the fund to be turned upside down and every last penny pulled out. Last September, this parliament passed legislation introduced by the former government to ensure the principal of the fund did not fall below $2 billion. It was designed to protect the fund from the very mercenary pirates that this government is made up of. It was designed to prevent the fund from blatant unadulterated misuse. The Rudd government’s proposed amendments will remove this safeguard to allow the hands of both the Prime Minister and Senator Conroy to squirm around in the cookie jar. It is ironic that Senator Conroy endorsed the current work of the review team established by the former coalition government and headed by Dr Bill Glasson at the very same time that the Rudd government decided to raid the dedicated resources needed to implement the committee’s findings. But this bill allows the expenditure of not only the interest but the principal as well. It takes away the funding that was designed to future-proof the unique communication requirements of rural and remote Australia. Clearly, the Rudd government does not understand the unique requirements of this part of Australia—no doubt, though, putting on his akubra and going out once in a while to look at parched earth, he tries to tell the Australian people that he does. Of greater concern is that the interest and principal can be spent on any communication project, not necessarily in rural and remote Australia—any communication project at all that the Prime Minister and communications minister Senator Conroy consider politically expedient. Ominously, the finance minister is quoted by AAP on 14 February as saying: The final decision on use of the fund will be made in the context of the Government’s overall fiscal strategy. Listening to the Treasurer every day in question time has convinced me, beyond any sense of reasonable doubt, that he has no fiscal strategy and he has no understanding of the economy. His view simply is to blame a previous government that was very clear that there were economic warnings coming through internationally. Yet the Treasurer has no plan; he has no fiscal strategy. If he were to have a telecommunications strategy, why wouldn’t the government enunciate it? The Labor government cannot seem to think of telecommunications as being more than just broadband. It seems to be completely and utterly broadband-centric and beholden to it. Indeed, for the minister’s title to include ‘broadband’ suggests that Labor is completely myopic on the issue. The bill seeks to allow the fund itself to be accessed and applied in a broader range of financial instruments, including the acquisition of shares, debentures and assets, and for the development of a broadband telecommunications network. Well, what is this network that is being envisaged? The minister indicated that tenders were apparently to be closed in six months, yet they will be lucky to have the report from their seven-member expert panel within the year. And every day that this farcical phantom network continues to be a mere shadow of anything possibly realistic is another day where the people of Fadden, the people of my electorate, do not have access to broadband. Telstra has made it perfectly clear that they will not add any more broadband ports into any exchanges in Fadden because it is old telecommunications equipment. They are waiting for the government’s new direction so they can invest in that rather than invest in what they see as outdated technology. At the current rate, new subscribers in Fadden—businesses, individuals, families, schools—will not be able to get access to broadband for at least 18 months and, looking at the government’s performance in this, it could be many, many years. I refer the House’s attention to the Australian from last week where Mark Day wrote: The problem for Stephen Conroy, the federal Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Minister, is that he has moved from the easy part—pouring scorn on anything his predecessor said or did—into the hot seat. Now he has to make decisions. And that is precisely what he’s not doing.            …            …            … Conroy’s biggest game is fulfilling his pre-election pledge to provide Australia with a modern broadband network that will deliver a minimum speed of 12mps to a minimum 98 per cent of the population. He has proposed contributing $4.7 billion of taxpayer funds to this aim, but since the election we are none the wiser about how this will work. ... Conroy bragged that his grand fibre-to-the-node (or will it be fibre-to-the-home?) network would be under way within a year. A quarter of the way to that target, all we’ve had is a lot of questions and the appointment of an expert body to look at the issues.            …            …            … Broadband is the issue Convoy has nailed to the mast, but there are plenty of others. Former minister Helen Coonan built her 2006 media reforms around a ‘digital dividend’ for the public and nominated new TV services—six or a dozen channels on Licence A to provide new services to the home and up to 30 channels on Licence B for services to handheld mobiles—as the ultimate benefit of her proposals. Her nominated timetable—spectrum auctions by August last year—got away from her, then the election intervened. Convoy said Labor would endorse the proposals, but so far nothing has happened. There have been mutterings about Convoy blaming the delays on the Australian Communications and Media Authority processes, but ACMA insiders insist the reverse is true; they’re just waiting for decisions from Canberra.            …            …            … If Convoy is using his settling-in time to think through these big issues and act accordingly, I would say it is time well spent. But I don’t think that’s happening. We’re just seeing more dithering and time wasting. I could not concur with Mark Day, the journalist, more. Conroy is not across his brief. The government is not across its timetable. There is no clear plan forward for Australia on providing broadband and ancillary services to provide the high-speed network the nation needs. Furthermore, funds being raped from rural and remote Australia can be used to buy shares or interest in any other companies. The ambiguity makes it clear: the government does not know what it wants; it just knows it wants something. My 2½-year-old knows he wants ‘something’. This is only the beginning. Clearly this is the first move to raid rural Australia’s future-proofing Communications Fund for other purposes. It is also a sign of things to come from Labor—raiding funds to pay for their ill-principled half-baked policies dreamt up on the bus campaigning from town to town. The question is: why doesn’t the government know what it wants? Why doesn’t it know what it wants to spend the money on? Why does it want to raid money to spend on some nebulous telecommunications network that the telcos do not want government money for anyway? The Rudd Labor government have made their first moves to raid rural Australia’s future-proofing Communications Fund for any communication purpose with the introduction of this insipid piece of legislation. Labor’s proposal aims to make the fund fair game for any broadband related expenditure that Prime Minister Rudd or Senator Conroy consider expedient. This fund can be used for any plan they dream up on their next bus trip from town to town. It also aims to open the door for Labor to spend not only the interest but the principal as well, ensuring that any dividends from this misguided adventure go back to consolidated revenue, not back to rural and remote communities. Labor have let rural and remote Australia down. They have left them in the lurch. A significant fund available to future-proof our rural and remote communities, to ensure that they enjoyed the same prosperity and dividend from the digital economy, has been taken away. The Communications Fund provided a vital safeguard to some of the most disadvantaged consumers—those in rural and remote Australia, some of them tens, hundreds and thousands of kilometres apart, who do not have a voice with which to stand up and say ‘This is wrong.’ Spending the principal of the fund on assets undermines future opportunities to assist with the affordability of services for these most disadvantaged of consumers. This bill is a farce. It is a joke dreamt up by a former opposition, desperate to try and get some broad appeal on a fanciful idea for a network. Senator Conroy needs to come clean with the Australian people and explain exactly what network is being dreamt up, in what time frame it will be delivered, how much it will cost and what it will deliver to the Australian people—because, at present, all we have is a taking away of the digital future that rural and remote Australia needs so desperately. Debate (on motion by Ms Annette Ellis) adjourned. 1936 Business 1936 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 19:22:00 —by leave—I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, at the commencement of the Main Committee meeting tomorrow, the first item of business shall be Members’ statements, each for no longer than three minutes, with the item of business continuing for 30 minutes irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House. Question agreed to. 1937 Bills R2925 Debate resumed. 1937 19:22:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008. This bill is a small but highly significant step forward for telecommunications in this nation. The bill represents the first step in the Rudd government’s rollout of high-speed broadband to 98 per cent of the population. Of course, the first stage of the broadband rollout is to appropriate funding for that purpose. This bill will amend part 9C of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, removing the requirement for the balance of the Communications Fund to remain above $2 billion. This will enable government to access the $2 billion in the Communications Fund to part-fund the rollout of Labor’s national broadband plan. Labor’s national broadband network will transform communications in this country. With applications in e-medicine, education, commerce and entertainment, Labor’s network will be a revolution for those people in our community who cannot access high-speed broadband, let alone at an affordable price. Labor made it very, very clear in the lead-up to the election campaign what its policies were in the area of broadband. It was a policy area of very stark contrast between our policies for the future and those of the coalition, who I believe had a backward view and were trying to play catch-up in this area. Labor’s national broadband plan will provide speeds of up to 12 megabits per second—40 times faster than is currently available to many households and businesses. The Rudd government understands that access to high-speed broadband is highly beneficial to business, to communities and to individuals. It is vital for the long-term productivity and prosperity of our nation. That is why we announced, prior to the election, that we would invest up to $4.7 billion to build a national broadband network. This major investment in infrastructure will provide the basis for ongoing economic growth for decades to come. As my colleague the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Grayndler, pointed out in his second reading speech, under the previous government’s snail pace, residents and business throughout Australia would be waiting 35 years to reach the same level of investment that Labor is now prepared to make. Given that the internet was not available those 35 years ago, imagine where we could be in 35 years time when you consider where we are starting now with Labor’s broadband network. The Communications Fund was established by the former government to fund, albeit very slowly, the telecommunications needs of residents and businesses in rural, remote and regional areas, and this is exactly the purpose for which we will use the $2 billion in the fund. But we will invest in infrastructure much, much faster than had been intended by those opposite. Australians are tired of waiting for high-speed internet access. They know that we are a broadband backwater, thanks to the inaction and the slow progress of the former government. I know that here in my own electorate of Canberra there is a great need for improved broadband access—even in the national capital. I think that many people believe that difficulties in accessing broadband are predominantly a problem in rural and regional areas, but this is not so. I would like to share with the House some of the experiences from my electorate. Approximately 10 kilometres from Parliament House is the suburb of Chifley in the Woden Valley—and a lovely suburb it is too. I know of one apartment block in Chifley called The Hermitage, right on the main road, which cannot get access to broadband. There are 75 units in the complex. Telstra tells the residents that they are too far away from the exchange. My office has been contacted by one lady there who is semi-retired. She uses the internet to keep in touch with family and friends, as well as it making a major contribution to the professional society in which she is very active. My office has made representations to Telstra on her behalf, and for the possible benefit of all of the other residents in The Hermitage or elsewhere in that region, but unfortunately so far without success. She is forced to rely on dial-up internet or she has to pay thousands of dollars for a satellite dish to be installed on the roof of her apartment block. They are the suggestions. That is no small cost when you consider her apartment is on the ground floor. I would like the people opposite to explain to this lovely lady why she cannot access ADSL in the national capital, only 10 kilometres from this very building. After almost 12 years in government, I really think that the ball was dropped in relation to broadband and the extension of communications at a new-world level here in Australia. I would like to share another experience from my electorate which highlights the economic and environmental benefits of Labor’s rollout of high-speed broadband. Some months ago my office was contacted by a gentleman who lives in the suburb of Bonython, a little bit further south than Chifley. It is about 20 kilometres south of Parliament House. He works in computer programming for a large multinational technology company. He cannot get ADSL at home, let alone anything faster such as ADSL2. The lack of high-speed broadband is directly limiting his productivity and that of the company he works for. This means that instead of working from home, which was his preferred option—which his employer was very happy for him to do—he has to commute to work each day. That means of course another car on the road, more cost and so on. I know that his case is not unique. I know that this is happening in other parts of the country—in many, many parts of the country—and we really do need to do something about it to move us forward into the digital age. Prior to the election, I had the opportunity to visit the Canberra Hospital with the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister. Amongst other things, we met senior medical staff who told us of the huge benefits high-speed broadband can deliver to patients of that hospital. For those who do not know, the local Canberra Hospital services a very large part of southern New South Wales. It is a regional centre, in many ways, for medicine. The introduction of e-medicine via high-speed broadband will have massive benefits to patients and hospital staff. Doctors will be able to conduct interviews with patients over the internet and it will allow the transmission of complex case documents and the results of medical testing and diagnosis procedures to be sent over the internet. This is only one area where we could stand to benefit from high-speed broadband here in my local community. I can remember, at an earlier time in this place, an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into telemedicine. My recollection of that inquiry is that the faster the speed, the better the connection for broadband and IT connections generally, and the possibilities were almost limitless for diagnosis of a range of issues, transfer of X-rays and transfer of data. I know that in some parts of the country we were already able to do that and do it well, but we have not reached our potential. There is far more that we can do, but we must have very good, high-quality, high-speed data transmission to really reach the potential of what we can do in the area of e-medicine or telemedicine, as we called it then. That would also, of course, help us with some of our regional neighbours. I hope that, through the examples I have given today, people begin to understand the breadth of the problems with the current telecommunications networks. They are simply not sufficient and we as a nation cannot afford to sit back and wait for industry to get around to making the required investments. Government really must take a lead in the debate in this country, and that is exactly what the Rudd Labor government said it would do and it is exactly what the Rudd Labor government is doing. As I said at the outset, the bill represents a very significant first step in bringing the Australian community and economy into the digital age. The Australian public wants a high-speed broadband network and our economy needs it sooner rather than later. I am very proud to speak on this bill today, as it represents the first step in a quantum leap forward for all Australians. Can I conclude by referring to the large number of consultations I have been involved in, particularly over the last 12 months, around the region on this very question. You could not go anywhere without people saying: ‘One of the best things that the Rudd opposition is proposing is to do the broadband thing—to pick up this policy and run with it. Do everything in your power to offer as many people as possible good, high-quality, high-speed data connection.’ We are talking about individuals, families and small business particularly around the different parts of this region. I am very pleased to think that we are moving forward. We are determined to get this policy up and running, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the improvements that I know we can offer to the majority, 98 per cent, of Australians over the coming years in respect of broadband connection in Australia. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—The member for Herbert. 1939 19:32:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —The member for Paradise, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! It is almost like being a Western Australian. Member for Canberra, have I got a deal for you in relation to the units in Chifley that you mentioned in your speech. You said that 75 units had no access to broadband. Tomorrow, Member for Canberra, I can get all of those residents connected to a broadband system faster than ADSL—and it is not satellite. If you would like me to tell you the way to do it after this speech, I am happy to do that. It is available now, tonight. You basically misled parliament tonight when you indicated that those people in those units cannot get broadband. They can get broadband, and I will explain how it is possible. That is one of the problems—getting everyone to understand the technology and how things can be done. I have good news for you. For those who are listening to this broadcast tonight—wherever you are across this big, brown land of ours; from the north to the south, from the east to the west—I want you to know what this Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008 in the parliament tonight is about. The bill is giving the parliament the licence to steal from the Australian taxpayers. They are pretty emotive words, but that is effectively what the Labor Party is asking the parliament for tonight. The former government set aside $2 billion, partially out of the sale of the proceeds of Telstra— 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Shame. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Thank you, Member for New England. Haven’t you noticed that telecommunications have got much better in this country since that was done? Of course, you would want to stay in the past. Now I have been thrown off track. Two billion dollars was set aside from the sale of Telstra to be used as a perpetual fund to improve telecommunications progressively in rural and regional Australia. I unashamedly and proudly stand here tonight as a representative from regional Australia, and I am being forced to defend the Labor Party’s decision to effectively transfer this money back into metropolitan Australia. How dare they do that. How dare they put that to the parliament. How dare they treat rural and regional residents in such a way. How they propose to do it is in fact to take the money out of the Communications Fund and basically spend it on broadband infrastructure in metropolitan Australia, an area where services are already being provided at no cost to the government, through private providers. It just does not make sense. It concerns me very much that rural and regional Australia is being treated in this way. Why does it surprise me that the Labor Party would be proposing to steal money out of this fund, to steal thousands of millions of dollars? I remember, and the defence community continues to remind me, that initially defence superannuation was fully funded. That means that money was put aside every year to pay the entitlements of defence members when they fell due. So what happened in the Whitlam years? Mr Whitlam, his cabinet and his Labor government raided the superannuation fund of Defence Force members. What did they do? They spent the lot. Here we are again, 30 years later, with a communications fund that is locked up for the purpose of providing faster, more appropriate services to rural and regional Australia. What are Labor up to? They are raiding the fund. That should not be allowed to happen. Surely my colleagues on the other side—like the member for Lowe—are sensible enough to understand that this is wrong. It is not what should be done. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —I can assure you I am very sensitive. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I thank the member for Lowe for his support for me, and I hope that he stands up in his party room tomorrow and says, ‘I object to this.’ 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —What a nonsensical proposition. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Perhaps the member for New England would like to support me in this as well. It is wrong. What is Labor’s position on broadband? Summed up in a nutshell: it is to spend public money providing broadband speeds to everybody in Australia. If that means running a fibre-optic cable up every gum tree in the country, that is what Labor will do. That is Labor’s commitment, but it is a nonsense. Telecommunications is expanding and changing so rapidly these days that new technologies are constantly becoming available. I remind you that it was only four years ago that Labor was pushing 40 kilobytes per second dial-up internet as the way of the future. By the time we get around to doing the things that this bill is proposed to fund, things will have changed yet again. These days, dial-up internet is a dinosaur. They do not even have a computer anymore that will perform the dial-up function. That is the way of the world as things move faster and faster with new technology. We have seen the advent of wireless technology, where large areas can be serviced from a single-base station cell. That wireless technology can be WiMAX or it can be Next G. Already Next G is available in 98 per cent of the country. You can get fast broadband speeds now. The only place that you cannot service with this technology—perhaps two per cent of the country—is the back of Bourke. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Rubbish! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I said ‘the back of Bourke’. I did not say ‘Bourke’, Member for New England. Lord Howe Island has difficulty. The way to solve that is through the former government’s and the current government’s broadband guarantee, which allows a subsidy for satellite services so that no Australian is disadvantaged. And that is the way it should be. Labor’s fixed broadband proposal comes at a time when broadband delivery through wireless and other mixed technologies is rapidly gaining momentum. You now see people all over the place with their laptops, wherever they are, with their little cards plugged into the side of their laptops. They are on the net, surfing and doing their business. Of course, this is the way that the member for Canberra can solve her problem in respect of the 75 units in Chifley. It works at high speed—faster than ADSL—it is reliable and it works wherever you are. Labor wants to roll out broadband across the country over the next five years. It will slowly bleed the Communications Fund dry and have little to show for it at the end of the day. The private providers in the metropolitan areas should be providing the capital to do all of this, because they are the people who will take the benefit, the dividend and the profit. In the metro areas it is quite lucrative for the private providers to provide these services, yet Labor wants to spend rural and regional Australia’s money on metro services that would be provided anyway by the private providers. That is just not sensible. That is why this bill should be voted down. I started off by saying that this bill was effectively a licence to steal—to steal from regional and rural Australia. The previous government’s—now the alternative government of this country—attempt to future-proof regional Australia from falling behind metro centres in accessing improved communications technology is now very much under threat. And it should not be. This fund was set up for the ongoing benefit of households in rural and regional Australia, and they should be protected. It is wrong; it is stealing. Income from the fund was specifically and exclusively mandated to support communications services outside the metro area but, if this fund is run down, there will be no income. It therefore follows that there will be no support. Those in rural and regional Australia who are listening to the parliament tonight will be quite angry to know that Labor is stealing their money. This is not just rhetoric—it is not about my standing up at the dispatch box—it is what is happening. A fund that was set up for the benefit of rural and regional Australia—thousands of millions of dollars—will now be snaffled up by the Labor Party and spent in metropolitan Australia. I think there will be a revolt when people in rural and regional Australia understand what the Labor Party is doing. The Prime Minister and the Labor Party went to the electorate promising that they would do something about petrol prices, grocery prices and mortgage rates. It was part of the central plank of the Labor Party’s campaign. The electorate trusted the Labor Party and expected this to happen, but the government is now taking away the money earmarked for rural and regional Australia. We will see telecommunications prices, petrol prices, grocery prices and mortgage rates go up. People will realise by the time of the next election that they have been sold a pup, just as this bill is a pup in relation to rural and regional Australia. I absolutely reject and oppose the legislation before the parliament tonight. 1941 19:45:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I listened with some degree of interest to the member for Herbert’s contribution to this debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008. I noted that he was having some difficulty determining whether it was Lord Howe Island or Norfolk Island; having listened to his contribution, I think he has had a visit to Fantasy Island. I can assure the member for Herbert that he is very much out of touch with the service levels that a lot of country Australians are getting. And he stood up as a proponent of regional telecommunications. I would invite him to come to an electorate which is not at the back of Bourke but within 350 kilometres of Sydney and spend some time looking at some of the issues that happen in the real world. In the community of Yetman, on the Queensland border, for instance, they are still having difficulty getting mobile phones. The so-called Communications Fund that the member for Herbert was talking about allowed $100 million a year. Many of those communities, like Acacia Plateau, closer to Brisbane, have had proposals put to them by Telstra Country Wide—the company that the former Liberal government was more than happy to sell and where competition was going to deliver outcomes to people—whereby if they provide the land, the electricity to the land, the road to the land and the tower on the land, Telstra will look at putting an antenna on the tower. That is what this has come to: all of the promises, commitments and rubbish that were peddled about the sale of Telstra and the guarantees that were given time and time again as to what would happen, and it would all be all right. I have attended meetings at the Yetmans and the Acacia Plateaus, and I have not seen all the private providers gathered there in a competitive process to provide modern technology to country people. The $100 million that the member for Herbert has spent time talking about tonight—and no doubt others will as well—is a pittance and was a pittance. The member for Herbert and others who were in government at the time would have known that our Constitution does not allow for one parliament to bind another parliament. They knew exactly what they were doing when this compromise—a $2 billion Communications Fund to future-proof country Australia—was put in place. More times than not they forgot to add that it was actually the interest on the $2 billion, which is probably about $100 million annually, to future-proof country Australia. The first bit of future that came along was Next G; and we have this absurd scenario being played out at the moment where people have been sold product not fit for purpose. Where has this future-proofing been in the last 12 months? What has it been doing for those people who have been sold dodgy phones, who have been sold a pup in terms of the technology that they were told would be an improvement on the technology that they had before? If there was ever a reason for the demise of the National Party, this is a classic example of it. This whole scenario really encapsulates the reason that people have walked away. Even some of the elderly, retired members and some of those who have more recently retired are walking away and agreeing to a merger with the Liberal Party. Ninety to 95 per cent of country Australians did not want Telstra sold. So what did the National Party do? They sold it. The Page Research Centre did a survey about what would be the price of the sale. What would we need to adequately ensure that country Australians had an equitable service? It came up with $7 billion. Then the saviour of the country, Senator Barnaby Joyce, called for a $5 billion future-proofing arrangement. Eventually they settled on the interest on $2 billion, which was back to $100 million annually—or 20 years to get to the $2 billion, for something that the people they represented did not want sold in the first place. Out of a $57.7 billion asset, Australia has enjoyed the benefits of about $1.1 billion. And the member for Herbert describes what is happening today as a disgraceful thing. I think the disgrace occurred some time back. I was at the Senate doors on the day the then President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, came out of a meeting with some of the government ministers—Mark Vaile, John Anderson and a few others—and endorsed the sale. And the National Farmers Federation wonder why they have absolutely no regard in this building! He endorsed the sale of Telstra, even though their membership, their constituency, had said no—as was the case with the National Party constituency. The reason he gave was the reason that Senator Joyce eventually gave in his support in the Senate debate at the time. The President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, said: ‘We are about delivering equity of access to country Australians, and the government has guaranteed us that it will be enshrined in legislation that there be equity of access to broadband and telephone services.’ Some hours later, the ‘champion of the bush’, Senator Barnaby Joyce, supported the sale—on the back of that promise. That was when the damage was done, Member for Herbert. That is when the sell-out, the theft, occurred. That is when country Australians were sold out by their so-called representatives. That was the last opportunity that the National Party and, in my view, the National Farmers Federation had to purport to actually represent a constituency. Polls done in a number of electorates, including many of the then government electorates, showed opposition to the sale. In Gwydir, 81 per cent were opposed; in Parkes, 88 per cent were opposed; in Riverina, 85 per cent were opposed; in Farrer, 82 per cent were opposed; in Page, 81 per cent were opposed; in Richmond, 73 per cent were opposed; and in Cowper, 91 per cent were opposed. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Who was the member for Gwydir? 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I think you would recall who the member for Gwydir was, Member for Lowe. The New South Wales Farmers Federation, an organisation that I was proud to be a member of, sold out their constituency—absolutely sold out. They are now running around the countryside complaining about Next G and how they are going to champion those people who cannot receive modern technology, when they supported the sale of the vehicle that was producing enormous dividends. They sold not only a vehicle that was producing enormous dividends but also the political capacity to influence the debate into the future—and that is the great tragedy of this. For people to suggest that the yearly interest on the $2 billion Communications Fund would future-proof country Australia is absurd. It is an absurd proposition. How are you going to guarantee technology that has not yet been invented? It is absurd to think that a fund such as the Communications Fund would carry so much weight that private entrepreneurs, including Telstra, and private businesses would capitulate and deliver technologies that have not even been thought of yet into the marketplace when they know full well that they are not going to get a financial return, a shareholder return, on delivering into communities like Yetman and Acacia Plateau or even into pockets of some bigger communities as well. The former government sold the political leverage that was required to deliver an essential service to country Australians. We have had a lot of talk in this place about infrastructure—and we passed the Infrastructure Australia Bill only about an hour ago. The most important piece of infrastructure for this nation this century is not a road and it is not a railway line; it is telecommunications. Telecommunications is the one thing that negates distance as a disadvantage of being a country resident. In fact, it is the one piece of infrastructure that has the potential to reverse the slide. People are able to enjoy a lifestyle in the country and still perform at full capacity, productively et cetera, by way of modern telecommunications, if they can get access to that at equitable prices and if they can get an equitable quality of service. The former government sold out country Australians by selling the capacity to make sure that that happens through the political process. A private company would not have been bound by the Communications Fund to provide telecommunications technology that has not yet been invented. Obviously its marketing would be driven by the size of the market and the potential to make money. If you do not believe that, have a look at what is happening in the airline business, where it costs nearly $1,000 to fly from Tamworth to Canberra and back when you can nearly go around the world for the same price. That is what we sold out on when the former government sold Telstra. A number of issues have been raised here tonight, but there are two that I would like to bring up. I congratulate the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, for deferring the switch-off of CDMA to Next G.. There are still enormous problems there. I am actually in the process of surveying my electorate to find out where those problems are and what should be happening. There have been a number of mixed messages. One thing that came out of Senator Conroy’s decision is that he still maintains some degree of political leverage on Telstra. Once he says that CDMA can be turned off, any political pressure that can be leveraged against Telstra will be removed. The minister still has the capacity to influence the outcome of that particular issue. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for New England is not speaking to the bill, as he is required to, and I ask you to bring him back to the content of the bill, please. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—The member for New England will address the bill. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the member for New England is making a lot of sense and a very valuable contribution to the debate. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Thank you to the member for Lowe. As I said, I congratulate Senator Conroy. If the member for Herbert had missed the connection with telecommunications, I note that Senator Conroy is the minister for communications and the minister in charge of this legislation, apparently. I congratulate him for the deferment of the switch-off. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the standing orders of the parliament require the member speaking to address the content of the bill. This is not the content of the bill, Member for New England, and you must address it, under the standing orders. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: with great respect to my colleague the member for Herbert, this is a wide-ranging debate and many issues have been canvassed by previous speakers. I think the member for New England is being very relevant and he should be allowed to continue. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: if you accept that it is a wide-ranging debate, the member for New England should speak about the OPEL proposal, which the former government signed and which delivers the telecommunications that he says are not being delivered. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Order! This is not a matter for debate. The member for New England is to address the bill, please. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —The issue that the member for Herbert raises in terms of OPEL is an absolutely fascinating issue. I would like to spend a couple of minutes on it because it shows some of the ineptitude of the former government on this issue—probably more so than most other things. A contract was let. People tendered, including Telstra—and I have been critical of Telstra. From memory, I think they were asked to quote on $600 million. The contract that was finally let out to OPEL was for nearly $1 billion. Companies were asked to quote on providing a service for $600 million, but all of a sudden another $358 million, I think, was added when the contract was let. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —For your constituents. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Yes—have a look at the WiMAX technology! I congratulate Senator Conroy, who is in charge of this particular piece of legislation, for not turning off the CDMA service until the handsets particularly—but also some of the towers for reception in country areas—are brought up to scratch. I would urge him not to switch off CDMA on 28 April either, because we need to make sure that at this particular time in our history, with the former government having sold out a public instrumentality and with us converting to a new technology—that of Next G, access to which country Australians are not up to scratch with—we do not lose this piece of political leverage. The former government said—and I would have thought that the member for Herbert would be supportive of this—that they would enshrine in legislation equity of access, in terms of quality and cost, to broadband and telephone services. If the member for Herbert wants to address these issues with respect to fairness, maybe he could elaborate as to where that particular guarantee was enshrined. Where was it enshrined in legislation? The answer is that it was not. Country people and members of parliament who were here then know they were duped into selling an asset that was not only a valuable commodity but far more valuable in terms of its capacity to deliver services to people. The role of government is to provide those sorts of services into the future. Providing those services—which may or may not be economic in terms of size, scale and magnitude of delivery—is what the role of government is supposed to be about, I would have thought. They sold out. For the National Party to be part and parcel of it and actually carry the coffin to the grave really encapsulates why the credibility of that party has diminished and why it will fade away, and deserves to fade away, into the sunset. (Time expired) 1945 20:05:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise today to oppose the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008 as I believe it is a raid on rural Australia and its telecommunications future, but I cannot leave the comments from the previous speaker, the member for New England, unanswered. I was not in this House last year; I am a new member. But last year I was the mayor of a shire that was partly inside the member for New England’s area. Part of my role as a mayor was to encourage businesspeople and skilled tradespeople to come to fill particular skills shortages in my electorate and to move and build up our population. We went to a function in Sydney called Country Week, to which medical professionals, builders, plumbers and small business people came. They asked me where I was from. I said that I came from the Gwydir shire, which is in the New England region of New South Wales. Someone said, ‘We can’t go there; the phones don’t work. I run a business and I need to have a mobile phone. If our family is going to be away, we need broadband.’ But the member for New England did not say in his speech that all the towns in his electorate have broadband and mobile phone coverage and that most of the rural areas in between do as well. We hear a lot of half-truths in this debate about the rollout of telecommunications in regional Australia. Later on I will get on to how we have some holes to fill and how we will have problems in the future. I think that the negative argument that has been led by the member for New England has done irreparable damage to the growth of that electorate. I am wondering, as the representative of that area for over 20 years, what sort of a contribution he has made to the growth of that area. He spoke of 95 per cent of the people in his electorate opposing the sale of Telstra. What he did not say was that it was 95 per cent of the five per cent of the people that responded to his survey. He spoke about Next G not being up to scratch. I can remember hearing him on ABC radio late last year, having spent all day with a Telstra crew in a car, commenting that the Next G coverage that he was experiencing as he drove from Tamworth through the electorate, ending up at Wallangra and Yetman, was actually better than CDMA. While I acknowledge that we do have problems, I think the idea of taking a debate and focusing on the negatives is doing enormous damage to rural Australia, and I take particular offence that it is affecting my area as well. The interest from the Communications Fund, as the member for New England stated, was to fund upgrades of regional telecommunications. People living outside metropolitan areas need reliable access to telecommunications services. The days of having mobile coverage are no longer a luxury; they are part of doing business in Australia. If you listen to the arguments of the member for New England, you would think that phones did not work. He mentioned the town of Yetman. Yetman is in need of a phone tower because there are areas where phones do not work. I pass through Yetman on a regular basis. I used to cart cattle through there on a weekly basis and I have memories of making phone calls in that same area on my mobile phone. In the 12 years of the previous government we saw an enormous rollout of mobile phone coverage and towers right across regional Australia, but there are still some holes. In areas of my electorate we still have some holes in mobile phone coverage. The Mudgee-Goolma area has poor mobile phone coverage, as do the towns of Pilliga and Collie and a few other places like those. This fund was vitally important to keep that upgrade going. The Next G network is having major problems, but the issue is with the handsets. I have spent considerable time testing the network. I am convinced that the network is up to scratch, but Telstra has sold many handsets that are not up to scratch. I think that it needs to address that problem. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —How is it in Dunedoo? HWN Coulton, Mark, MP Mr COULTON —I actually spoke on my mobile phone in Dunedoo the week before last. I can hold a conversation from Dubbo through Dunedoo and Coolah right up Mullaley into Gunnedah and it does not drop out. This is one of the falsehoods that has been put around. I am not denying that we have problems with telecommunications. That is why I am speaking to this bill and that is why I think it is appalling that the new government is taking away this infrastructure fund and putting it into the cities. This telecommunications debate is doing enormous harm to regional Australia because it is actually slanting the real picture. We have farmers right across the electorate now doing business as they sit on their tractors. In my last harvest, I was dealing with three or four grain traders interstate and I was keeping up to date with the latest cargo prices on my satellite broadband under the HiBIS scheme that was brought in by the previous government, even though I was living in a remote area. I might add that, upon complaints from our local areas, Telstra spent over $1 million on my local remote exchange and the people where I formerly lived had their issues addressed. I think we need to keep a balance in this debate. The issue of telecommunications involves more than mobile phones; it also involves broadband. Some of the areas where my electorate is deficient in broadband might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dubbo is the largest town in my electorate and large areas of Dubbo do not have broadband access. They do have access to broadband on the Next G network, but it is dearer than ADSL. It is causing enormous problems. I was speaking to a teacher who is doing a masters degree and was frustrated at not having ADSL connected to his house whereas the people on the other side of the street did. The proposal by the previous government, with the OPEL consortium, to install WiMAX would have solved this problem in Dubbo in a very short time. I know that the people of Dubbo cannot wait for a fibre-to-the-node system to be delivered by 2013. They need a reliable broadband service now. They were waiting with great anticipation for the rollout of the OPEL network and have been disappointed that that has not happened. The other issue with broadband is that with ADSL we have good coverage in the towns but we need to continue the HiBIS scheme with satellite connections in regional areas. Broadband is vitally important for people in regional Australia. Due to their isolation, many children are now doing their lessons by broadband on satellite. Many people undertaking tertiary education are doing remote courses using broadband. We need to make sure that people in regional Australia are kept up to date with the latest technology when it comes out. With the overall debate on the proposal to raid the infrastructure fund, I think that the government should reconsider. Rural Australia is on the verge of growth. The quality of life in city areas has got to the stage now where people are looking inland. It is important that we keep that infrastructure rolled out so that people can do business in regional areas. I know with transport, it is important that companies can keep track of their trucks and, for safety, drivers need to be in touch with home bases all the time, so we need to fill in these holes in mobile coverage. The bill takes away the measures that were put in place by the previous government to protect the people of rural and regional Australia. I think that the warning bells should probably be ringing, because one of the first bills introduced by the new government into this House is attacking rural and regional Australia. We in regional Australia are not looking for a superior service to that of the cities, but we are looking for an equal service. I think fibre to the node is an ill-conceived proposal. It is estimated that it will take until 2013 to roll out and it is supposedly going to achieve 98 per cent coverage, but I can guess where that other two per cent will be. The other issue with fibre to the node is that it is replicating a network and giving the opportunity for monopoly control over broadband. It will take broadband away from the system and out of the exchanges we have now. A parallel network will be set up which will give the opportunity for monopoly control over future broadband. I think that the government needs to consider this aspect of the rollout. If this bill is passed then the money that should be spent on ensuring that regional areas get the telecommunications upgrade they need will be diverted back in Labor’s city based policies. This bill comes at a time when money needs to be spent on improving telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. This bill is not in the best interest of rural and regional Australians and I strongly oppose it. 1948 20:17:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the opportunity to speak in the House on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008, because it is a very important bill for this country. We have only 0.3 per cent of the world’s population living on some 5.1 per cent of the world’s landmass. Australians live and work in communities scattered right around the country. The tyranny of distance and isolation presents a set of unique challenges for regional and remote Australia. Today I rise to speak of the challenges facing regional Australia in the area of telecommunications and to highlight the danger that this bill poses to the future of telecommunications in regional areas. When it undertook to privatise Telstra, the coalition government realised that private enterprise would struggle to provide viable telecommunications services in many regional areas. We needed to allow for additional funding to protect the interests of the people who lived in those areas where it was not commercially viable to provide many of the services which people in the city take for granted. As a result, the coalition announced a $1.1 billion plan for direct capital investment into regional telecommunications through the Connect Australia scheme. Connect Australia aimed to improve broadband to people living in regional, rural and remote areas; extend mobile phone coverage; build new regional communications networks; and set up telecommunications services for remote Indigenous communities. All of these, members would have to agree, are worthy ends. In addition, the previous government fought for and delivered a $2 billion Communications Fund, with interest gained from this investment to be used to deliver First World communications services to remote and regional Australia—areas in which, as I said, these particular services would not be commercially viable. It was interesting that this particular program aimed not only to deliver the services that we know and take for granted today but also to deliver services that are yet to be invented. I found it quite curious that the member for New England, being the intellectual giant that we all know he is, could not contemplate services that he could not imagine. I am sorry to say that the member for New England is living in the past. The member for New England perhaps cannot imagine services in the future, but the former government could. The former government very clearly realised that there would be technologies coming on stream that are either in the very early stages of development now or yet to be developed. The former government also realised that if regional Australia was going to compete and continue to be competitive in world markets then it would have to have access to those types of technologies and that perhaps those technologies would not be commercially viable in remote areas. That was just one of the reasons why this fund was set up. Income from the fund was earmarked to finance the government’s response to independent reviews of regional telecommunications services. This would include the development of infrastructure for regional communities, such as additional mobile towers, the provision of broadband and backhaul fibre capabilities. The Communications Fund was not a one-off exercise; it was a visionary plan to protect regional telecommunications services well into the future. If the past two decades are anything to go by, the next two decades will be a time of great advancement and great development in technology. Who would have imagined 15 years ago the progress of the internet today? Who would have imagined that young students in an isolated area would be receiving their lessons via satellite? It is not that long ago that we were experimenting with the pedal wireless for the flying doctor. Telecommunications is moving at a fast pace. Who would have imagined the growth in mobile phone use? Labor anticipated future developments in telecommunications so well that just four years ago they wanted to extend dial-up internet to every Australian. Dial-up was apparently the answer four years ago to our communication needs. What happened? Their policy changed. They went from having a policy where Australia would be left behind to looking at something different. They said: ‘What’s trendy in the area of telecommunications? Fibre is trendy. We’ll roll out fibre everywhere—where it is viable, where it is not viable and where it is needed.’ It is really quite ridiculous. The previous government had a very balanced stance. They had a program in place that would basically use a range of technologies to provide the very best telecommunications services for the circumstances in which they were to be delivered. Labor, on the other hand, is purely using hype to talk about the fibre optic backbone that will not be delivered for many years to come. As technology develops, it is vitally important that our businesspeople, educators, students and medical professionals in regional areas have access to the very best in telecommunications services—and the previous government was working to deliver that. The previous government knew that medical services needed quality telecommunications and that business, if it was to compete, needed exactly the same—and we were delivering that. This legislation is paving the way for the current government to effectively turn the clock back on regional Australia. This legislation will not take us forward; it will turn the clock back. Labor’s broadband policy was released 11 months ago, and we still have no details about the network, who will build it, how much it will cost, how it will be accessed, who can access it and where it can be accessed from. We do not know those facts at this late stage, and regional Australia is rightfully concerned about this. It is quite clearly another example of Labor policy on the run. It is quite clearly another area in which Labor has looked at the trendy solutions to make a good sound bite and then proposed to roll it out, regardless of what that means for the future of telecommunications in regional areas. The Prime Minister announced that Labor would build a broadband network, but then there was silence. There have been no details of costings and no consultation. So far, all we have heard is a notion that one day, off in the future, at least 98 per cent of Australians will have access to high-speed broadband. I see problems with this lack of a plan. The first is that the government’s plan will be rolled out over the next five years. Presumably, regional areas will receive their network much later. If you are in a metropolitan area where services could have been provided commercially and there was no need for taxpayer funded investment, you will get your fibre-optic rollout quickly. If you are in a regional area that is absolutely dependent on telecommunications to remain competitive, you will have to wait an indeterminate time for it. You will have to wait for a service that you do not know how, when, where and by whom it will be delivered. All these things are unknown. It is quite right that there is concern among people in regional areas about this. We have seen Labor’s form in telecommunications. We have seen them in the past turn off the analog phone network. What did they put in its place? They put nothing in its place. They turned off the analog network, sold off the licences and put nothing in its place. That is the way that Labor dealt with the telecommunications needs of regional consumers in the past. I would say that current regional consumers do not trust Labor anymore and that they are very concerned. The Australian reported on 1 February that both Telstra and the G9 group were privately saying that the government’s plan to reach 98 per cent of the population with fibre to the node may be unviable and that a mix of technologies would be a better outcome. A mix of technologies sounds very much like the OPEL consortium that the previous government proposed to deliver quality broadband service through a range of technologies. We live in a very large land, with very difficult conditions in which to deliver telecommunications services. It demands a range of technical solutions to provide the best service at the best cost. Anybody in this room could probably design a bridge that would stand up, but it takes a skilled engineer to design a bridge that provides a maximum strength at the least cost—and it is the same with a telecommunications network. You can design a network by press release, or you can design a network by using the best possible technologies for the applications required. The OPEL consortium was in stark contrast to Labor’s telecommunications policy by press release. It planned to deliver broadband strategy to 99 per cent of the population by 2009—not years off into the future, but by 2009—and achieve network speeds of 10 megabits by June 2009. What is going to happen to the government’s proposal by June 2009? There will probably be a lot more press releases, probably a lot more hype, probably a lot more hot air but probably a lot fewer services to people in regional areas. Another problem that I see with this plan is that the very companies the government expects to build the network have already told Labor that they will build it themselves. As I said, this is investment in communications infrastructure by the taxpayer that would have been provided commercially at commercial rates of return. Is it good use of taxpayers’ money to invest in a service that the private sector was going to deliver anyway? I think not. It is a woeful use of taxpayers’ money. We should, as the previous government did, invest in telecommunications services where it would not have been commercially viable. That is a far better use of public money. It is far more logical and far more responsible than telecommunications services by press release. The whole purpose of the telecommunications fund—the fund that this government is proposing to take away—was to invest in those very technologies that would not be provided commercially. On top of the fact that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy wants to use taxpayers’ funds to build a network that would almost certainly be commercially viable without funding, the government’s plan still has no detail. The minister is apparently confused about his own plan. He is apparently not sure whether he wants fibre to the node or fibre to the home. They are very basic concepts but there seems to be a degree of confusion on the part of the good senator. Senator Conroy seems to be confusing the two concepts—fibre to the node or fibre to the home. Which is it going to be, Minister? During the election campaign, he passed through a small town in my electorate—the town of Lowanna—spruiking Labor’s broadband plan. The problem is that he could not then and cannot now tell the people of Lowanna whether they will get high-speed fibre under the government’s plan. Will Lowanna be in the two per cent who miss out, or will it be serviced by its very own fibre optic network? I am not sure. The minister is not sure. People are not sure what they will get out of the government’s plan. I would suggest that the only thing they can be certain to get from the government’s plan is years of neglect. The people in regional Australia are all too used to the Labor Party’s endless neglect. It will be just like the time when Labor turned off the analog network—an unconscionable move. Labor does not aim to deliver better services; instead, it turns off services and puts nothing in their place. Considering that the government has introduced a bill that deals with more than $2 billion that belongs to the people of Australia, I believe it would be appropriate for the people of regional Australia to know what was going to happen to the $2 billion that was previously earmarked to provide them with the services that they rightly deserve. I contend that they are not going to be receiving value for that money, which could be invested in Sydney or Melbourne. I think that the people of regional Australia are being ripped off by the proposed government bill. In opposing this bill, I have another major objection. As I mentioned, the Communications Fund is intended to address the ongoing needs of regional Australians. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Order! It being 8.30 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 1951 Bills R2954 1951 Bill presented by Mr Georgiou. 1951 20:30:00 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 0 Mr GEORGIOU —Since the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001, the Australian parliament has enacted more than 30 laws dealing with terrorism. This legislature has agreed on a bipartisan basis that protecting Australians from the threat of terrorism demands exceptional restrictions on civil liberties and on freedom of speech and of association. Offences and procedures have been established which depart significantly from traditional principles and practices of our criminal law. The Attorney-General has been given power to ‘list’ organisations as involved in terrorism. This means that membership and support of such organisations are criminalised. ASIO can detain people for interrogation. Those suspected of terrorist involvement may be subjected to control orders and preventative detention. Within the parliament and the community, there has been considerable debate about the necessity for and the desirability of such measures. Parliament has given its imprimatur, though not always unanimously and often with considerable reservation. I and a number of others have expressed concern that aspects of the current regime are draconian. I have also voiced my belief that the system’s severity could be eased without undermining its effectiveness and that such reform could potentially enhance it. The fact is that a democracy’s response to the threat of terrorism cannot simply be more stringent laws, more police and more intelligence personnel. The point was well made by European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini, when he said: … our citizens entrust us with the task of protecting them against crime and terrorist attacks; however, at the same, they entrust us with safeguarding their fundamental rights … [the] necessary steps we take to enforce security must always be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure scrutiny, accountability and transparency. Mr Frattini’s observation has been widely endorsed, not least by the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland, and I support it. The challenge of protecting security without undermining fundamental rights requires constant vigilance. But the reality is that the machinery of vigilance in Australia is deficient. When the government proposed sweeping new measures in 2005, I said it was important that the parliament identify a credible mechanism to continuously review the operations of the legislation. I suggested that we consider appointing an independent expert to undertake the task, as the UK had done so since at least 2000. Since then, strong support for having an independent reviewer of terrorism laws has come from, amongst others, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Human Rights Commissioner and the unanimous bipartisan support of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—such soft left-wingers as David Jull and Robert Ray. When the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was examining the proposal, a witness from the Attorney-General’s Department assured it that our system of review by parliamentary committees and government agencies—that which existed—was not only adequate but superior to the UK’s approach. I am sure that the committee was flattered, but nonetheless it was not persuaded. The committee observed that reviews of the law had been sporadic and fragmented, with limited mandates, and the result was that critical issues fell outside its terms of reference—for example, the impact of requirements about the nondisclosure of security sensitive information on the conduct of trials. In the committee’s view, an independent reviewer would be able to undertake the necessary ongoing oversight and contribute positively to community confidence, as well as providing the parliament with regular factual reports. This view was not just stated once; it was reiterated. It is vital that parliament and the executive receive expert advice on an ongoing basis about the effectiveness and impact of the regime of counterterrorism measures that have been put in place. A legislatively provided-for Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws would provide a much-needed additional safeguard for the protection of our security and our rights. I commend the bill to the House. Bill read a first time. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 1952 Private Members' Business 1952 1952 20:36:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —I move: That the House: notes: the pain being felt by Australian families struggling to pay off mortgages due to rising interest rates; the failure of the previous government to heed the warnings of the Reserve Bank; and the need for low cost home ownership and reduced entry costs for home buyers as well as a range of rental options for moderate to low income households; supports the Government’s commitment to tackling this problem by appointing a Minister for Housing and by making it a key priority for COAG in 2008; and welcomes the Government’s plan to help first homebuyers break into the housing market with the first-home saver account scheme. Housing affordability is the most important issue in Australia today. It is the human face of the inflation problem. Tonight, 1.1 million Australians are suffering from housing stress. Last year, 9,751 Australians lost their homes, and tomorrow three families in my electorate will be evicted from their homes. Homeownership, the great Australian dream, is slipping out of the reach of many Australians. This is what we inherited from the former government. This is what we inherited from the people who said Australians have never been better off. And this is what we inherited from the people who last week told us that the Howard government was the golden age of compassion. We inherited this, and we inherited the highest interest rates in 16 years, the second highest in the developed world. This is the unravelling legacy of the Howard government. With every interest rate rise, more and more people are losing their homes. Nowhere is this a bigger problem than in my electorate of Blaxland in Western Sydney. Blaxland is the mortgage stress capital of Australia. One in two people with a mortgage in Blaxland are suffering from mortgage stress. More homes are repossessed in my electorate than anywhere else in the country. More than 300 homes were repossessed last year and the year before that—and I fear there is worse to come. Evictions have doubled in the last six months. The Bankstown Sheriff's Office is now evicting 15 families a week and, on top of this, house prices have plummeted. Housing prices have dropped by 16 per cent in the last three years. Some families now have negative equity in their homes. They owe the bank more than the house is worth. In addition, as if we do not have enough problems, ‘sharks’ are circling in the neighbourhood, looking to make a profit out of others’ misery. Companies have sprung up recently offering to buy your home in less than 10 days for zero fees and with zero commissions, and their targets are the most vulnerable—people who are behind in their repayments and facing foreclosure, people with health problems, people who have lost their job, people who are about to get divorced. One company offers a finder’s fee of $1,000 if you can help them to buy a house. Desperate, vulnerable people are likely to make bad decisions, and I am concerned that some people are not getting a fair deal and are getting ripped off. That is why I have asked the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs to get the ACCC to investigate these companies—to see what they are up to and whether there is a need for reform. We already know there are dodgy mortgage brokers out there that are ripping people off. Last Thursday, ASIC released a report that gave examples of people being charged up to $24,000 just to refinance their loan. They call it equity stripping; I call it a rip-off. I think it is an area that is screaming out for reform. People who rent are not any better off. The rental market has been flooded by people who can no longer afford to buy and are pushing up demand and pushing up rents. Average rents have increased by 82 per cent in the last 12 years. In the last three years, rental vacancy rates have halved. In most capital cities, the vacancy rate is now at about two per cent. In Bankstown, in my electorate, it is now about one per cent. One local agent told me that he no longer advertises rental properties. Another agent has 70 people on his waiting list. I met a man at a men’s refuge I was visiting a couple of weeks ago; he was living in that refuge for a couple of weeks to give him enough time to save the money for a bond. This is what we have inherited. Housing affordability has never been this bad. In the last 10 years, house prices have doubled. In 1996, the average home was four times the average wage; it is now seven times the average wage. We have never been in so much debt. In the last five years, the average mortgage has also doubled. That is why interest rates are so deadly. That is why more homes are being repossessed today than when interest rates were at 17 per cent. That is why the great Australian dream has become a nightmare for some and unimaginable for others. This is why we need to act. It is going to take a lot of hard work, but I congratulate this government for getting started: for appointing the first housing minister in 12 years; for the First Home Saver Account scheme; for a $500 million Housing Affordability Fund to cut the cost of housing and spark construction activity; for the National Rental Affordability Scheme—for putting all of this on the COAG agenda—and, most importantly, for a plan to fight inflation. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—I call for a seconder for this motion. Is there a seconder? HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr Bradbury —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 1954 20:41:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to join the government in noting that interest rates do hurt family budgets where they have home loans and, of course, benefit those many Australians with savings. It must be noted, however, that interest rates are set by the independent Reserve Bank, albeit as a blunt instrument of monetary policy. Interest rates in Australia came off a very low base, due to the outstanding economic management of the previous Treasurer, the member for Higgins. This low base was, in part, due to paying off Labor’s previous $96 billion debt and not having to pay the over $8 billion in interest payments that accorded due to that. This allowed the previous government to raise real wages in the last decade by over 21 per cent, whereas under the previous Labor government there was a decline in real wages of 1.8 per cent. Tax reform over the last decade returned more money to taxpayers and to companies. All of this allowed the Australian economy to become the envy and, indeed, the miracle of the world. Remember that the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his June statement said that inflationary pressures were moderating and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in October forecast inflation at 2.75 per cent for this financial year and 2.5 per cent for the next financial year, noting also that the inflation rate over the previous 11 years was an average of 2.5 per cent. In other words, these are recently emerging but real inflationary pressures that we are experiencing, which is why the Reserve Bank is exercising monetary policy. Far from the Reserve Bank issuing these fanciful and farcical 20 warnings, the Reserve Bank simply said that inflationary pressures were moderating and the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook forecast was 2.75 per cent for this financial year and 2.5 per cent for the next financial year. What is concerning, though, is that this Treasurer has been talking up inflationary pressure with ill-timed and, dare I say, reckless comments such as ‘the inflation genie is out of the bottle’ one day before the Reserve Bank met to consider rates. Combine this with oil prices of over US$100 a barrel, food prices impacted by drought, a rapid increase in the cost of financial services driven by a fallout from the US subprime market collapse and the subsequent global credit squeeze, all of which have contributed to underlying inflation moving ahead of headline inflation. During the election campaign, the people of Australia and the now government were warned that we were entering difficult economic times driven by international forces. Yet far be it from the Treasurer to act responsibly! In fact, he is acting more like a goose, with over 100 squawks about the previous government doing this or doing that, rather than facing these internationally-driven inflationary issues that have emerged. This is not the time for aimless squawking, Mr Treasurer, or for talking the economy down. It is a time for a flexible labour market. It is a time for retaining the strong $20 billion surplus this government was left. It is a time for implementing those coalition policies that Labor borrowed during the election. I have a copy of these supposed 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank, which I read, looking for where it said that the economy was being mismanaged. I was looking for where it said ‘poor fiscal management by the coalition government’ and—you can imagine my surprise!—I could not find it. I was looking for where it said poor fiscal management by the coalition government was responsible for inflationary pressure and—believe it or not!—it was not there. Let me read from 20 August 2007, which apparently is the 20th warning that this government put forward. All the Reserve Bank Governor said was: “As far as I know, our liaison work still tells us that people find labour hard to get. As I said in my opening remarks, in some surveys it is the single most constraining factor ... There was another apparent warning, from August 2006, that: ... clearly more has to be done to attract people into occupations.” What a nonsense that 20 warnings were given—that is an absolute nonsense. The Labor opposition’s previous track record on economic management is an absolute farce. They were left an economy in top order. It is incumbent upon them to ensure that it stays that way. 1955 20:46:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Blaxland. It just goes to show that, notwithstanding the election, those on the other side have not learnt the lessons that are there to be learnt from the election. Principally, one of the things the Australian people were telling the former government was that there was real pain in the community. That is what this motion is demonstrating—that there is considerable pain out there. Hearing the member for Fadden reminds me of the former Prime Minister’s comment that working Australians, working families, had never been better off. He forgot to mention that we currently have the second highest level of interest rates in the developed world and the highest inflation in 16 years. This is the legacy that we have been left by the former government. But compounding these national figures is the impact that these figures are having on the ground, the impact that they are having in terms of mortgage stress in my electorate of Lindsay. These are the 2006 ABS figures, so this is not a recent phenomenon. It is not about international pressures that have all of a sudden come on the scene since the last election, as the member for Fadden would have you believe. Mortgage stress figures from 2006 indicate that 33.5 per cent of households in the Lindsay electorate are suffering from mortgage stress. That is up from 19.5 per cent in 2001. Equally, the problem of rental affordability is a challenge that many people in my local community are facing. As I was handing out leaflets in my local community at the train stations a couple of weeks ago, a number of people came up to me and told me that they were facing massive increases in rents. And I saw recently in the Penrith Press, one of the local papers in my area, a local real estate agent, Mr Sandy Almazan, the director of Ray White Glenmore Park, stating: Two years ago we’d be lucky to receive three or four applications for every property— those being rental properties. But now, he says: ... we get at least 20 applications for every house and have had up to 80 names of people interested in a particular property. This is a crisis. I know that the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, said that it was not a crisis. As recently as July last year he refused to admit that there was an affordability crisis for housing in this country. We, on the other hand, have recognised that and we put forward to the people at the last election a range of policies, a package of policies, that will address, in part, some of the challenges that we face on the housing affordability front. First and foremost we have created the position of Minister for Housing. The former government saw it as such an important priority that they did not even have someone sitting within the ministry who had housing as their area of responsibility! On top of that we have a plan that includes our First Home Saver Account scheme, which will allow young people in particular but first home buyers more generally to save the funds that they need in order to get a deposit with which to then crack the housing market—which is very difficult, particularly in areas such as the area that I represent and the area that the member for Blaxland represents in Western Sydney. We have also proposed a National Rental Affordability Scheme, where 100,000 new rental homes will be built and delivered at rental prices 20 per cent below the market value. Our Housing Affordability Fund will be a key element of our fight against the housing affordability crisis. From time to time those on the other side will simply say that the housing affordability crisis is the result of the entry taxes that exist on properties, whether they be local government or developer charges or state government taxes. There is no question that these factors are a consideration, and that is why we need to be working with the states to address that situation. But, unlike those on the other side, we have a plan to address that. One of the key elements of our plan is to ensure that money is available to fund the essential infrastructure that is needed, to take the burden off those developer charges, to ensure that the cost of buying a property will be reduced—and our plan will reduce the cost of individual blocks of land by up to $20,000 as a result of our National Housing Affordability Fund. On top of that, Labor have a clear plan for not only identifying surplus Commonwealth land but also actually getting on with the job of releasing it. There is one property in my particular area, the North Penrith Army Land, a site that has been ready for development for many years but which has not been developed because the former Commonwealth government were dragging their feet. These obstacles will not get in the way of a federal Labor government, and that is why we intend to implement the plan that we put to the Australian people and to deliver greater housing affordability to people throughout this country. 1956 20:52:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —Mortgages are a key issue for my constituents in the electorate of Cook. There are 15,361 dwellings being purchased, which represents about a third of all the dwellings in my electorate, and more than 50 per cent of constituents—based on the last census—had a mortgage payment greater than $2,000 per month. The electors of Cook have steadfastly supported the Liberal Party because of our economic management credentials. It has been the Liberal Party to whom they have entrusted the economic management of this country. The last time that the electorate of Cook elected a Labor member was at the time of the Whitlam government. He was dispensed with, along with that government, for many reasons but principally, I would say, because of that government’s economic record. This motion deals with interest rates, so let us consider some facts on interest rates. Under the coalition, the average interest rate was 7.25 per cent; under Labor, it was 12.75 per cent. The government likes to talk about 12 straight interest rate rises. Let us look at the quantum of those increases and the period of time. Looking at the standard variable rate under the coalition, from April 2002 interest rates were 6.05 per cent; at November 2007 they had risen to 8.55 per cent. That is a 2½ percentage increase over five years and seven months—67 months. Labor could do a lot better than that, I can assure you! In March 1985 interest rates were 11.5 per cent under Labor, and in just 13 months they went to 15.5 per cent—that is a four percentage point increase. In June 1988 they were at 13.5 per cent, and in just 12 months they rose 3.5 points to 17 per cent. In August 1994 they were at 8.75 per cent, and by December 1994—just four months later—they had gone up 1.2 percentage points. When Labor put down the pedal on interest rates, they went up on average 0.3 per cent per month. Under the coalition, they went up by 0.04 per cent per month. So under Labor we had an interest rate accelerator, when they put the pedal down, that was 7½ times higher than under the coalition. And not once, I should note, did the starting point under Labor ever get lower than the finishing point under the coalition. So it is just bizarre to have those opposite come into this place and deliver lectures on interest rates when Labor have written the book on how to increase interest rates in this country and have presided over an interest rate accelerator that exceeds all others. Inflation at this same time under the coalition averaged just 2½ per cent. If you look at the headline rate for inflation, you see that as of December 2007 it was at three per cent, which was in the band set by the former Treasurer. Under Labor, the average was 5.2 per cent. A lot is also said about what is driving inflation. The shadow Treasurer made a very good point today where he showed that the Reserve Bank governor has given the government two out of five for their five-point inflation plan. Only two issues that are referred to by the government were covered by the Reserve Bank governor. The Reserve Bank governor also made a very good point back in January when he said that inflation expectations up until that point were under control. What has happened since then? The first figure to come out on inflation expectations, from the Melbourne Institute, shows that inflation expectations have risen from 3.8 per cent to 4.3 per cent. That is what happens when you talk about ‘genies’ and ‘bottles’: you drive inflation expectations. It is very concerning to those who have mortgages—and around 15,000 in my electorate do—to see a reckless Treasurer bounding about our financial markets, talking about genies and bottles and driving up inflation expectations. The Reserve Bank governor talks about many things when he talks about inflation. He talks about fuel prices, which the government said they would keep under control. That is what the people of Australia are now looking to the government for; the government have made the promise and they will need to be held to account for it. They are the ones who are going to have to deal with $80 billion worth of state government debt on their watch; they will have to address that also. The previous government has left an excellent record on interest rates. (Time expired). 1957 20:57:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I want to begin by commending the member for Blaxland for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. The contribution he and the member for Lindsay have made will give their constituents great hope for effective representation in this chamber from these two new members of parliament. Regrettably, I cannot say the same for the member for Cook, because I think he completely missed the point of the issue that is here before us. His speech was a great exposition on issues to do with inflation and interest rates—which I am not saying are not part of the problem—but he really does not understand that out there in the community there is growing desperation about the issue of housing and rental affordability. It is true to say that his government really fell asleep at the watch on these important issues and that Labor in government have made these issues very much part of our agenda for the future. I am not surprised that recent research data from NATSEM, a very authoritative body based here in Canberra, shows that more than a million of our fellow Australians are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rent or a mortgage and that, arising from this, housing affordability in our country has fallen to record lows. The average home cost four times the average wage back in 1996. In 2007 that factor had risen to seven times the average annual wage. It is no wonder that, for many young people and for many families, the idea of ever owning their own home is no longer part of the Australian dream—a dream that we in earlier generations grew up with, believing that it was within the means of all to aspire to home ownership. I say that because, when you look at the average first home mortgage of about $300,000, the interest rate legacy left by the former government has now made repayments on that amount in the order of $2,700 per month. That is a huge impost on many of the people that I represent. It is not just mortgage stress that is an issue. When you look at the rental market in Sydney, in the year ending September last year the increases were in the order of 14 per cent on an annual basis, and in places like Perth they were up around 23 per cent. Rental vacancy rates have halved since 2004. Like the electorates of the members for Blaxland and Lindsay, the issue of housing and rental affordability is also a major one in my electorate of Throsby and in the Illawarra region generally. When I looked at the most recent 2006 census data across the Illawarra, I found that nearly 11,000 households were suffering mortgage stress. That data is a bit out of date now, with the consecutive interest rate rises that came after that data was collected. But, in the five-year period from the 2001 census, there has been a 100 per cent increase in the number of households suffering mortgage stress. Over 40 per cent of households in private rental arrangements in my electorate of Throsby are in rental stress, paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rents, and the queues for public housing keep getting longer and longer—no surprise, because of the impact of the huge cuts of around $3 billion in real terms from social housing under the Howard government. While there are no silver bullets to cure the affordability issues that I touched on tonight, the Rudd Labor government is committed to a comprehensive, affordable housing agenda. For the first time, the Minister for Housing has been proactive in raising a number of innovative suggestions to try and deal with this legacy from an uncaring government for whom the issue of affordability of housing and rents did not even register. Could I just say that in terms of those policies, I am very pleased about the fleshing out of the details of the first homebuyers saving scheme. I think that will be a great incentive for young people to save in a tax-effective account for a deposit for their first home. I am very keen about the provision of funding for infrastructure so that we can hopefully reduce state and local government development charges. The investment scheme for rental properties at 20 per cent below market rates I think will help relieve some of the obvious pressure that exists. (Time expired) 1959 21:02:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Firstly, may I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, on the new position you currently hold. It is clear that rising interest rates under the Labor government is a matter which is of great concern to most homeowners and homebuyers right throughout the country. The former government reduced interest rates very substantially. One thing you can always be certain about is that when Liberal and National parties are in government interest rates will be much lower than they would be under a Labor government. We have a transparent system where the Reserve Bank sets interest rates, but over many years when we were in government we had the situation where interest rates were much lower than they would have been under Labor. In recent times, interest rates have gone up a little but, having said that, interest rates are still much lower than they were historically under previous Labor governments. As a government, we were able to bring about a situation where more and more Australians have been able to achieve the Australian dream of homeownership. It is somewhat concerning to me that our economic record is being demonised by those opposite. There is the suggestion that, despite the fact that we provided 11 years of sound economic management, we were not cognisant of the dangers of inflation. There seems to be a suggestion that the previous government, as it was prior to 24 November last year, was spending irresponsibly and not taking into account the future needs of the Australian people. Let us face it, when we came to government we inherited a government debt of $90 billion. Over 11 years, we repaid all of that debt and got to a situation where the government and therefore the nation was debt free. That meant that we were able to spend money on desirable social outcomes. Of course, the very best way of achieving desirable social outcomes is by having sound economic growth and a well-run economy. We were only able to do that by making difficult decisions, by dotting i’s and crossing t’s. The funding announcements that we were able to make prior to the election were, in effect, the dividends from the sound economic management over the last 11 years. The new government has inherited a budget surplus of anywhere up to $30 billion. That hardly indicates that the former government followed the mistakes made by the Keating, Hawke and Whitlam governments. Those governments spent in order to create an artificial sense of prosperity and, in doing so, mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren in the pursuit of this artificial prosperity. I am very proud to have been part of a party that supported the previous government over the last 11 years. The previous government has a sound economic record, and we created a proud nation. Right around the world, we are regarded as a nation which is greatly respected, a nation which has been a good international citizen and a nation which has been prepared to stand up and be counted and make some difficult decisions, particularly in the international interest. In this regard, I particularly refer to the Asian currency crisis, where we took a lead role and quarantined the economies in Asia from the worst aspects of that crisis. In doing so, we helped them to rebuild and also to, shall we say, reinforce the fact that we are a good international citizen and that we want to play our part in this part of the world. Having said that, there is no doubt that many homeowners and homebuyers are feeling the pinch because every time the interest rates go up there is a drain on the pocket and another strain on the household income. But I do not think it is right to say that the former government was responsible for the interest rate rises which have occurred. One has a situation where interest rates go up and come down, but through sound economic management we were able to see very much lower interest rates than before, whereas the new government stands condemned— 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—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. 1960 1960 21:06:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I move: That the House: calls on the Government to end the permit system preventing access to remote Northern Territory townships; calls on the Government to restore the pornography bans put in place by the former Government; and urges the Government to not further water-down the Northern Territory intervention. Over the last few days I have been very lucky to hear two government ministers speak passionately in support of the Northern Territory intervention. I heard the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy speak with palpable sincerity about the importance of the intervention on the Lateline program on Friday and, when prerecording the SBS Insight program on Saturday night, I heard the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs defend the intervention in a hostile ambience when it would have been easier for her in some respects to have fudged her attitude. I want to congratulate both those government ministers for the strong position that they have taken and to say to the House that the intervention is about upholding the same standards of decency and humanity in Indigenous townships that we would expect in our own suburbs and neighbourhoods. The important thing is to ensure that nothing we do detracts from that intervention and waters down its impact. I would remind the House of what the most senior Aboriginal person in the federal Labor Party, the former national president, Warren Mundine, said about the permit system: The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact, if you look at all of the reports that have come out in the last few years, crime has flourished under the permit system, so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems. It really embedded these problems because some powerful people were able to get away with things without being watched. Mr Mundine went on: If you want to create a real economy you’re going to have to have more commercial activity happening and that happens by allowing people to flow in and out of places. But it is not just Warren Mundine who is urging the new Labor government here in Canberra to think again about the permit system. The central Northern Territory member of parliament in the Territory legislature, Alison Anderson, said that the permit system: ... has been used as a tool by some people in communities to reject certain people that they disagreed with or don’t want out there. So here you have two very senior Labor people, of impeccable Labor credentials, who are saying to the new government, ‘Don’t restore the permit system.’ I say to members opposite: please don’t let ideology get in the way of common sense on this issue. If there is any doubt about just how ideological the new government’s position is on the permit system, I refer to a report in the Northern Territory News last week, where a Territory man who drove a road accident victim to a health clinic was charged by Northern Territory police for entering Aboriginal land without a permit. This is the kind of nonsense that the permit system has permitted. Let me also talk about the pornography ban which the Howard government sought to enshrine in legislation and which is now being watered down by the incoming government. The Little children are sacred report said: The issue of children’s and the community’s exposure to pornography was raised regularly in submissions and consultations with the Inquiry. The use of pornography as a way to encourage or prepare children for sex ... has featured heavily in recent prominent cases.                          …                   …                   … It was subsequently confirmed at the regional meetings conducted by the Inquiry ... that pornography was a major factor in communities and that it should be stopped. That is what the report said, and that is what the Howard government sought to do. We even had the new Prime Minister claiming in his booklet on his first 100 days to have introduced legislation to ban R18+ content in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Not true! The legislation, as introduced by the government, bans pay TV porn only if there is 35 per cent pornographic content, if the community asks for it and if that request passes a public interest test. Please think again. What earthly good can pay TV porn be doing in these communities? We do not need it. Let us get rid of it. Let us support the intervention by restoring the original legislation on this point. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Is the motion seconded? EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 1961 21:12:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —There is presently a bill before this House which reinstates the permit system that was removed without justification when the former government announced the legislation that it was proceeding with last year at the time of the Northern Territory intervention. The removal of the permit system—the ‘scrapping of the permit system’ was the way it was described at the time—occurred without any real consultation by the former government and without any justification. I say ‘without any justification’ because, although the removal of the permit system was announced in June 2007, when the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs announced the intervention in the Territory, it was not explained or justified at that time. There was a media release that referred to the scrapping of the permit system. It directed attention to two so-called fact sheets that were put out with regard to changes to the permit system, but they contained no justification for its removal. It is a fact that the Little children are sacred report, by Pat Anderson and Rex Wild, on which the intervention into the Northern Territory and Indigenous communities was said to have been based, did not call for changes to the permit system. There is no evidence that the permit system was in any way related to child sex abuse. In fact, it can squarely be said that there is some risk that removing permit requirements might worsen the problem of child sex abuse. By contrast, there is evidence that the proposal to abolish the permit system predates the Little children are sacred report by some years. The pursuit of the proposal last year by the former government, and its continued pursuit in the guise of this motion today, is simply the pursuit of an ideological position which does not have a factual basis. Indeed, it is an ideological position which is opposed to the control of traditional land by Aboriginal people, an ideological position which is apparently opposed to consultation and an ideological position which is prepared to proceed entirely without any evidence. It is clear that the member for Warringah is intent on listening very selectively—only to voices that he agrees with. It is laughable to suggest that the government is letting ideology get in the way of common sense. The opposition is so blinded by the ideology that drove its legislation last year that even now it is not prepared to let go of it. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —I am not prepared to comment on a matter that is apparently before the courts. The member for Warringah has referred to the case of someone who has been charged. It is worth reflecting on the wealth of material that was available to the former government, and is still available to the opposition to consider, if it wishes, in the form of not one but two reports. There is a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs from 1999 and another report, much more recent, from September 2007, by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—both of which make it clear that Aboriginal communities are very, very directly opposed to the removal of the permit system. Not only are they opposed; almost all other groups who have any involvement in this matter have expressed trenchant opposition to the removal of the permit system, which, I repeat, will do nothing to address the scourge of child sex abuse which was one of the reasons behind the intervention. It is worth making the point that many communities, not in the Northern Territory regrettably, have a high incidence of child abuse—just as high as those in the Northern Territory—and they do not have a permit system. This opposition is intent on ignoring the views of Aboriginal people; ignoring the views of Aboriginal communities; ignoring the views of the Northern Territory police, who have expressed a very clear opposition to the scrapping of the permit system; and ignoring the recommendations of the House of Representatives committee when it looked at this in 1999 and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when it looked at the matter as recently as last year. I could go on to point to the way in which the former government— (Time expired) 1962 21:17:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I rise to wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the member for Warringah. The opposition condemns the watering down of any elements of coalition policy or legislation concerning the Northern Territory intervention, because it would have the effect of diminishing the protection of Indigenous women and children who are subjected to sexual abuse and violence. The Kevin Rudd government has introduced a bill into this House which would certainly diminish that protection by reinstating, in particular, the old permit system, which ensured that the atrocious conditions of some Indigenous settlements were kept out of sight and, so, out of mind of mainstream Australia. The Labor government’s bill, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, also seeks to water down our policy intent in relation to access to an avalanche of brutal and degrading pornography. This material is regularly seen by Indigenous children, given the overcrowding in many houses in the prescribed communities. The John Howard government decided that it had to act when we received a copy of the report of the Northern Territory government’s board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. The co-chairs called their report Little children are sacred. This report described the shocking nature of the sexual abuse—its extent, its prevalence, who the perpetrators were and the immediate, long-term and intergenerational effects of this abuse on the children in the community. The John Howard government decided not to wait interminably for a Northern Territory response; rather, we acted decisively and comprehensively—and in consultation with the Northern Territory government and Indigenous leadership. The media brought to people’s attention the contents of the Little children are sacred report, which shocked and shamed ordinary Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, across the country. People commonly asked how the dangerous and dysfunctional communities identified in the report could exist in a developed and caring country like ours, which boasts freedom of the press and freedom of movement for all, a fair go and a decent, peaceful life. Of course, one of the reasons that this crisis of abuse, fuelled by alcohol, drugs and pornography, persisted in the squalid ghettos of the remote Northern Territory was that the settlements in question were hidden from the view of the wider public. The permit system ensured that. The grey nomads could not stop on their way up the highway to buy a can of Coke at the local store, they could not drop into the settlement art galleries to buy a painting from the locals, and they could not spend a night in the caravan park admiring the beautiful scenery and having conversations with the community because, with the exception of a few—who painstakingly charted their way through the confusing and ridiculous permit approval system—ordinary Australians were excluded from these settlements. It is hard to see how the squalid un-Australian standards of living would have been tolerated if their existence had been more regularly seen. The Northern Territory government’s inertia could not have persisted as it did. The permit system did not protect dysfunctional Indigenous communities from exploitation by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous pushers of drugs, alcohol and pornography. I believe that locking the blighted settlements away from the public’s gaze ensured the appalling conditions of the houses, the neglected and vandalised schools, the packs of wandering dogs, the neglected and dirty kids sitting in the dust and not going to school, and the drunk and doped adults—all of these un-Australian circumstances—were perpetuated because few people beyond the victims knew it was happening, and so they could not care and complain. We decided that just 0.2 per cent of the areas previously covered by the permit system would be changed and the public would be allowed access to the usual places you visit when you drive through a town: places like the public store, other shops and perhaps galleries. People could stop at a public place. We had a lot of support from the women and children for this to happen. Unfortunately, the federal election approached, the member for Lingiari put about the myth that sacred places would be trampled on, that people would enter houses. How ridiculous. That was not our intention. We ask that the permit system for 0.2 per cent of the towns be reinstated. Then there was the pornography. We said that it must be banned. The ridiculous proposed legislation says that it is okay for broadcasts containing 35 per cent R18+ pornography to be seen in these communities—unless the minister is satisfied that the community wants a ban to occur. I want to know how they are going to get that permission from the community when it is so abused and victimised, when the women and children are so afraid of standing up against those who want the pornography to be perpetuated in those communities—those who make money from it and those who groom children, in particular, for sexual abuse through the use of that pornography. I say it is a shame to see these changes being brought into this House. I am wondering why the actual bill has been delayed now for two days. It looks like it will not get up tomorrow either. It should be brought on and we should deal with it properly. (Time expired) 1964 21:22:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —The Rudd Labor government, when in opposition, supported the then government’s Northern Territory emergency response because we were prepared to support any measures that dealt with the elimination of sexual abuse and violence against women and children in Indigenous communities. That has been made clear in statements made by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs prior to and subsequent to the last election. It is also clear from the legislation before the House. That is why I think this motion is very confusing. I do not really understand why this motion is before us. I am particularly concerned and confused by the second dot point, which calls on the government to ‘restore the pornography bans put in place by the former government’. What does the member for Warringah mean by ‘restore’? As the shadow minister, surely he has read the current legislation and the second reading speech by the minister. When he calls on the government to restore something, it implies that the government is taking something away. The government is taking nothing away. In fact, it is actually extending the pornography ban to include pay TV licences, ensuring that they do not provide television channels that include R18+ content. It is actually an extension of the ban. The previous government’s legislation clearly talks about X-rated pornography. The motion before us says that the government is taking something away, when the legislation before the House in fact extends the pornography ban. We are absolutely clear in our commitment to protecting children from sexual abuse and violence and we are absolutely committed to cracking down on children being exposed to pornography, particularly in these communities and particularly when they are exposed to X-rated and, in this case, pay television licensed channels which include R-rated material as well. I hear from the opposition criticism that this is also a watering down because it includes consultation with communities. This government is committed to consulting with Indigenous communities on such far-reaching proposals as those that are contained within this legislation and the previous government’s legislation. It is also a requirement of the Racial Discrimination Act that this particular measure be declared a special measure, which requires a community member to make the request. It also requires that the relevant community be consulted and informed and it does allow for a time ban. So, not only are we adhering to what I believe is a genuine approach to working in partnership with many people in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory who wish to see some form of action taken against sexual abuse and violence; it is actually a requirement under the Racial Discrimination Act, and it could lead to a legal challenge if we do not have that included in the legislation that is before the House. I do not understand why the member for Warringah has moved this motion. He talks about permits, which are clearly irrelevant to the stamping out of sexual abuse and violence—as my colleague the member for Isaacs very clearly outlined. The member for Warringah’s statements about pornography bans were completely erroneous and his last point about ‘watering down’ does not make sense. What does he mean by ‘watering down’? Does he not think that we should review and assess this legislation? Does he not think that, if things are not working, we should have the opportunity to change them? Does he not think that, if we can identify areas for improvement, we should not do that? Clearly he does. Clearly this motion is not about outcomes or achieving things. The member for Warringah has clearly identified that he is ill-informed. His motion is sloppy. In fact, he is much more concerned about politicking than actually getting outcomes for Indigenous communities. That is absolutely clear. (Time expired) 1965 21:27:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —What a disappointing contribution we have just heard. It sought to misrepresent the facts of the situation and to defend the indefensible. The reality is that many Indigenous communities are locked into a lifestyle that offers no opportunities, no productive jobs and no hope. It is distressing to visit communities where alcohol abuse and violence, filth and hopelessness are a way of life. With all the effort and all the funding that has been provided, we should have been able to achieve much more. But all of the abuse and loss of productivity have been locked behind a permit system which has hidden the reality of what has happened. It has been out of sight and out of mind. Poor health, sexual abuse, violence and lost hope have been hidden behind a permit system that has served no-one well. So much effort has been dedicated to delivering and creating outcomes, but it has not achieved the desired objectives because these communities have essentially been closed to the world. You cannot lock away what is happening in one part of our community if you expect it to progress. Aborigines too are in the world but they do not have to be of the world. That is why this decision by the government to wind back the previous arrangements in relation to banning pornography in these communities is so disappointing. I was appalled to see in the glossy publication about the Rudd government’s first 100 days, a statement in relation to Indigenous Australians which said: In its first 100 days the Rudd Government has: • introduced legislation to ban R18+ content in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory ... The truth is the opposite. They have sought to wind back the bans that were in place, to allow pornography to once again enter into these communities and destroy the lives of people—taking away their opportunities and undermining the safety that we have been trying to build up through the intervention and by providing an effective police and health presence in these sorts of communities. Over the years, what was thought to be right has had perverse effects. Debate interrupted. 1965 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 1965 1965 21:30:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —According to the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, at least 1,000 doctors are needed immediately to provide even just basic medical care in rural Australia. Yet over the past 15 years less than five per cent of New South Wales and Queensland medical graduates have moved to the bush to work. In fact, of the 280 Queensland medical students who graduated in 2005, only two were working in rural and remote locations this time last year. These are just some of the many facts the Rural Doctors Association of Australia has collected to show that rural health care is a long way behind. Unfortunately, in my electorate of Maranoa things are no different. The people of the town of Goondiwindi, in Maranoa, are somewhat lucky when it comes to accessing a doctor. Unlike many rural Australians who must wait at least six weeks for a basic consultation, the people of Goondiwindi have to wait only three weeks. The Goondiwindi Medical Practice, managed by the dedicated Matt Gilchrist, is in desperate need of more doctors. The practice turns away more than 50 patients a day. Goondiwindi Medical Practice currently services Goondiwindi, Inglewood, Texas, Talwood, Yelarbon and, across the New South Wales and Queensland border, the communities of Boggabilla and Toomelah. Mr Gilchrist’s many attempts to have the practice considered as being in a district of workforce shortage were finally rewarded with the news earlier this year that the Department of Health and Ageing has permitted the practice to employ two overseas-trained doctors. But the Goondiwindi Medical Practice services many more people than is recognised by the department, and it needs at least one more doctor. The Myall Medical Practice in Dalby is suffering the same plight as the Goondiwindi Medical Practice. Last year, the doctors of the practice serviced patients from 38 different locations in just three months. However, the practice is not deemed to be in a district of workforce shortage—only the town of Dalby, not the other 37 different locations, is considered a district of workforce shortage. Yet the doctors are experiencing even heavier traffic following the construction of an ethanol plant, a power plant and the nearby coalmines. Up to 1,000 temporary and contract workers needing health care have put an even heavier strain on the already stressed doctors and staff. Dalby is a perfect example of the troubles that health providers are facing in rural and regional Queensland. Dalby is just over 200 kilometres from Brisbane—barely a stone’s throw from the Sunshine Coast—and yet doctors there are experiencing the same problems as those doctors in rural, remote and regional Australia. Young doctors and medical students do not want to work in the bush. One GP, who recently retired after 28 years in Dalby, put his medical practice and equipment up for sale for the bargain price of $1, and yet no-one was interested. Down the road from his practice, the anaesthetist and obstetrician at the Dalby Hospital are on call 365 days a year. And just 130 kilometres west of Dalby, the town of Miles has only one doctor for a shire population of 1,400 residents. Yet the situation is only going to get worse for Dalby and Miles. With the impending construction in the area of the Surat Coal Basin and the development of that basin—Australia’s largest coal reserve—and the expansion of gas and energy industries, these areas will see a huge population explosion. These doctors, already overworked and under resourced, will be in even higher demand. Therefore, we must move urgently to address medical shortages both in my electorate of Maranoa and, more generally, in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. The former coalition government made a great effort to boost doctor numbers in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. We introduced the rural medical scholarships, which financially supported medical students during their studies in turn for a dedicated period of employment in the bush. We provided important grant programs to provide better facilities, such as the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, which helps small rural and remote communities recruit and retain GPs. Yet I am the first to admit that we still have a long way to go. I urge this new government and the new Minister for Health and Ageing to make the doctor shortage in rural Australia a top priority. 1967 1967 21:34:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —Few conflicts today inspire the level of mistrust and misunderstanding that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict does, and few have the capacity to divide public opinion so sharply. These divisions are not new. Rather, they are symptomatic of the vastly different and competing national narratives alternatively advocated by Palestinians and Israelis over the meaning and legacy of May 1948. Among Israelis, 1948 is celebrated as a war of independence where Jewish determination, resilience and sacrifice gave birth to the modern state of Israel. Measured against centuries of Jewish persecution, the full significance of this achievement becomes evident. In sharp contrast, Palestinians remember 1948 as the year of the Nakba, or catastrophe, when 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted from their land and homes. They see 1948 through the prism of dispossession, exile and loss, as an open wound whose only remedy lies in Palestinian statehood and UN Resolution 194 on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. 1948 is a contested history over which Israeli narratives of statehood and independence and Palestinian narratives of statelessness and exile continue to clash. More importantly, it is a contested history that continues to be played out in the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In the intervening years since 1948, neither side has achieved security. Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories has shown itself to be a zero sum game, the siege of Gaza has only fuelled Palestinian anger, and the emergence of Hamas has further undermined the already fragile hope of peace. If the origins of this conflict lie in 1948, then perhaps the lesson to be learned is this: that a just and lasting peace will continue to remain elusive until the historical grievances of 1948 are resolved. Yet, as many Palestinians are quick to point out, the Palestinian experience of 1948 is often ignored and routinely devalued despite an already sizable literature dealing with the Palestinian exodus of 1948. Palestinians see themselves as victims of a colonial heritage in which Britain took for granted the right of a colonial power to make decisions about the future of Palestine without consulting the Palestinians themselves. This was certainly true in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and it also explains Palestine’s rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan. Regardless of whatever positions are taken on the current conflict, the brute historical fact is that the establishment of Israel cannot be separated from the displacement of 80 per cent of Palestine’s indigenous Arab-Palestinian population. Opinions remain sharply divided on the causes of the Palestinian exodus. Historians like Efrain Karsh maintain that orders issued by the surrounding Arab governments led to the mass evacuation of Palestinians in preparation for war. This thesis has been disputed by Israeli revisionist historians like Benny Morris. Collating an enormous archive of primarily Israeli and British material, Morris argues that the Palestinian exodus was both multicausal and multidimensional. He identifies four distinct waves of Palestinian flight which Morris argues were a de facto consequence of Jewish strategic and military planning, and he goes on to famously conclude that the Palestinian exodus was ‘born of war, not by design’. Other Israeli historians like Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe uncover what they see as a tacit Jewish-Hashemite agreement concluded between Golda Meir and King Abdullah of Jordan in November 1947, which centred on their mutual desire to thwart the establishment of a future Palestinian state. Further still, historians like Norman Finkelstein and the Palestinian academic Nur Masalha argue that an explicit Israeli policy of expelling Palestinians was in full swing by May 1948 under the guise of Plan Dalet. What all of these authors exemplify is the richness of the debate that now surrounds the historiography of 1948. They show that 1948 contains a Palestinian history as well as an Israeli history with each woven into the very fabric of today’s conflict. If we in Australia are to be even-handed in our approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and if we are to play a constructive role in encouraging peace initiatives consistent with our status as a middle power that supports multilateralism and dialogue over unilateral acts of aggression, then we must be attuned to and attentive to both of these histories. I strongly believe that many Australians share this view. The Palestinian experience of 1948 continues to shape Palestinian aspirations in 2008. Let us not forget that. 1968 1968 21:39:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —We are told that very soon there will be a cull of some 400 kangaroos on a former naval site at Belconnen here in Canberra. In 2002 a kangaroo cull on a larger scale took place at Puckapunyal in Victoria just outside the electorate of Indi. It is one of the Army’s major training bases and the cull was an absolute necessity. At times the overpopulation can be in the tens of thousands, and I am informed that up to 100,000 kangaroos at Puckapunyal were dying of thirst and starvation. Obviously it is one of the highest densely populated areas of Australia with regard to kangaroos. Whilst very different in nature and in its reasons, there is one thing in common between the two culls: an outcry of epic proportions by rich and famous celebrities who have been the precursor to any cull. We are accustomed to celebrities jumping on popular crusades. We had punk rocker Pink joining the anti-mulesing brigade against Australian wool. Following hot on her heels was our very own Toni Collette, the woman who in 2004 said, ‘I will slit my wrists if Howard gets elected again.’ Thankfully, post election she returned to the US to make another film for Australian audiences. Thankfully again, both of them did their own research and changed their position on mulesing. More recently, we have had Dick Smith become supporter and best mate of convicted terrorist David Hicks. Last year, in the middle of an election campaign John Newcombe, fresh from advertising support of housing estates, condemned the Gunns pulp mill along with fellow cheerleaders David Williamson, Rebecca Gibney and Kylie Kwong, to name a few. I do not know why the self-appointed arbiters of public opinion believe their opinion is worth any more than a member of the general public, whether that member lives in the electorate of Indi, in the country or in metropolitan Australia. I do not know why they believe that their opinion is worth any more than any other Australian who may not have the thousands of dollars to shell out on advertising campaigns to support the latest trendy cause. The debate on the kangaroo cull in Belconnen slipped further into farce when former Beatle Paul McCartney threw his hat into the ring recently. He joined animal rights group VIVA, the British based Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, and labelled the commercial slaughter of kangaroos ‘a shameful massacre’. Sir Paul goes on to say: There is an urgent need for action to protect kangaroos from a barbaric industry which slaughters them for meat and leather. Please do all you can to help VIVA! end this shameful massacre. As if it is not bad enough being told from afar how to run our country’s affairs—Sir Paul should stick to sorting out his own affairs before offering advice on Australia’s domestic, environmental and native grassland and flora and fauna issues—this farce is only made worse by the contribution from Senator Bob Brown in the other place who said: Australia is coming into the spotlight over this, it’s very rapidly becoming an international cause celebre. We ought to be able to demonstrate to the world that we have done everything possible to obviate the need for killing 400 to 500 kangaroos. I suppose jeering and howling down the President of the United States of America in this very chamber was not cause celebre enough for Senator Brown. The loopier wing of the environmental movement is notorious for its belief that the life of a gnat is of equal if not greater worth than that of a human being. This view is expressed in a bumper sticker distributed openly and proudly by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that proclaims ‘Rats have rights’. All this talk might make some people in the community feel good, but we have to get real. The kangaroo cull in Belconnen, like the one previously at Puckapunyal, is part of a necessary environmental protection plan to protect grasslands and threatened species where overpopulation is damaging the landscape and other important flora and fauna. In the ACT, I am advised, kangaroos outnumber humans by three to one. Anyone in my electorate who has driven the Hume Highway in north-east Victoria or through thoroughfares such as the Three Chain Road in Springhurst, the Snow Road in Milawa, the Warby Ranges or near Lake McCowen knows the inherent danger of coming off second best to a kangaroo whilst driving. Some of these loopy environmentalists would want us to stop driving, because we interfere with the free movement of kangaroos. The cull at Belconnen is on a small scale. It is time to stand up for common sense; it is time to stand up for the good management of our natural environment and to listen to the good sense of the people of Australia. 1969 1969 21:45:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —Today I had the honour of announcing the Research Support for Counter-Terrorism program grants of the federal government. This program is under the auspices of the National Security Science and Technology Unit, which is located in the Office of National Security in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Australia is confronted with significant scientific challenges in several key areas, one of the biggest being national security. To meet these challenges, Australia needs to further develop its research capacity and encourage scientific collaboration. If we can increase our national research capacity and capability, Australian research organisations can provide much greater security outcomes. The RSCT program aims to build Australia’s security and counterterrorism capability. The program has proved to be a highly effective way of helping organisations develop projects which may not have been developed with the key government seed funding. The investment is dedicated directly to project costs and does not fund institutional infrastructure or fixed costs. Combined with the co-funding arrangements, it means that comparatively small grants can yield rather major results. For universities or small to medium enterprises, the injection of several hundred thousand dollars can be of invaluable assistance. It needs to be emphasised that the RSCT is one highly targeted program that runs parallel to other funding programs and research avenues used by the Australian government to develop national security capabilities. Operating the RSCT program on its current scale allows a high level of participation, advice and feedback from user agencies. Partner organisations in this round have provided over $11 million. The federal government has provided $5.9 million through the RSCT program. We are finding that more technologies developed with a specific counterterrorism application in mind have the transportability that allows them to be used in areas in areas outside of counterterrorism. Clearly, tools which help first responders, such as better radio communications, critical infrastructure modelling and scenario testing, can be put into use not only in the event of a counterterrorism response but also in the event of natural disasters, such as bushfires, floods or an avian flu epidemic. Grants are given to the organisations which are best able to conduct research in response to a specific requirement. As such, the nature of an organisation is not as important to the program as its experience and potential to deliver a useful product to our frontline agencies. Over the period that the program has been operating, universities have been the largest recipients of grants, with a close division between government and private industry. The program is most successful where the money it is contributing can make a significant difference to the viability of the project. Some of the project outcomes are quite spectacular, such as, in the biological area, a device called the surface plasmon resonance biosensor. This device is a handheld detector which can identify and analyse biological agents. The biosensor was developed by the CSIRO in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and provides law enforcement and emergency service agencies with support in the detection and identification of a range of biological threats that may arise from a terrorist attack. The biosensor’s technology allows the user to immediately identify and take action to deal with a direct biological threat. As part of the program grants, I announced that the Australian government will provide an additional $248,000 to the CSIRO, in collaboration with Emergency Management Australia and the Australian Federal Police, to extend the biosensor development, allowing the device to simultaneously identify more than one biological agent from any single sample. While the project represents a significant advancement of Australia’s counterterrorism capabilities, the biosensor can also identify other biological threats, including avian and equine influenza. There are other areas that have benefited from this counterterrorism research funding. For example, in the physical and information security area, the NSST Unit co-funded with the CSIRO the development and trialling of neutron scanning technology for air cargo scanning of containers, representing the next generation of cargo-scanning capability. The project enabled laboratory tests of the effectiveness of the scanning technology in the detection of explosives. This type of scanner is currently being trialled by Customs at Brisbane Airport. It was my pleasure as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to announce these funding grants, which are putting Australia at the very forefront of counterterrorism research. I think we will see the benefits of this funding over the next couple of years. 1970 1970 21:50:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —Last Saturday week, I visited Camp Kookaburra at the Anglican youth department camp in the national park in my electorate of Cook to congratulate Camp Kookaburra founder and Sutherland shire resident Dianne Madden on becoming the 2008 New South Wales Woman of the Year. Dianne formed Camp Kookaburra seven years ago to provide care and support to shire and St George children aged eight to 12 years who live with a parent, brother or sister with a mental illness. They are brave kids who love their families passionately and often act as primary carers. For the last seven years, Dianne and her fellow dedicated volunteers at Camp Kookaburra have given these children something very, very precious: the chance to be kids, to have a break, to meet new friends and to share their experiences in a safe and caring environment. The message to the kids at Camp Kookaburra is simple: they are not alone and they are deeply valued by our community. Dianne knows well the challenges faced by young children dealing with family members who have a mental illness. These children that she cares for often have parents who have committed or attempted suicide or who have been involved in various forms of alcohol and drug dependency. They have had to do it tough. Dianne also did it tough in a time when our understanding of mental illness was not as great as it is today, having grown up in a family which was also characterised by mental illness. Dianne is able to use her experience and her deep understanding and knowledge of these issues to identify with these kids. At a recent camp, one of the kids said to her, ‘You wouldn’t understand what it’s like for me.’ She went and told that child her story. Later that day, as they were walking through the beautiful national park in my electorate, this child came up to her, held her hand and shared their story with her. These are the sorts of things that happen on a regular basis at Camp Kookaburra. It is a truly inspiring event that takes place once a year. In addition, the kids at Camp Kookaburra and at other similar events have put together a quilt. The quilt, which is on display in various places around the Sutherland shire, tells the story of these young children’s experiences. It shows the emotion—the deep affection, care and love—they have for their parents and how they are seeking to deal with the challenges that, at such a young age, they really should not have to be dealing with. This year, over 50 children attended Camp Kookaburra—up from 16 on their first camp. These children and their families also have the chance to be involved in two fun days a year and a family picnic day later in the year. It costs around $300 per child to support their involvement in the camp. I thank the many individuals and community organisations—in particular, the local Rotary clubs—whose generous contributions make Camp Kookaburra possible. It is an initiative that deserves strong community and government support. I acknowledge the support that the state government has given to this initiative, but a commitment needs to be made to it on an ongoing basis. It also needs significant support from the corporate sector and from individuals, not only in the shire but throughout St George and across New South Wales, to ensure that it can continue. It was a privilege to accept Dianne’s invitation to meet with her volunteers and the kids during the most recent camp. I look forward to going back next year and doing all we can to support this important work. Following the camp, we have been able to arrange to get them a website, and the next step will be to write to GPs and other community workers to encourage them to refer families to the opportunities provided by Camp Kookaburra. I am also delighted that Dianne’s work has been recognised. Dianne is the New South Wales Woman of the Year. I would also like to commend the state member for Miranda, Barry Collier, for nominating Dianne. Dianne’s passion is infectious and is matched only by the selfless volunteers and professionals who share this great work with her. Through their self-sacrifice and dedication, they have had a positive effect on the lives of many children who are in very difficult circumstances. The award also provides a great opportunity for getting the message out to our community and to families about the work of Camp Kookaburra in an effort to ensure that more kids get the opportunity to be part of this inspiring program. I also suggest that there is a very real opportunity for this program to be successfully implemented right around the country. I would encourage those members who are interested in learning more about Camp Kookaburra and those people who may be listening to this debate, wherever they may be, who know of an instance where they believe there is a child who could greatly benefit from this opportunity, even if it is for only 2½ days, to get in contact with my office and we can put them in contact with Camp Kookaburra. 1972 1972 21:54:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise to speak about some of the unsung heroes in my electorate of Isaacs. These are the fantastic men and women who volunteer as lifesavers on the magnificent beaches in my electorate from Mentone to Carrum, along Port Phillip Bay. Isaacs has seven lifesaving clubs: Mentone LSC, Mordialloc LSC, Aspendale LSC, Edithvale LSC, Chelsea Longbeach SLSC, Bonbeach LSC and Carrum SLSC. Our lifesavers protect us. Lifesaving is part of a quintessentially Australian activity and holds a very special place in Australian culture. Many of my constituents give up hundreds of hours of their valuable time each year to contribute their services to the local community. They are joined by paid lifeguards and support staff from across the state of Victoria. In 2006-07, lifesaving clubs in Victoria recorded 796 rescues and over 39,000 preventative actions. The combined lifesaving clubs of Isaacs contributed to some 20 rescues and 390 preventative actions. The Year of the Surf Life Saver was 2007—the centenary of the founding of surf-lifesaving at Bondi in 1907. The year 2007 was also the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Bonbeach Life Saving Club. It has provided 75 years of outstanding service to the community—and may it for many more years. I would like to commend Debra Jordan, a very capable president of the club and an editor of the fantastic photographic history book which was produced for the 75th anniversary of the Bonbeach Life Saving Club. On 2 March this year, I was privileged to attend the book launch of this brilliant pictorial history. The history records that the Bonbeach Life Saving Club was founded in 1932 and, within two months, had conducted three rescues. It grew quickly and within two years it had reached an extraordinary number of 200 members. Over the war years, membership dropped as members joined the services, but a very forward-thinking president, Dick Hutchings, formed a strong junior membership plan, which provided the outstanding talent for what the club sees as its golden years of 1945-65. There was a lull in activities in the late seventies, but with investment and reorganisation in the early 1980s the club recovered and is definitely still going strong. Just last year, members of the Bonbeach club, along with lifesavers from Chelsea, rescued two sailors from a de-masted and sinking boat on the bay. Three of the lifesaving clubs in Isaacs take part in the Open Water Swim Series along the Victorian coastline each summer. Edithvale and Aspendale clubs have a fantastic joint event called the Club 2 Club, which is a 1.5 kilometre swim from the Edithvale clubhouse to the Aspendale clubhouse. The Bonbeach club has a 1.2 kilometre swim, which is the last of the season for these open water swims. I had the privilege, with hundreds of other swimmers, of taking part in both the Club 2 Club on 9 February and the Bonbeach Life Saving Club’s Open Water Swim for 2008 on 16 March. They were invigorating events and, even though I was definitely not the fastest swimmer to complete either event, at least I did not require the services of the lifesavers. It is clear that lifesaving clubs do much more than patrol their allotted patch of beach and water. From providing much needed assistance to the emergency services way back in the devastating floods of 1934 to providing lifesaving and first aid to residents and visitors, teaching children to swim and providing public education on safe beach practices and competition and activities for young people, lifesaving clubs are very much part of the local community fabric along the bay—indeed, they are hubs of community activity. I would like to thank all these clubs and their members for their service to the people of Isaacs. Question agreed to. 1973 21:59:00 House adjourned at 9.59 pm 2008-03-17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 4.01 pm. 1974 Bills R2937 1974 Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 1974 16:01:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —I rise today to support this significant initiative of the Australian government. It is important to Australia in a number of ways. Firstly, the introduction of this bill is evidence that the Rudd Labor government keeps its promises. Secondly, it demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring that there is an open and transparent process in place for infrastructure development. Finally, it is the continuation of the great Labor tradition of investing in nation building. At its first cabinet meeting in Karratha in January of this year, the government discussed the implementation of its election promise to introduce a bill creating Infrastructure Australia. It was decided that the legislation would be introduced into the parliament at the first session. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government then introduced the bill on 21 February 2008. This initiative is one part of the government’s five-point plan to fight inflation. This broad plan to deal with Australia’s inflation problem includes aiming for a target surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP for the upcoming financial year, looking at options to boost national savings and encourage a national savings culture in Australia, acting decisively and effectively on the national skills crisis, dealing effectively with the challenge of public infrastructure bottlenecks and acting to boost employment participation. It is only by acting decisively that we can deal with our inflation challenge. It will not be easy, but without a clear strategy pointing the way to the future, nothing will be done. The introduction of Infrastructure Australia is a significant step towards solving some of our most critical infrastructure blockages. This was a promise of Labor during the election campaign and, as with our other promises, action is occurring to ensure its implementation. The minister in his second reading speech noted the Committee of Economic Development of Australia report Growth 54: infrastructure—getting on with the job. That report highlighted their finding: The backlog of needed infrastructure projects in Australia is estimated at $25 billion worth of projects. With this much-needed investment in place, Australia’s GDP would be 0.8 per cent higher each year. That translates to $6 billion a year—or an average of $300 per Australian. The report further noted that there are adequate funds available to fix the backlog of projects, but what was lacking was the political will to do so across Commonwealth and state governments. Australia has benefited economically from a sustained period of economic growth. What has been lacking is the infrastructure to support that growth and the opportunities emerging from developing countries. The CEDA report noted that there are large capital resources accumulating in the private sector. The minister stated in a media conference on 21 January 2008 that there is $1.1 trillion existing in superannuation funds, which people in the superannuation industry are saying is available for investment, preferably in Australia rather than overseas. The CEDA report also commented that there is evidence of a strong linkage between infrastructure investment and economic growth. The report further states: ... investment and infrastructure generates higher returns and investment in other sectors of the economy. Infrastructure requirements fall into broad categories across the spectrum and include roads, railways, seaports, telecommunications, electricity, water and airports, to name some of the critical needs. A report from the Productivity Commission was released in February 2005. That report was the Review of national competition policy reforms. In chapter 8, the Productivity Commission outlined what it identified as opportunities to improve the efficiency of economic infrastructure through further competition based reforms. The report stated: ... in identifying a reform agenda, the Commission has targeted areas that meet three tests: being inherently national in character; offering the prospect of significant gains; and likely to benefit from a nationally agreed reform framework under the stewardship of COAG or another national leadership body. The report then continues in chapter 8 to identify key areas where it believes reform could be targeted. These include: the energy sector; the water sector; two aspects of the transport sector, the national freight system and a review of national passenger transport; and reform in the communications sector. In broader terms, the role of Infrastructure Australia will be to develop a strategic blueprint for Australia’s infrastructure needs. This will include an ongoing cooperative process across the Commonwealth, the states and industry to identify and prioritise infrastructure projects. The first task for the new body will be to conduct an audit of the nation’s infrastructure needs based on that audit. An infrastructure priority list will be established within 12 months for consideration by COAG. The role of Infrastructure Australia will be to provide advice to government through COAG as well as investors and owners of infrastructure. This will include advice on infrastructure priorities, appropriate policy and regulatory reforms, options to address impediments, the needs of users and possible financing mechanisms. The geography and population of Australia require infrastructure solutions that are created from a national perspective. It is vital that infrastructure plans are aligned across the various jurisdictions. The greatest example of this was of course the Snowy Mountains scheme. The concept for the scheme was launched in 1949 through the cooperation of the Commonwealth, and the New South Wales and Victorian governments. Of course, the scheme was the brainchild of Prime Minister Ben Chifley and it was, apart from the historical nature of the concept, a most courageous decision. The project took 25 years to complete. Apart from the massive contribution to water flows and electricity in this country, the nature of the scheme itself changed the character of Australia. As I indicated earlier, the Labor Party has a proud history of leadership in the establishment of infrastructure projects in this country. Gough Whitlam has stated publicly on more than one occasion that one of his proudest achievements was the establishment of infrastructure projects across Australia, including sewerage. His initiatives made life so much more liveable for Australians in the newly developing suburbs around Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Gough realised, as many did not, that, unless the federal government took the lead in these matters, little would happen on the scale which was required nationally. Famously, Neville Wran said of Gough, who accepted the sentiment if not the comparison: It was said of Caesar Augustus that he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble ... He found Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth unsewered, and left them fully flushed. It was the Whitlam government that established the first ministry of urban and regional development dedicated to providing the necessary direction to ensure infrastructure reform at the urban level. The minister Tom Uren established the Australian Heritage Commission and the subsequent compilation of the Register of the National Estate. He promoted the restoration and re-use of derelict inner city areas such as the Glebe estate and Woolloomooloo in Sydney, and the reclamation of Duck Creek and the creation of the Chipping Norton Lakes scheme. Tom Uren established the creation of the land commissions to ensure availability of reasonably priced housing blocks and the development of new planned communities. Later Labor governments under Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating opened up the economy, which made us more competitive as a nation. Under Prime Minister Keating the Better Cities Program was introduced by Brian Howe. This was a broad reform strategy that included innovative housing and it focused on urban consolidation. The genesis of the program was at a premier’s conference in 1991 where the Commonwealth, state and territory governments agreed to work together on urban consolidation and renewal through practical measures and coordination across governments. Better Cities forged strong, cooperative relationships with the states. Better Cities and even the former Department of Urban and Regional Development were well suited to their time, but that does not mean that they are suitable solutions for tackling today’s urban problems or the ones looming on the horizon. I cite this initiative as an example of how governments can and have taken the lead in resolving issues of national importance. As a nation, we are very highly urbanised. We need healthy, vibrant communities with appropriate levels of infrastructure to support those communities. Our capital and regional cities are suffering a complex set of stresses. Urban sprawl as people move further and further from city centres is causing increased travelling times, more pollution and greater reliance on the car. At the same time congestion has become more common in the older and inner suburbs as residential densities increase. Our capital cities have become sprawling residential corridors. Population growth from immigration has exacerbated this trend, particularly for Sydney. It is also evidenced in our coastal cities, and more and more Australians are seeking to escape the stresses of capital city living. The traditional design and development of cities around a CBD is no longer able to support the diverse needs of today’s community. Household size, work, education and recreation patterns have changed. In addition, much of the infrastructure in our cities was built for different levels of development and not in anticipation of the demands of today. Our increasing consumption of energy, water and telecommunications is placing new demands on our cities, but planning systems are not responding to these trends or showing any understanding of the impacts on people’s lives and communities. Over 87 per cent of Australians live in urban areas. This means that the shape of our urban environment is critical to the daily lives and wellbeing of most Australians. Urban development directly impacts on where we live, where we work and play, where our children go to school, university and TAFE, the transport systems we use, how we access medical, dental and other services and the quality of our air, water and landscape. Cities that were designed to meet 19th century requirements do not meet the needs of the 21st century. We need roads and public transport to allow the community to easily access work, services and education while minimising our carbon footprint. Access to these facilities is an issue of equity. We must ensure that urban infrastructure will allow the community access to work or services that do not require travel two hours each way, each day. I note, for example, the new M7 in Sydney’s west. The M7 has cut out about 55 sets of traffic lights and does provide easier access for many people in Western Sydney. It also assists truck drivers who want to avoid driving into Sydney itself. They are now able to drive around Sydney and keep to their schedule. We need new, fresh ideas for infrastructure development in this country. In the same way that previous Labor governments introduced new ideas for infrastructure reform, this government is prepared to take the lead in the 21st century. I hear the negative comments made by the other side in response to the Prime Minister’s 2020 initiative. One of the differences of this government from the previous government is that we do not believe that we have a monopoly on ideas for the future. The Australia 2020 Summit is about the community coming up with ideas to take this country into the future. We require down-to-earth, practical proposals to implement a new vision for a sustainable future. The bill before the House does just that. It proposes realistic solutions to problems facing Australia. The vital role to be performed by Infrastructure Australia will be to provide a strategic blueprint, and this blueprint will allow us, as a nation, to prepare for future challenges like urban congestion, climate change and population demands. It will also drive reform on how to maximise the infrastructure we already have. I commend the bill to the House. 1977 16:12:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I rise today to talk about infrastructure, an issue not only close to my heart and close to the people that I represent in the beautiful region of Groom but also close to the hearts of all Australians. When we talk about infrastructure, we talk about issues in relation to not only motor vehicles but also transport of heavy goods and produce both to and from regional areas. My electorate has one of the busiest freight corridors in Australia. In fact, any truck travelling to western or central western Queensland, to the Northern Territory or to northern or north-western New South Wales travels through the main street of my city. That is an issue I will come back to later. It is essential to provide substantial funding for infrastructure projects. Whilst the Labor Party are currently dishonestly claiming that the Howard government failed to spend adequately on infrastructure, particularly on roads, they are themselves preparing to spend less than half of what we had planned to spend. My understanding is that during the election campaign the Labor Party promised a figure somewhere south of $15.5 billion for roads and infrastructure. Of course, they have already made an abominable decision in relation to Ipswich Road—a road which I travel on frequently. I suggest to the member for Banks that he takes the opportunity to travel on that road sometime between seven and nine o’clock in the morning. If he misses that time, due to the fact that he needs to travel up to Queensland, then he should travel on that road anytime after 3.30 in the afternoon until six o’clock. It is basically a car park. This highly political decision of the Rudd Labor government to circumvent what has been a detailed investigation of that road can only leave the problems that we see now as problems of the future. In fact, the Labor government’s decision to extend that road by only two lanes will see the people of Ipswich, people who have already faced major traffic delays during peak hours, continue to see delays. The six-lane proposal will be at capacity by the time it is completed. As part of our nearly $30 billion commitment to the people of Australia in AusLink 2, we would have solved that problem with, firstly, a four-lane highway bypassing Ipswich Road followed, in one order or another, by the expansion of Ipswich Road to six lanes and the further expansion of the bypass to eight lanes, thus giving the people of Ipswich, Darling Downs and Warwick a 14-lane alternative to what the Labor Party is currently proposing. These sorts of short-sighted infrastructure decisions heavily weighted by political expediency would be avoided were Infrastructure Australia to do its job. What we are seeing with this organisation in the first instance is, of course, another review. As we have seen from the Labor Party, anytime a decision needs to be made, the first thing they do is have a review. The second thing they do is review that review—and we assume that comes after the review—and decide as a government whether they accept the outcome of the review. It is essential for Australia’s future economic growth and for the curtailing of inflation, which we hear so much about from the Treasurer—he does not seem to understand completely what is going on—that there be no delay on infrastructure investment in Australia and that when we do see investment in infrastructure it does not become bogged down in layers of bureaucracy. Infrastructure needs to be built in Australia; no-one would argue with that. We do not want it to be a lucky dip of projects that may or may not proceed, as we have seen already with Ipswich Road. We need to see a process where state and federal governments and a combination of communities make soundly based decisions. I do not know how this infrastructure committee is going to work. I guess that highlights my trepidation. But what I do know is that already, before we have even seen the committee formed in its final format, we have seen political decisions made and people in regional Australia, in this case regional Queensland, being asked to pay the price of that. The Labor Party says that this legislation, the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, is a significant step in moving forward with infrastructure development in Australia et cetera, ad nauseam while, as I said, trying to suggest, by using some dodgy figures put together before AusLink 1 became fully operational, that we as a government underspent on infrastructure and they as a government are going to spend significantly more. In fact, as I have suggested already, we were planning to spend over $29 billion, taking into account the $22-and-a-bit billion that was announced in last year’s May budget and the further $7 billion in additional funding that we outlined during the election campaign—all fully costed by Treasury. So there you have nearly $30 billion in AusLink alone compared with Labor’s suggested promise of $15.5 billion. We need to have some rationale brought to this whole area. We need to see the sorts of things that we did with AusLink, where we systematically worked through infrastructure needs to ensure there was connection, in both an economic and a community sense, between those areas in Australia that needed better roads. I mentioned in my opening comments some of the issues that Toowoomba is facing with its second range crossing. The idea of this crossing has been around for a long time and it was one of my goals as the member for Groom, which includes Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, to ensure that that crossing was built. Yet, after successfully ensuring that some $40 million was spent on both land acquisitions and some geological work, including the drilling of a pilot tunnel, and the promise by the then Howard government that it would spend $700 million during AusLink 2 and complete the project in the following AusLink program, we have seen this project completely ignored by the Rudd Labor government. This is a second example of a poor decision-making process by a government which claims that it will ensure that infrastructure is built in Australia in a timely way. Both the people of Ipswich, now represented by Labor members, and the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs could well wonder what they are going to get out of this infrastructure proposal. In fact, they could also wonder whether or not there will be anything of any substance delivered to the regional areas. This case is in Queensland, but the same issue can be raised in virtually every part of Australia. We do not want to see the Labor government introduce a system which in some way relieves the state Labor governments, which have made a complete mess of infrastructure funding, of their responsibilities in this area. We do not want to see a ‘get out of jail free’ card given to state governments which have continually made abominable decisions in relation to infrastructure and which, unless they are brought into line, will continue to ignore the infrastructure needs, particularly in the resource sector. There is no better example of that than the problems in coal transportation in Queensland. A government owned corporation in the form of Queensland Rail is severely undercapitalised by the treasury of that state, unable to run trains effectively and handicapped, I know, by a historical decision to run a three feet six inch gauge. At the same time, it is much more handicapped by the fact that it is unable to make the investments to triplicate range crossings to get access and it is unable to make the proper investment in locos and carriages in one of the booming industries in Australia—the coal industry. It is an industry which I know the Labor Party has its reservations about, but it is one which the coalition supports absolutely. It is an industry which currently finds itself hogtied by a state Labor government unable to spend the sort of capital we need it to spend. In establishing this bill, we would hope that the Labor Party actually places some focus and sincerity on this issue and moves away from the political decision making which is such a hallmark of state Labor governments and, as we have seen already, of this Rudd Labor government. We need to see the infrastructure investment in Australia made on the basis that it is actually going to deliver outcomes. We do not need another review. We do not need governments to press the pause button and decide whether or not they are going to build things that have been plainly obvious in their requirement. We do not need to see the people of Toowoomba subjected to another 10-year wait to know whether or not they will get a range crossing which will take B-double vehicles out of the main street of Toowoomba and away from their homes, schools and shops and ensure that Toowoomba is treated in the same way as every other major city in Australia. What we want to see from this new body that is being established under this proposed act is a systematic program to ensure that people in Toowoomba, people in Ipswich, people in Sydney, people in western New South Wales and people in every part of Australia will in fact be able to have some certainty that they will get the infrastructure that they need while at the same time the companies that invest billions and billions of dollars in resource projects in Australia will have the opportunity and certainty that their product will be able to be exported. If this is just another layer of bureaucracy, so there will be another layer of delay in the operation of the building of infrastructure in Australia, then Australia will pay an economic penalty that will last not for decades but in fact for tens of decades. I share the concerns expressed by the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and local government when this bill was first admitted to the House. I have concerns that the Labor Party has no understanding of the needs of people in regional areas. I hope that, as we progress through this government’s actions, the sorts of dreadful decisions that we have seen made about Ipswich Road and the Toowoomba range crossing will not be replicated by this new body. 1980 16:26:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise in support of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, which marks the delivery of another commitment of the Rudd government. This is the commitment to establish the Infrastructure Australia body, a central part of the government’s plan to combat inflation. It is an urgent task, and this government has wasted no time in getting on with it. Well-planned infrastructure provides the basis for economic activity in our nation. I am talking about transport infrastructure and about energy and water infrastructure, which is needed to meet the challenge of climate change and to meet the reality of our mostly dry and mostly brown land. I am talking about communications infrastructure, which the government is meeting the need for with the national broadband network. I am talking about social infrastructure in the form of schools and hospitals. We need to recognise that because of the scale of our country, the sheer size of Australia, we are particularly dependent on efficient infrastructure utilisation. Boosting productivity growth is vital to sustained economic prosperity. Infrastructure planning and development, which is what this legislation is concerned with, will facilitate increased productivity growth. Under the previous government Australia’s productivity growth has been allowed to dribble away to virtually nothing. We have gone from leading the industrialised nations of the world to trailing those industrialised nations. Reducing supply-side pressures in our economy by dealing with the lack of capacity will help bring down inflation and should apply downward pressure on interest rates. Infrastructure gaps are costing us 0.8 of a per cent of GDP in lost production every year. Infrastructure is not simply about the economic dividends to communities and the nation. It is also about the lifestyle and the standard of living which we enjoy. It is about things like the ability of schools to educate our children and the ability of hospitals to care for the ill. There is also a point to be made that infrastructure markets are not like other markets. They are often monopolistic or semimonopolistic in nature, subject to regulatory control of pricing, and they are often publicly funded, bringing with that competing demands on government financing. Determining access and exclusive rights to infrastructure often creates uncertainty about the returns that will be generated and thus about the financing and construction. Given the importance of infrastructure development to Australia, we require national leadership to make up for what have been decades of underinvestment. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the industry body, has recognised this, the current government has recognised this, and you might well ask why the previous government did not recognise this. In my electorate of Isaacs, both economic and social infrastructure will play important roles in the future economic wellbeing of local communities. There is a need for social infrastructure and a need, for local business in particular, for a highly skilled workforce, which is another key plank of Labor’s plan to fight inflation. There is a need in my electorate for physical infrastructure. The manufacturing sectors that operate in the two areas of Dandenong and Braeside need to be connected to fully functioning ports and airports and to other elements of their supply chain. With the skill shortage and heavy competition for skilled labour, there is also a need to ensure that skills are in fact being provided and skilled workers are becoming available. On the infrastructure of technology, it is no longer possible for businesses operating in a globalised economy to survive, let alone thrive, without being able to access broadband and other technologies which they need. So, too, for energy and water infrastructure: there is a need for businesses to have guaranteed supplies of energy and water with appropriate pricing. This government is responding to infrastructure shortfalls by taking proactive steps, by establishing Infrastructure Australia and by appointing the first ever minister for infrastructure. The bill is going to create Infrastructure Australia, an advisory council, along with the Office of Infrastructure Coordination to support their work. It will have 12 members: five from the private sector including the chair, three from the federal government, three from state government and one from local government. I should congratulate Sir Rod Eddington on his announced appointment, Sir Rod having had a distinguished career including five years as the CEO of British Airways. Most importantly, this legislation will charge Infrastructure Australia with the role of auditing our current infrastructure needs and making recommendations to all levels of government and to the private sector. Its first task will be to complete an audit by the end of the year and to deliver to COAG a national infrastructure priority list by March 2009. This national coordination will help to overcome problems in infrastructure development and thus boost productivity and national competitiveness. It will apply downward pressure on inflation. With Infrastructure Australia there will be a coordinated national approach to assessing and fixing national infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks in our productive capacity. Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill, as you have heard from other speakers, continues Labor’s tradition of nation building. It is well recognised that the Australian Labor Party has been the party that has genuinely believed in and has acted on the importance of the Commonwealth government and the use of its powers to build a unified nation. One can look at the examples of the Chifley government in relation to the Snowy Mountains scheme, the achievements of the Whitlam government in relation to urban and regional development and, more recently, the work of the Hawke and Keating governments on the standardisation of rail gauges or the Better Cities Program, which was focused on our urban infrastructure. By contrast, the Liberal Party has shifted from its longstanding support for what you could only call a parochial federalism to more recently—in its last 12 years of government, which we have just endured—the use of Commonwealth powers for partisan political gain. Neither philosophy represents a vision for the future of our nation. The member for Shortland earlier commented on the report The great freight task delivered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services. That is a report in which the committee, to its credit, identified a range of projects that are needed to allow our ports to function at capacity. I draw the attention of members to this to make the point that such a task should not have been left to a parliamentary committee to perform on an ad hoc basis; it is something that should have been dealt with in a coordinated way on a national basis. That report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services alone serves as a stark reminder of the failure of the former government in this area of infrastructure and nation building. This task of audit and of considering what projects are required will be a key role of Infrastructure Australia. Australia is now ranked 20th out of 25 OECD countries for investment in public infrastructure as a percentage of GDP, and the reason why Australia occupies that lowly ranking among the developed countries of the world is that the former government was simply not interested in providing leadership or the investment that infrastructure required. The former government believed that planning for Australia’s economic future involved an ideological war against trade unions, rather than thinking about the actual needs of our country as we go forward into the 21st century. The Auditor-General’s report, which we have heard quite a bit about in recent months—that is, the Auditor-General’s report on the Regional Partnerships program—showed that it was not merely neglect on the part of the former government in relation to infrastructure; there was a shameless, systematic rorting of infrastructure spending for short-term political gain. What we had were decisions about infrastructure that were based on the margin in particular seats rather than on national need. In future, decisions about infrastructure are going to be based on demonstrable need and not on pork-barrelling. The result of all this— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Moncrieff will get his turn in a minute, thank you. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —He is itching to go, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result of all of this shameful neglect of infrastructure planning, shameful neglect of infrastructure spending and rampant pork-barrelling where there was some infrastructure spending— DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the member for Isaacs allow a question? I will explain to the member for Isaacs, who as a new member probably does not realise that in the Main Committee interventions are allowed and the member is allowed to either accept or reject the question. Will the member for Isaacs accept the question from the member for Tangney? HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —No, I will reject the question. It is unlikely to have been a good one! The result of all this was the coalition government’s farewell gift to our nation: its underinvestment in infrastructure and, just to remind honourable members, the highest inflation rate in 16 years. The approach of the former government to infrastructure planning and infrastructure investment is no longer good enough. By contrast, we in the Labor Party take seriously our tradition of nation building, and that is why the Rudd government has acted on the commitment to introduce Infrastructure Australia. This government is showing leadership. This government will help to clear the infrastructure bottlenecks that have been created by 12 years of neglect. It is an urgent task, one on which we require coordinated national leadership. That is what is now going to be provided. The Infrastructure Australia Bill, through its creation of Infrastructure Australia and the tasks that it sets for this new body, creates the structure for that national leadership. 1982 16:39:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —Madam Deputy Speaker, you keenly observed my great enthusiasm to contribute to this debate, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity now to speak to the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, because this bill is so symbolic of the Australian Labor Party. In so many respects, this bill really is the epitome of the Australian Labor Party, because it is a bill that seems on the surface to present so much and to herald so much about what the Australian Labor Party has in store now that it is the government. Once you start to pierce through the spin, the lack of substance, the grand rhetorical statements and the various historical blurrings and inaccuracies that come from members opposite, you start to realise that this bill, like so much of the new Rudd Labor government’s agenda, is completely and utterly without substance. This bill is without substance because it sees the creation of Infrastructure Australia, a new bureaucracy that the Rudd Labor government says is going to deliver in spades. It begs the very question. Labor has been in power across every state and territory in Australia now for at least a decade and, in just about every respect, we have seen state Labor governments fail on all fronts. It is a big F for fail for the Queensland, New South Wales, South Australian, Western Australian, Victorian, Tasmanian, Northern Territory and ACT Labor governments. The reason they all fail is that every Labor government is big on spin but very poor when it comes to actual delivery of services. I will talk about a jurisdiction that I know well, Queensland, and the fact that the Australian Labor Party has been in power in Queensland for 18 of the last 20 years—years where we have seen next to nothing when it comes to infrastructure leadership by the state Labor government. So, when members opposite stand up in this chamber and wax lyrical about the importance of investing in infrastructure, you actually know that it is just spin, it is just rhetoric and there is no actual delivery. If there were delivery at a state level, there would not be 40 ships sitting off the port of Dalrymple waiting to be loaded. If there were delivery, the former coalition government would not have been required to invest a record amount of money to make up for state government inaction. The fact is that the Labor Party is big on talk but absolutely weak when it comes to doing anything. This bill, I predict, will be symbolic of the entire Rudd Labor government, where we will see all sorts of promises being heralded—the same sorts of promises that we saw prior to the election when the now Prime Minister stood up and said, ‘Under the Labor Party, fuel prices will go down.’ This is the same Prime Minister who said, ‘Under the Labor Party, grocery prices will go down.’ In the same way, the Rudd Labor government says, ‘Elect us, and we will make sure that we see investment in infrastructure and the creation of Infrastructure Australia’—the new body that is going to mastermind all of this. Let us consider what members of the government have said previously in this debate. In particular, we heard the speaker previous to me talk about how one of the key achievements of the Infrastructure Australia Bill will be the creation of an audit of infrastructure needs in Australia as if it is a new thing, as if in some way the audit of infrastructure needs in Australia will present a new change in Australia. I have news for the previous speaker: there has been an audit done at a state level already, and it has not heralded anything. Perhaps the previous speaker could explain to me why it is that in a city like the Gold Coast—the fastest-growing region in Australia and Australia’s sixth largest city—the Beattie Labor government, and now the Bligh Labor government, have done basically nothing for our city for a decade. Perhaps that could be explained by the previous Labor speaker. Perhaps the previous Labor speaker could explain why the Queensland government, like every other state Labor government with the exception of Western Australia, is now running budget deficits to the tune of $80 billion—debt at a state level brought on by the Labor Party putting upward pressure on inflation. I take objection to members opposite lecturing the coalition on inflation when $80 billion of debt is driven by them at a state level. I take objection to the Labor Party lecturing the coalition about how hard it is to deal with Australia’s economy, referred to as the ‘miracle economy’ by the Economist magazine. When we lost office, we left the Labor Party with a $17 billion surplus and a 30-year low in unemployment. That is the record of the former government. The fact is that the former government invested $15.8 billion in infrastructure and a further $22.3 billion in infrastructure under the AusLink program. I noticed the previous Labor speaker never once mentioned AusLink. He probably does not even know about it and probably has not even heard of AusLink, even though it was the biggest item of expenditure on infrastructure by the coalition government. The new Labor government have to pull up their socks to match the track record of the former government when it comes to investment in infrastructure. The new Labor government should certainly not be copying their state Labor mates. If you are copying your state Labor mates, I can assure members opposite that what we will see is disinvestment in infrastructure, and we will see the Labor Party turn their back on much-needed investment in roads, airports, ports and rail. That is the legacy of state Labor governments. I will pick up one other point that the previous speaker raised: the need for access to water infrastructure. Let me invite members opposite to come to the Gold Coast and south-east Queensland. Please come up, and I will explain the problems faced by a population of several million. The Labor Party has been in power for 18 of the last 20 years, and the Queensland population in south-east Queensland has nearly doubled, and they have not built one dam—not one dam in south-east Queensland in nearly 20 years. The biggest single piece of infrastructure out of the last 20 years was done in the two years the coalition was in power—$1 billion for the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I say to the Labor Party: no-one takes seriously their talk. No-one takes seriously Labor Party promises, Labor Party hot air and Labor Party rhetoric about all the virtues that will flow from the Infrastructure Australia Bill—how there will be an audit of Labor’s record when it comes to the need to invest in infrastructure and how the Labor Party is shackled with such a bad economy. No-one takes it seriously, because it is without substance, just like the Labor Party when it comes to actual infrastructure investment. If we had seen at a state level the Labor Party actually doing something then we might take seriously their desire to fix the Australian economy and to fix these infrastructure bottlenecks. I also noted the previous speakers talking about the skills shortage in Australia. How often do we hear that? A skills shortage actually should be referred to as a ‘labour force shortage’. It is what happens when unemployment gets down to four per cent. It is in stark contrast to having a million people unemployed and 11 per cent unemployment, which was the last record of the Labor Party. ‘Skills crisis’ is not the correct phrase. The correct phrase is ‘labour force shortage’, and that is what happens when you have four per cent unemployment. More importantly, if we want to take seriously for a moment the notion that perhaps the Labor Party are onto something when they say that there is a skills shortage, I would love to have an explanation as to why there has been next to no investment in the TAFE system by state Labor governments. In the primary area of responsibility for state Labor, vocational education and training, we have seen F for fail time and time again by every state and territory Labor government. That is the track record of the Labor Party. We heard them during the election when they stood up and said: ‘We’re not interested in the blame game. It’s time we stopped the blame game.’ I have got some news again for the new members of the Rudd Labor government. You are going to hear a lot about the blame game from this opposition, and you are going to hear a lot because at your feet lies a decade of inaction. At the feet of the Labor Party lies the fact that state Labor governments, that are meant to invest in infrastructure and in vocational education, have done nothing. The consequence of state Labor governments investing money, as they call it, has been bloated bureaucracies. That is the primary investment by state Labor governments. It was fascinating to see just recently that in Queensland the Bligh-Beattie Labor government has increased the bureaucracy by over 30 per cent. That is the track record—a 30 per cent increase in the bureaucracy. There is a proud boast for state Labor governments! There is much-needed infrastructure! Do not invest in new hospitals; make sure you put it into extra bureaucrats in George Street. That will make all the difference for my constituents in Moncrieff! I must give some credit to the state Labor government. They went out and announced that there would be a new hospital for the Gold Coast. That was great, because the Gold Coast is now nearing 600,000 people, and the last time we had a new hospital the population was probably sitting at around 70,000 people. So it is about time we got a new hospital from the Queensland state Labor government. They promised that the construction would commence in March 2007, so in March 2007 I went to the sign for this new, you-beaut hospital. There, proudly erected on the site, was the sign for the new Gold Coast hospital—some much needed infrastructure. I am sure it is the kind of infrastructure that the Infrastructure Australia Committee will be looking at and recommending. The Queensland health minister and the Queensland Premier spoke proudly about how they would be doing this. But it is with regret that I remind all my constituents that we are still waiting for a single sod to be turned. In fact, the Queensland Labor government is now saying to Gold Coasters, ‘Just put that on hold; we might actually change the site of the hospital.’ So here we are, 12 months—almost to the day—after the construction of the hospital was meant to have commenced, 12 months after they were meant to start knocking over trees and building the new hospital, and still nothing. I would have thought that there would be buildings in existence and perhaps the opportunity for Gold Coasters to get access to some first-class hospital service. Not a single tree has been knocked over, although there has been one development on the site—they took away the sign. That is the development by the Queensland Labor government—they took away the sign. That is the extent to which the Queensland Labor government believe in supporting infrastructure needs on the Gold Coast. So I say to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and I am hoping it occupies a lot of his time: let us get serious about putting a bit of pressure on your state Labor mates to get some action. Let us start to see some action when it comes to the words of the Labor Party on the need for new infrastructure. If there is a city that is crying out for investment and infrastructure, it is the Gold Coast. It is the fastest-growing city in the country—it is Australia’s sixth biggest city now—and we need roads. We need investment in public transport, water, health and schools. If you believe the promises made during the election campaign, each of these areas will be solved by the Australian Labor Party. I look forward to seeing what this 12-month audit is going to present. I predict it will not be a lot, because these audits already exist at a state level and they do not seem to mean anything. Apparently now at the federal level this new committee—we know the Rudd Labor government is very fond of committees—are going to do their audit, and all of a sudden these problems will be solved. I look forward to seeing announcements by the Rudd Labor government on the kinds of projects that will be rolled out in Moncrieff, McPherson, Forde and Fadden because that is what the Labor Party said would happen in Australia’s fastest-growing city. They can start by putting some pressure on the state Labor government. The final story I would like to talk about is my profound disappointment again with the Queensland Labor government. Let us give some history to this debate. The coalition announced $455 million to wind the M1 motorway between Nerang and Tugun—a vital arterial road for our region that connects Brisbane to Sydney. Unfortunately, at the moment it is also used by a lot of local commuter traffic on the Gold Coast—not by the interstate traffic that it was designed for. In part, the reason for this is that the Labor Party at the state level have not invested in the side arterial roads that local traffic is meant to use. Instead, they have been happy to see that traffic move onto the M1. So the coalition announced $455 million to expand the M1. This is an important announcement and a big win, dare I say it, for the member for McPherson, the newly elected member for Fadden and me. It was a big win because the Queensland government said that if the coalition provided $427 million they would commence the project immediately. So they asked for $427 million; the Howard government provided $455 million. But what I find extraordinary—and I remind the people in suburbs like Boonooroo Park, Nerang, Worongary, Robina and Mudgeeraba—is that we provided $455 million even though $427 million was the requested figure and now the Queensland Labor government says that the vast bulk of that money is going to be used on winding the M1 in Logan—not on the Gold Coast. That money is being misappropriated—and I use that word very deliberately—from an important project that we provided the funding for to be used up in Logan in the southern outskirts of Brisbane. Again, I say to the infrastructure minister, if you want to use some pressure let us see you apply some pressure to your state Labor mates and get this road built where we said the funding was meant to go, where constituents in my electorate expected the funding to go and where Gold Coasters rightfully have an expectation that this money will be used to fix this road. We can have the audits, we can have all sorts of claims from the state Labor government about the Infrastructure Australia Bill, but if you do not actually deliver local projects like this then it will be absolutely meaningless and not worth the paper it is written on. I will leave my remarks on the Infrastructure Australia Bill at that. I came into this debate wanting to accept the good intentions of the infrastructure minister, wanting to believe the claims that have been made by members opposite, wanting to believe that this bill will herald a new day in Australian infrastructure needs. For far too long—for nearly a decade—we have seen next to no action on infrastructure by state Labor governments. The Rudd Labor government now have the chance to demonstrate in a very material sense that they will actually improve the lot of ordinary Australians, that they will stand by their promises and ensure that there is investment in infrastructure to improve the lifestyle and the public amenity of all the cities and regions in Australia. But if it is just hot air, if we just see that the track record is the same as it has been in every Labor state and territory, then this bill will not be worth the paper it is written on—and that is my fear. I hope to stand here in 12 months and be proven wrong by the new Rudd Labor government, but again I make a very conservative suggestion: I will not be. I suggest that in 12 months time the Rudd Labor government will be coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why nothing has happened, we will see this new spirit of federalism in existence and we will wonder why the Rudd Labor government has not been able to achieve much at all. There are a few key measures: let us see if the Gold Coast hospital is built, let us see if the M1 is widened and let us make sure that we have new water infrastructure, new education infrastructure and better roads on the Gold Coast. Those are the KPIs that will be asked of the infrastructure minister. That is the kind of investment I will be looking for. Anything less than that will be another F for fail by the Labor Party. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I thank the member for Moncrieff for his contribution but remind him that this is a very small chamber and he already has a very loud voice. My hearing is very good—but I am not sure it is that good after that! For future reference: I do not think we need to shout in this chamber. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —I was projecting. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You were very animated. I would remind everybody that being animated up here can cause grievous bodily harm to the occupier of the chair. I call the member for Forde. 1987 16:57:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —It is certainly interesting to hear the member for Moncrieff, because the seat of Moncrieff is very close to my seat of Forde, and I am just wondering whether we are actually reading the same messages or understanding the same concepts or issues. It is also interesting to note that the seat of Moncrieff is probably around 100 square kilometres in area. I am in a seat of 3,100 square kilometres in area, which was served very well by a former Liberal member, Kay Elson, but the reality— YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr Bruce Scott —It would only be a horse paddock out my way! HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —That may be right. The reality is it could well be a horse paddock. The Gold Coast members are very Gold Coast-centric, and I am not sure that in the time the previous speaker was in government he had much experience over the ridge from the Gold Coast hinterland, which is essentially the seat of Forde. Infrastructure-wise, we have nothing. The Gold Coast certainly is an area of huge growth. We know that. But to say the Gold Coast is the fastest growing city in Australia is not quite correct—and we will prove that on another day and with other figures. The reality is that, yes, infrastructure is poor in Queensland, but that is not essentially because of the Queensland government. In many areas of their delivery of services the Queensland government have been somewhat short-changed by the federal government, whether we are talking about health, roads, training or any area. I have not come to this chamber today to talk about what should have happened. Essentially, I think the opposition’s problem is that they have got themselves into that cycle of blame. They said that they were not going to blame; now they are going to blame—they are going to be here in 12 months time telling us what we have not done. My plea to members on the other side, certainly to those who are my neighbouring members in the Gold Coast seats, is to realise that this is about working together. The whole idea of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 is to get all levels of government and all stakeholders working together. In my maiden speech on 19 February I spoke in some detail about the issues that affect the community in the electorate of Forde. My catchcry then was to ‘put Forde on the map’ in terms of ensuring that the government and the parliament knew more about the opportunities and the potential of the region I represent. The practical application of this intent can be well explained by the opportunities presented in this Infrastructure Australia Bill. In my first speech on 19 February, I highlighted issues related to local demand in Forde for development land for urban and associated industrial purposes. I also made the point that appropriate planning was necessary to ensure that desired environmental and social outcomes would have a positive effect on the region. Having gained experience in planning and regional development activities, I must say that one thing governments, both local and state, tend to do tirelessly is plan. That is something they do do: they plan well. But the success of any planning activity should be measured in a number of ways, and that is why I take point against the member for Moncrieff. It is not about just putting out the challenge to provide infrastructure, whoever is responsible; it is actually about finding solutions. My understanding, coming into this House—or in any house of parliament in this country—is that it is about helping and working with stakeholders to find solutions. While sustainability is often mentioned, it is not often explained. It includes the essential considerations of environmental, economic and social impact. Sustainability is also about the planning regime in which it is determined. At any given point in time the viability of managed growth is relative to the time frame in which it occurs, and the situation confronting both government and the private sector is the timeliness of planning processes and planning approvals. Stakeholders, both private sector and government, involved in regional development understand the increased costs incurred by any delays in the accepted time frames. And, of course, while we go on arguing about what we should or should not do, or what has happened in the past, it costs those developers—those who are holding land on the ground, those who are waiting for approvals, those who are waiting for commitments from all levels—money, and essentially that is carried on and passed on into those development costs. While the immediate effects of time delays are financial, the added costs incurred then impact on the ability to achieve the desired outcomes proposed by the sustainable aspects of the development. Tardy sequencing of land releases is due to many factors and quite often based around who or what authority is responsible for making the decision. It is not a criticism of state or local governments but the reality of development in this country, and that is why this bill in its intent will provide the features of facilitation—to not only prioritise the necessary infrastructure by that process but to ensure that there is a coordinated and definitive process to achieve preferred outcomes. As I said, it is about everyone working together. Within my electorate, there is major investment by the private sector in the industrial areas of Yatala and Bromelton, cited as being the largest future industrial centres in Australia, as well as in the planned lifestyle communities to house the tens of thousands of workers who will relocate to the region over the next 20 to 30 years, with the future residential communities of Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba already planned, including the provision of affordable housing designs which would help ease our housing crisis in south-east Queensland. They include the necessary infrastructure, not funded by the taxpayers but by an agreed commitment from the project proponents. This is a good example of private investment, but at this point in time it is delayed, not by the investors but simply because planning decisions will not be made by local and state authorities. These decisions will not be made because the agencies involved are fearful that they will be held responsible for infrastructure yet to be scoped. In other words, due to the uncertainty of local authorities and some planning authorities, they will not make a commitment for fear that they as a local or state authority might bear the costs of providing unknown infrastructure. The commitment I am talking about is a simple agreement to determine road and transport corridors or to allow the commencement of operational work. As I have said, this is not a criticism of local or state authorities but an understanding that there is no coordination of the necessary processes to ensure development occurs in a timely and efficient manner. This bill proposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia provides relief to those authorities feeling the strain of making a commitment that they may deliver and then have a funding liability for the provision of some infrastructure not previously identified. As I said in my opening statement, putting my electorate of Forde on the map is in recognition of the need for government to be aware of the needs of a community so they can be better met. Through this bill, other high-priority electorates in this country can also have their infrastructure demands identified and prioritised. The electorate of Forde, which is at its northern boundary less than 20 minutes by the M1 to the CBD of Brisbane and at its southernmost point, at the border ranges, more than an hour and a half from the CBD, would still be considered by many of my regional parliamentary colleagues as almost a city; yet the townships of Logan Village, Jimboomba and Beaudesert to the south have poor road infrastructure, no rail or regular bus services and, in some of these areas, no provision of town water. In fact, these towns are among a few high-population towns in south-east Queensland, just outside of Brisbane, that do not have a four-lane highway, a train service or regular bus services. The member for Moncrieff stated that in his view the Gold Coast is underresourced. He needs to come over the range and travel only 50 kilometres to find what real lack of services is all about. Added to the lack of work opportunities in these communities, many of these townships are dormitory suburbs for the commercial and industrial areas of Logan and Brisbane. The requirement for mass travel by single drivers every day along an inadequate highway is just not tenable, safe or efficient. Infrastructure Australia can be seen as the apex of a triangle—a single agency capable of not only facilitating and prioritising the delivery of hard physical infrastructure but also influencing the other benefits that flow from this kind of investment. Again, in Forde the two major issues that affect our daily lifestyle are housing availability and affordability and then transport on top of that. Currently in the electorate we have groups meeting to discuss any type of solution to providing better options for those who need to traverse for work, for study or for access to the medical and other community services of the region. This can be better described simply as mobility. With adequate road and rail infrastructure, the efforts of community groups and organisations to garner state government support is all the more difficult, and I have committed to working with all agencies to try and secure future commitments. On that note, I would like to commend Sharon Redmond and Lyn Bartimote for their longstanding and continuing efforts to find solutions for their communities of Jimboomba and Beaudesert, particularly in the areas of transport and mobility for the many residents who are denied these simple services. While local residents are simply trying to achieve services that most other electorates take for granted, there is a wider requirement to understand the strategic position my electorate has in relation to the whole region. In the House this week the member for Page spoke about the region of northern New South Wales and the lack of infrastructure for transport services. The seat of Page, just over the border in New South Wales, is strategically placed and has links to the electorate of Forde in the south west. We have a unique opportunity in this part of the country to link major potential transport corridors, yet there is not one government agency that fully understands the multiple parts of the puzzle and the linkages that could open up the corridor and could provide significant and efficient transport corridors feeding future intermodal facilities and the relative seaports. The benefit of well-planned and coordinated infrastructure has an aggregate effect. Using the Page and Forde electorates as an example would provide not only economic benefits to the region and develop strong cross-border linkages but also flow-on benefits in the provision of regional transport. The perception in south-east Queensland at the moment is that, other than on the coastal highways, Queensland stops at the border. The townships of Beaudesert and Rathdowney further to the south are considered the end of the road or, effectively, as the road to nowhere; yet just across the border we have significant communities with significant transport needs. A cross-border relationship supported by a non-parochial planning body like Infrastructure Australia would provide the synergies and the efficiencies of appropriate infrastructure investment. While the economic benefits of a coordinated approach are evident, it is the symbiotic nature of such investments with social benefits that have a greater positive effect on the regional communities. I have been talking to the member for Page and the member for Richmond about achieving these synergies. Having a body like Infrastructure Australia would certainly help with those deliberations. Regional communities are aware that public transport is based on the principle of economies of scale. The provision of passenger services comes down to density and to the numbers of potential passengers. Better resourcing for road transport corridors like the Summerland Way, which runs from northern New South Wales into Queensland, would create other linkages for possible rail connections for the future industrial hubs of Warwick and Toowoomba and feed into the planned intermodal site of Bromelton, which connects to the rest of Australia through the national rail network and Australia’s seaports. The wider benefits of these wide linkages and the subsequent economies of scale are that the area would have the ability to provide public transport services. All of this is possible—the private investors are there, the local and state authorities realise the need and the residents just want services. The only thing missing is the coordination of all these interests, and this, I believe, can be further progressed by the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. A coordinated approach through the establishment of Infrastructure Australia would give one agency the ability to bring together all the components and resolve all the inconsistencies that I have touched upon in this speech. The proposed Infrastructure Australia is the lynchpin which locks together all the stakeholders and their combined roles in planning, investment and construction. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House. 1991 17:10:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I could have given way to the member for Oxley, a great supporter of the Warrego Highway. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —But you didn’t! YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —No, indeed. I rise with great pleasure to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. Only time will tell whether this is just window dressing or whether in fact it will work and deliver real and tangible benefits in infrastructure across Australia. I want to firstly put the record of the coalition government. When we came to government in 1996 we were confronted with a massive debt that was left to us by the previous Labor government—a $96 billion debt that we had to start to pay off. Our international credit rating had been downgraded. We had to not only pay off the debt but get our credit rating restored. Then we could start to invest in real infrastructure. We started to do that in a very significant way. Had we as a coalition government inherited the economy that we have given to the Labor Party—no debt, money in the bank, a AAA credit rating—we would have been able to do a great deal more about infrastructure, but we had to deal with the legacy of 13 years of the mismanagement by Labor government, as well as mismanagement by Labor governments right across Australia. State Labor governments collectively have something like a $60 billion debt today. They are also impacting on the interest rate rises because they are in the financial markets out there having to source cash to meet those commitments caused by their own mismanagement. I say that at the outset to highlight the fact that the Labor Party have been given the golden goose in relation to the economy. Let us see if any golden eggs can be laid in this term—probably the only term that they will have in government—by Infrastructure Australia and this bill before the House, which is a commitment of the Labor Party. I represent an electorate of some 560,000 square kilometres, stretching from just west of Brisbane down to Benarkin and Blackbutt—not far from the member for Oxley’s boundary, in fact—all the way through to the Northern Territory border. Within the boundaries of the federal electorate of Maranoa we have important mining and agricultural industries which are great wealth creators for this nation. In fact, the coal industry—and I am sure that the member for Oxley would be interested in this—is the largest export earner for the state of Queensland of any industry. The Surat coal basin, virtually unexploited at this point and the largest coal reserve in Australia, will over the next five to 10 years have a significant number of mines opened up in it, underpinning the importance of the need for infrastructure investment in my electorate of Maranoa. The beef industry is another one. It is the second largest export earner by value—as the member for Barker would appreciate, I am sure—from the state of Queensland. Think of the number of jobs that both those industries create. All of them—the beef industry, the coal industry, the oil and gas industry—are not located in CBD Brisbane down in George Street. They are located out in the regions and in the rural and remote parts of Queensland. But every Queenslander and every Australian benefits from these two industries as well as from many other industries, from the wealth that they create and the jobs that they provide for families. We all benefit from these great resources. Since 2001 the coalition has invested some $102 million in road infrastructure in the seat of Maranoa. One of the most important road infrastructure investments that the coalition invested in, when we started to get the Labor debt under control, was Roads to Recovery. We are starting to hear whispers from the corridors out there on the blue carpet that this program is going to be gutted. It is for the chop from the finance minister. Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, I am sure you are alerted to this in your own constituency. Roads to Recovery is a program in which the coalition government doubled road funding, paying that money direct to local governments so that they could invest it in local roads of importance in their own community. One of the great benefits of that program was that it went to local government, and every dollar went on roads. Had we directed that money through state bureaucracies, five, 10, 15 or 20 per cent of it could have been used up in bureaucracies. Now, before a kilometre of bitumen or sealed road has been put down in any of those local government areas, we hear whispers—as we heard a week ago that the carer payment was to be axed. Next: ‘No, that’s not right.’ It took about five days to turn that one around, but we hear the whispers coming out. Roads to Recovery is in the finance minister’s and the Treasurer’s sights. They know that a large portion of that money goes out into coalition seats in rural and regional and remote parts of Australia, bringing great benefit to those communities. I know the minister has got his eye on Roads to Recovery, but I call on him to commit to the Roads to Recovery program in this year’s budget and subsequent budgets while ever they hold the Treasury benches because of the importance of that infrastructure spending that local governments invest in roads and because every dollar that comes from the Commonwealth goes into roads, not into state bureaucracies. The coalition committed some $128 million out of AusLink 2 to an investment in the Warrego Highway on the western side of Groom and in my own electorate of Maranoa during the election campaign. I know that the then opposition, now government, committed some $50 million—and this was confirmed by the Prime Minister when he went to Roma unannounced to the local councils, when he went with the agriculture minister to a property near my own home town; in fact near my own home. But they confirmed that that $50 million would be spent on the Warrego Highway, upgrading the highway from Mitchell to Roma so that those type 2 roadtrains could come from Mitchell through to Roma. Many of those type 2 roadtrains come from Western Australia, carrying livestock, carrying cattle. Many of them of course are in the reverse—they couple-up in Roma to go to Darwin and to the other side of Australia with freight and goods into the mining communities and bringing much-needed infrastructure into those communities. But we will be watching with great interest to see when that first $50 million starts to roll out on the Warrego Highway between Mitchell and Roma. I am watching with great interest and, if that is part of Infrastructure Australia, I will welcome it. I will be surprised when the money comes but I will certainly welcome it because it is indeed long overdue. The other part of the Warrego Highway that is in urgent need of upgrading, which the coalition committed to prior to the election as part of the AusLink 2 funding, is the section from Chinchilla to Dalby. That money would have started to roll out on 1 July this year—not next year or the year after in an election year; on 1 July 2008. That was our commitment. The road from Chinchilla, particularly between Warra and McAllister, is very dangerous—in fact we have had a very tragic death there in the last 18 months. The Warrego Highway is a national highway linking Brisbane and the southern states right through to Mount Isa and Darwin. It is one of the major arterial corridors of our nation. I say to the minister: please, start that money for the Warrego Highway rolling out as of 1 July this year so that we will not see any more tragic accidents on this section of it. I heard the member for Groom talking earlier about the second range crossing at Toowoomba. That is another vital piece of infrastructure. The coalition committed some $700 million to it during the election campaign, but did we hear the same from the Labor Party? No, we did not. That second range crossing is a vital piece of infrastructure which would link the south-east corner of Queensland, the port of Brisbane, through to the resource areas of western Queensland, right up through to the Surat coal basin and up into Darwin, and all points in between. Around Dalby at the moment we are seeing large numbers of coal seam methane gas producers tap into the coal seam underneath the Darling Downs and right out to Wandoan and Chinchilla. But coming with that is the power generation infrastructure. Two gas-fired power stations are under construction right now to use coal seam methane, a very clean source of energy that is going to provide a much-needed boost to the capacity of electricity generation in Queensland. When the government are looking at Infrastructure Australia, they must relook at the second range crossing. Why is that? Because right now in Dalby they are setting up a thousand-person camp for the workers on the two new power stations. But what will happen with the construction of these power stations? All the steel, generators, boilers and any other infrastructure that goes with power stations will come from Brisbane, often having come from overseas to the port of Brisbane. The infrastructure will have to be transported across the Great Dividing Range and it will have to travel through Toowoomba to get through to the Surat coal basin where the coal seam methane gas-fired power stations are being established. We also committed to the Cunningham Highway upgrade, particularly at Cunningham’s Gap. So often the highway at Cunningham’s Gap suffers from rockfalls, particularly in winter when there has been some rainfall through that part of my electorate which joins onto the seat of Blair. We had a proposition to invest some $20 million into the highway at Cunningham’s Gap, not only for safety reasons but also for the continuity of transport so that that highway is not cut off because of a rockfall. That is the main arterial link alternative to the Pacific Highway to Sydney, Melbourne and down through the Newell Highway. The Cunningham Highway is a very important link from the south-east corner of Queensland to the New England Highway and down through New South Wales to Sydney. I know that we are still waiting on engineers to complete their reports on what is the best solution, but my suggestion to the engineers was that, where there is a danger of rocks falling on the road, perhaps we ought to put a form of ‘tunnel’ over the highway so that if rocks do fall in the future they fall straight over the tunnel-like roof and down into the valley. It will be a very expensive exercise to complete the stabilisation of the upside of that highway through Cunningham’s Gap but I do urge the minister to look at the infrastructure need through Infrastructure Australia to make sure that that is also a project that gets underway sooner rather than later. I hope it is identified as a priority by the minister. I want to touch very quickly on another important aspect of infrastructure, and that is airport infrastructure. In our term in government, we invested significant sums of money in safety upgrades for many of our airports in rural Australia. That helped many local councils complete the fencing of their airports, not only at the airport terminal side but also round the perimeters. Why? Because so often in drought times there is a risk that landing aircraft could collide with kangaroos on the airstrips, particularly at night. These airstrips are vital not only for medical evacuations through the Royal Flying Doctor Service but also other passenger services that service the outback of my electorate. There is one particular airport I wanted to touch on in the limited time I have left for me. I have been in touch with the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia only today on this issue. It concerns the remote community of Bedourie in the Diamantina shire, population 80—the shire with a greater geographic area than the state of Tasmania. It is the headquarters of the Diamantina shire. The state Labor government in Queensland, to their great credit, subsidise the air services out into the remote parts of Queensland. A new contract that has only just been let will see that air service—going right out through Windorah, Birdsville, Bedourie, Boulia and up to Mount Isa from Brisbane and return—upgraded from a Metroliner to the new Saab 42-seater. That will revolutionise, if I can put it that way, the opportunities for tourism in the outback of Queensland, because it is a 42-seater, it will have a flight attendant, a toilet on board and all of those other facilities that so often people just take for granted on the more coastal routes. One of the issues the Diamantina shire is confronting is the fact they have to upgrade the Bedourie airport. They have to lengthen the runway and upgrade the lighting for emergencies at night. The state government has provided the Diamantina Shire Council with some $900,000 but they are $900,000 short. I spoke to the parliamentary secretary this morning and I said: ‘I would hope that, under the remote area program that we had as a coalition government—the airport upgrade program—there would be some money made available to this very small remote community. They struggle to build these facilities on their own. They have a very small rate base, as you can imagine, with only 80 people in the whole town and community. I suggest that $300,000 to $400,000 would certainly ease the pain on their own ratepayers. While I acknowledge that the state government has provided some $900,000, they are still $900,000 short.’ In the interim, while this airstrip is upgraded, they will have to run some 160 kilometres down a dirt road to Birdsville to pick up passengers and health workers and freight twice a week. It is an urgent request. I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary has already provided the department with a brief on that issue. I am hoping we will get a positive response from the government to assist this small rural community. Finally, regarding medical infrastructure, the coalition had the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, which was part of our Regional Partnerships program. That has been villainised by the government today, but it is a very important program. If there is something that we can do to assist in relation to medical facilities in rural and remote communities, it will be through the Rural Medical Infrastructure Program. In fact, in my own electorate the Birdsville medical clinic received some $900,000 from that infrastructure fund. At Aramac they received some $400,000 and Charleville—which is in my constituency as well—received some $400,000. The Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund allowed those communities to put a medical precinct in those communities. Doctors can come to the town and there are facilities for surgery and waiting rooms and the other associated infrastructure that comes with a medical centre. It is an important program and I once again urge the minister and the Labor government not to gut this program. It provides important financial support for these smaller communities, not for the big cities. We know that they are going to have 24-hour clinics in some of the cities. But I ask members opposite to think of those communities in rural and remote Australia where the large resources of this nation are located—the oil, gas, beef, coal and hard-rock industries—and support those wealth-generating industries and the communities that support them. Medical infrastructure is one of those vital parts of any successful and healthy community. I look forward with great interest to watching the progress of this bill. I hope it is not just a piece of paper that sits around this place unacted on. I will support the bill. I look forward to the infrastructure rolling out across Australia, not just in selected Labor areas or in the high-population areas but also in the rural and remote communities of Australia. 1995 17:30:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —What a great day today is for Australia. What a great day for infrastructure. In the true tradition of the Labor Party as nation builders, we are actually doing something in our first 100 days in government to make a significant improvement to this nation’s infrastructure—and not just meeting the need for physical infrastructure but improving how the process is managed and how we bring it forward. That was our commitment to the electorate and we are going to keep that commitment. In the great tradition of the Labor Party which saw us, in the eighties and nineties, reform the financial markets and banking, today we are reforming infrastructure. Today we are taking the next great step forward in terms of the things that need to be done in this country. I have always said that if the last 20 years were about anything they were about financial reform, banking reform and the economic status of this country. The next 20 years are about infrastructure reform. That is what we are doing today in delivering on our promise. I have to just take note here of comments by the previous speaker, the member for Maranoa. What he talked about was a great long list of everything that the coalition, in nearly 12 years in government, did not do—everything they ignored, everything they set to the side, everything they underfunded, everything they were going to do, but nothing that they actually did apart from sticking a few fences in a few spots and maybe a couple of bits and pieces of roads, which were all very welcome but, funnily enough, mostly in National Party seats. That was the great irony in the previous speaker saying he hoped this measure would not be used as a rort. If he knew anything about the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, if he understood anything about the process that has been put together in formulating this legislation, he would know that that is precisely the reason the Labor Party and the government have moved to set up Infrastructure Australia and the infrastructure coordinator. It is to take away the pork-barrelling and the rorting and to give this country a decent shot at the proper use of taxpayer funds to deliver infrastructure where it is needed most, and on a priority basis, not just where the National Party needs it most. So today is a very great day for all Australians because this legislation will make a huge difference and have a huge impact. This will set the scene for the next 20 years. In 20 years time, people will look back to this bill and say that it was the great regulatory change that brought in the framework that enabled the building of key infrastructure in this nation that would otherwise not have been possible because of the way, for more than a decade, that infrastructure had been misused, misrepresented, underfunded, pork-barrelled and completely botched by the previous government. I always lament all those missed opportunities, all the money that went to one project when it should not have gone there at all. Of course every project is important. However, some projects were not asked for or required by the local area, but they got the money anyway. The great thing to be said about Infrastructure Australia is that it will be a framework for guiding and advising government. I intend to take only 10 minutes in this debate so that the Main Committee can work through the issues it has to handle this afternoon, but I want to run through a few points. With Infrastructure Australia we will have for the first time a national, coordinated approach to infrastructure reform. It is about economic performance. It is about raising national productivity. Those are all key things. I only heard one of the previous speakers from the opposition but I am sure they talked about the legacy they picked up in 1996 and the legacy we have picked up now. Well, let me tell you that the legacy we picked up is the highest inflation in 16 years. This country is under real pressure. Interest rates are going through the roof, with 12 interest rate rises in a row. Productivity is falling through the floor. Our national debt is going through the roof. We have significant problems to deal with. There is a skills crisis and there is an infrastructure crisis. And let us not think for one minute we do not have in this country an infrastructure crisis which will have a real economic impact on everything that takes place. Look at the infrastructure bottlenecks in terms of our coal, our exports, our agricultural exports, the congestion on our roads and the time it takes people to get to and from work, let alone the goods that travel around this country on our freight roads—there is a really important job to be done. It is not easily done. It takes (a) a lot of money (b) a lot of commitment and (c) a willingness to do it right for the first time in this country. We need a fully coordinated approach through COAG, through the three tiers of government—the federal government, the state governments and local government, in partnership. You might think it has just been us calling on this to happen, that this was just some sort of election promise. Let me go through a bit of history because I think that is really important here. This mob on the other side, the new opposition, back in 1996 actually had a very similar policy. For a brief moment in history they believed there should be a coordinated approach. But then, when they won power and got drunk on it, they thought: ‘Let’s put that to the side; we’d rather just dictate where the money goes. Let’s forget about coordination; let’s just send it to those seats we think are more important than other seats.’ In the end, if you look at the litany of infrastructure development in this country, it was based more on which seat you held than on what was the biggest priority. History tells us clearly that key industry groups like the Business Council of Australia, CEDA, Australian Industry Group, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and Engineers Australia all called for a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning and development in this country. But those calls fell on deaf ears because the then Howard government ignored the calls of the community, of the Business Council, of all those independent voices, about what was the best way. They understood, like we understand today, the missing opportunities. I will give you one in my local area—there are hundreds right across the country. For 10 years I campaigned and lobbied on having the Ipswich Motorway, that vital piece of infrastructure, fully upgraded, not just in my electorate but in the electorate of Blair. Blair was held by a Liberal member who is no longer with us; instead, we now have the very fine member for Blair, Shayne Neumann. I congratulate him for being here for this very important bill. There were a whole heap of other road projects—the Bruce, the Cunningham, the Warrego and a whole range of roads across this country. But it was never important enough for the government, in more than a decade, to ever really do anything about those except when they smelt a political opportunity, saving the backsides of either one of their National Party members or one of their Liberal Party members. When it came to real infrastructure development, real reform, doing something that could be acceptable to the whole community, based on a real outcome in the national interest, we got nothing. That is the outcome from the former government after more than a decade of being in the job. They talk about the great economy they left us. Let me remind them of the great surpluses they had. We appreciated those surpluses but they were not spent on infrastructure. Where are the great days we used to have when the Labor Party, nation builders, actually did courageous things like the Snowy Mountains scheme? 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker —AusLink is four times bigger. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I am getting to it. The former member for Gwydir talked about AusLink being the greatest infrastructure project since the Snowy Mountains scheme. It beggars belief you could even compare the two in the same century, let alone one with the other. They are not even remotely similar in the sort of courage or commitment that was displayed. We supported AusLink 1 and AusLink 2. We will keep those programs and we will improve them. But we will go a step further than the former government. We are going to approach this from a real sense of partnership with the state governments, whoever they may be, and local governments. Infrastructure in this country is far too important to leave up to individuals and parties who hack it in for themselves. That is exactly what we got. While we are going back to the last century in terms of records, let me remind the former government, the coalition, of this: we now have some of the highest inflation that this country has had in some 16 years. Ordinary people, working people, are under real pressure. There are a whole range of economic circumstances where, while the economy generally speaking is good, there is a lot of pressure. You cannot argue the economic data. You cannot argue just one side of it; you have to argue both sides. But the real way forward in this is not only good economic management, which we are doing right now—tackling inflation and taking the pressure off high interest rates—but infrastructure, actually getting the productive capacity of this country up to a reasonable level. The problem we are going to face in the next two to three to five years is that, while we will continue to dig up the same amount of, or more, coal, we are not going to be able to ship it out. If coal prices, steel prices or the prices of other natural resources come down, we are going to feel the real economic impact of that. The former government, the Howard government, had an absolute boom in terms of nearly $400 billion added to the bottom line of the economy. It is easy to be a good Treasurer in great economic times; it is much, much harder, as we see the former Treasurer sitting there smirking as he always has, realising that he did not leave the economy in quite as good a condition as he thinks he did. I remember very well in this place the lambasting we used to get from the former Treasurer, coming in here and saying that he was the driver of a Ferrari and that it was a finely tuned racing car, a fine motor vehicle, that could not be entrusted to anyone else. The problem is he drove the Ferrari straight into a brick wall, wrecked it, walked away and then expected everyone else to pick up the pieces. We are prepared to take on that challenge and we are going to start by doing it right here today in meeting our election commitment of delivering Infrastructure Australia. I highly recommend this legislation to everyone in the House and say to the community simply this: for the first time in Australian history, we will have a regulated, properly controlled body that will look after the infrastructure needs of all Australians, not just those who live in certain seats. 1998 17:41:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I move: That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 1998 Bills R2921 1998 Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. 1998 17:42:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —The Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Bill 2008 aims to improve accountability and transparency arrangements for Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies, and align the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 with equivalent provisions in the Corporations Act 2001. These changes are based on experience from 10 years of operation of the act, which was introduced by the coalition government in 1996 as part of a package of four bills and associated measures designed to modernise controls on Commonwealth finances and over businesses owned or operated by the Commonwealth. The act brought a greater degree of uniformity and clarity to financial reporting standards applying to Commonwealth authorities and established standards of conduct for those engaged in the management of those entities. These amendments build on the act and are aimed at improving governance and accountability arrangements for bodies within the Australian government. The coalition supports any move to improve governance and accountability; in fact, the coalition has a proven track record when it comes to improving governance, accountability and transparency across a range of areas. We introduced accrual accounting to provide details of the full cost of service delivery. For the first time we published a balance sheet for the general government sector and the whole of the public sector. When Labor were last in government they had no idea and certainly we had no idea of what the value of the government’s assets were or key liabilities like the unfunded superannuation liability. We introduced for the first time consolidated whole-of-government financial reports audited by the Auditor-General and we introduced the outputs-outcomes framework to place the focus on what was actually being delivered for the money spent. We introduced legislation to bring 2,800 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations up to date with modern corporate governance and accountability standards. In 2003 it was the coalition that established the Defence Materiel Organisation, the DMO, as a prescribed agency, giving Australia’s largest project management organisation greater responsibility and accountability in providing better procurement to ensure equipment was delivered on time and on budget. The coalition paid attention to making migration settlement programs outcome orientated, accountable and focused on delivering services that ensured migrants, refugees and humanitarian entrants become independent, active participants in Australian society as quickly as possible. Under Labor last time, when they were last in government, settlement grants were distributed on political grounds rather than community need, while poor management and lack of accountability jeopardised settlement program delivery. Australia is a model in relation to transparency and accountability to countries around the world. The OECD Economic Survey of Australia released in February 2005 said: In the last decade of the 20th century, Australia became a model for other OECD countries in two respects: first, the tenacity and thoroughness with which deep structural reforms were proposed, discussed, legislated, implemented and followed-up in virtually all markets, creating a deep-seated “competition culture”; and second, the adoption of fiscal and monetary frameworks that emphasised transparency and accountability and established stability-oriented macro policies as a constant largely protected from political debate. Together, these structural and macro policy anchors conferred an enviable degree of resilience and flexibility on the Australian economy. The combination resulted in a prolonged period of good economic performance that shrugged off crises in its main trading partners as well as a devastating drought at home. The short-term outlook is for continuing strong growth of productivity and output, low inflation and budget surpluses accompanied by tax cuts. The point that needs to be made here is that, unlike the government, the coalition stands for: government remaining transparent and accountable for its decisions; minimising government waste and inefficiency, so the government’s investment in services like health, education, defence, the environment and transport is weighted towards services on the ground rather than administration; and disciplined financial management, so the government lives within its means, without imposing the burden of higher taxes or placing pressure on interest rates with deficits and government debt. On that point, it is a little bit rich for the Labor Party at the moment to blame inflation on the former coalition government and claim it now needs to cut government spending. The coalition should be remembered as having a proud record in economic and particularly financial management. We inherited a $10 billion deficit when we came to government, which we converted into around $10 billion surpluses. We inherited $96 billion of debt when we came into government in 1996, which we completely eliminated. We inherited a ballooning unfunded superannuation liability, which we addressed by creating the Future Fund, a fund which Labor has now already started to flag as one that it will raid into the future. The Labor Party are in no position at all to question the coalition on our financial management. It is absurd for Labor now to blame the coalition for inflationary pressures when Mr Swan in opposition actually opposed virtually all our proposals to help contain inflation, including eliminating debt, producing surpluses and liberalising workplace relations. Labor criticised our surpluses as being too large and always demanded extra spending in almost every area of government responsibility. And now Labor are claiming to be economic conservatives. Labor were paralysed in opposition for 11½ years because they ruined the economy when they were last in power. Families and people in business, small and large, could not forget the interest rates—in some cases over 20 per cent—on overdrafts and bill facilities; unemployment hit 10.9 per cent and the economy was faltering. Quite rightly, the Australian people would not trust Labor with the economy again for a period of almost 12 years; that was until November 24 last year. By that time the political minds of the ALP, including the now Treasurer, had decided they would have to convince, to fool, the Australian people they were economic conservatives just like the coalition. To regain office, they would have to pretend there was not a sliver of difference between the capacity of the coalition to manage the economy and the ability of Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd to do it. Essentially they needed to be able to argue to the Australian people that they could be trusted to manage a $1.1 trillion economy. Politically—and this is the important point—they could not let the Australian people see their economic incompetence again, or it would be electoral suicide. When Australians ask themselves why our economic history is being rewritten at the moment by Kevin Rudd, Lindsay Tanner, Wayne Swan and others— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! I ask that the member refer to other members by their titles. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —With pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker. With all those members and more on the Labor side, the reality is that they are talking down the Australian economy for political purposes. They are talking up the impact of inflation. They are talking up the prospect of market activity in terms of where they think rates will be. The Australian people should question the motives of people like the Treasurer and ask why he feels compelled at the moment to talk down the Australian economy, to shatter business and consumer confidence, in a fragile environment where internationally there are ramifications that will flow to our economy over the coming months and years. Labor aim to deliver a budget surplus of at least 1½ per cent of GDP in 2008-09. They claim that this will require discipline and an approach to spending which is hardline, particularly in relation to savings. But the truth of the matter is that 1½ per cent of GDP is not exceptional in the present circumstances, when the coalition left a strong, growing economy with low unemployment and zero net debt. When we came into government, $8 billion a year of government revenues flowed straight back out the door to service the interest bill that went with that $96 billion of debt. It is an absurdity for Labor to claim at the moment, with the fundamental strengths of the Australian economy, that they will not have the capacity to reach a surplus well beyond the 1½ per cent of GDP that is forecast. Labor say that future budget surpluses cannot be given back to taxpayers as they are inflationary but at the same time claim that the $31 billion in tax cuts promised in the election are not inflationary. The point needs to be made that one cannot have it both ways. Either tax cuts put pressure on inflation or they do not. The coalition turned around a budget deficit of over $10 billion in 1995-96 to deliver 10 surpluses in 12 budgets. In their last five budgets when they were last in government Labor produced cumulative deficits totalling $69 billion. Between 1990-91 and 1995-96, net government debt under Labor rose from $16.9 billion to a staggering $95.8 billion. As recently as 2004-05, if you want a better understanding of how Labor manages the economy, the state budgets were collectively in fiscal surplus by almost $4 billion. This year, the budgets of seven of the eight states and territories are forecast to be in fiscal deficit to the tune of nearly $6 billion. That represents a deterioration of around $10 billion in just three years, at the same time that the coalition repaid the $96 billion of debt which Labor had passed on to future generations. At the moment the Labor Party, particularly the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, is in a mode of running around suggesting that the so-called ‘razor gang’, which is nothing more than a political stunt, will guide the budget back into increased surplus and therefore bring downward pressure on interest rates. The reality is that there has been no transparency on the part of this government, and the most vulnerable have been given no guarantee that they will continue to receive the support they need. The minister for finance is saying that he is going to go out and solve government spending issues by slashing $15 million worth of Public Service travel and that somehow that is going to rectify the economic position—if it needs rectifying. That really goes to what a political stunt mode the minister and the Treasurer are in at the moment. I think that, at the moment, the Australian people—and, in particular, economists—are seeing through the pretty shallow political path that these people are heading down. There is no substance to the argument they are putting forward. This is a $1.1 trillion economy and the finance minister of this country is going out and suggesting that if public servants’ travel expenses were cut by $15 million, out of a $1,100 billion budget, that would somehow bring downward pressure on interest rates—at the same time that state governments are running up debts at record levels right round the country. This is an issue that more political journalists need to investigate, because this really is a political stunt which, over the first few months of the Rudd government, has gone terribly, terribly wrong. People are paying for this pain at the moment, given this talking down of consumer sentiment and consumer and business confidence. It really has long-term ramifications. I think that at the moment this is way beyond the grasp of a Treasurer who is clearly completely out of his depth. This is a Treasurer who, at this present time, has no capacity to deal with the complexities that face this government in terms of not just the domestic pressures but also the international pressures on our economy. The point needs to be made that, over the course of 12 years of economic management under the Howard government in this country, we were able to deal with issues such as the US going into recession. We were able to deal with a significant drought. We were able to deal with the realities that faced our country in an international sense. When economies right through Asia and in parts of Europe were suffering significant downturns, we were able to deal with all of those pressures, including inflationary pressures, right through our period of government. The reality is that it took a long time for the Treasurer to switch from opposition mode to government mode. He made the transition very difficult for himself by going out and for political reasons talking down the economy so that, if in the future interest rates did go up, Labor would not be saddled with the issue and somehow the origin of inflationary pressures would lie with the former government. That is the political argument that the government have tried to make. It is a false argument that went to the lack of credibility of this Treasurer. It is why when you talk to economists and people in financial sectors right around the country they laugh at the performance thus far of Treasurer Swan. It really has been a politically based performance that has certainly not focused on the economy in the responsible way this person should. Before the election, Labor pledged to increase financial assistance to older Australians, people with disabilities and carers. But we have heard in recent days that the razor gang wants to cut funding to the most disadvantaged. Labor claimed $643 million in savings. That was, again, a political stunt. Many of the programs are not being cut at all; they are just being moved within the balance sheets and are a mere drop in the ocean relative to the size of the economy and in terms of having a downward pressure on inflation. The true test of the upcoming budget will be whether or not the Labor Party has cost-cutting measures which run into the billions of dollars for single programs. The payment to carers totals about $1.7 billion. If the Labor Party is to commit to that sort of expenditure over the forward estimates over four years, that is expenditure in excess of $6 billion that the Labor Party has now walked away from, and no doubt its ERC process will be looking at ways by which it can slice government expenditure of that order. In my view, it is incumbent upon the Labor Party to come out and say ahead of the budget which of the sacred cows, if you like, they are going to slash. Are they going to slash childcare expenditure, which enjoyed a significant increase under the Howard government? Are they going to slash expenditure on health, which was an area where significant expenditure existed under the Howard government? Are they going to slash expenditure on defence, which again was an area which received significant support under the Howard government? Are they going to slash support to families through the family tax benefit part A or part B? I say to the member for Oxley: which of those policies would your constituents support slashing? Would they support abolition of the government’s support of the childcare tax rebate or the childcare benefit? With Amberley close to your electorate, would you support the Rudd government slashing the funding to defence? These are the sorts of areas that would need to be cut significantly by the Rudd government if they are to make significant inroads into the tens of billions of dollars that the Treasurer seems to be alluding to. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has been talking about the necessity of cutting billions of dollars worth of Commonwealth expenditure. Unless he cuts into those sorts of programs, this will have once again been only political rhetoric and will have made a farce of some of the statements that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Treasurer have made in relation to this debate so far. The reality for people such as the member for Oxley, who has been making false promises to his electorate for so many years, is that some programs of that nature will have to be cut if the Labor Party are to deliver on this promise of slashing government spending, because those are the main areas of expenditure. I see no evidence from the Labor Party as to how they are going to cut expenditure in those areas. Labor may talk about accountability, but this is not something that it practises in the area of financial management. Labor’s policy of giving state governments free rein over how they spend money from specific purpose payments means that federal Labor is effectively writing blank cheques for state Labor, despite their record of mismanagement and shocking service delivery. They have had terrible performance, particularly in Queensland. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —Rubbish! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —The member for Oxley jumps to the defence of people like Wayne Goss, Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —Great premiers. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —people who have squandered economic opportunity like no others, except perhaps those in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, and many local government authorities as well where Labor governs. The reality is that we need to put on the record that Labor when in government are in an economic sense nothing more than B-graders. When you look at somebody like the current Treasurer, he is laughed at not just by the banks but by the economists and by the financial markets. Now he is being laughed at by Australian families and by small business. For some of them, that is now turning into stark horror and terror, because they really are worried about where this Australian economy is headed under Wayne Swan. The first three months have certainly been a bad sign of where Labor is intending to take us. In conclusion, the coalition supports these amendments aimed at improving the governance and accountability arrangements of bodies within the Australian government. However, history shows us that Labor has at both a federal and a state level continually avoided appropriate levels of accountability and transparency. The practice appears to be continuing under Rudd Labor. This government must immediately stop the hypocrisy and start implementing its supposed program for accountability and transparency. Labor must stop the political ranting and raving and provide some underscoring to the confidence that was once there for businesses in particular so that they can continue to make investment decisions and decisions about employing staff and we can see continued growth in the Australian economy. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have at the moment no idea as to where the Australian economy is headed over the next 12 months. If we see in this country a slowing of growth similar to that which we are now seeing in the United States, the current Treasurer will have no capacity and no plan to deal with that. At the moment, he is clubbing the Australian economy to a slow death. It is a political path which is dangerous, not just for Australian business but also for Australian consumers. In conclusion, the opposition supports the bill for the reasons that I have outlined. 2003 18:02:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Bill 2008. One of my favourite TV shows was Yes, Minister, brilliantly written by Jonathon Lynn and Antony Jay. It tells the story of the often hapless yet crafty Jim Hacker, the minister for the fictitious Department of Administrative Affairs in the United Kingdom government in the 1980s, and the smooth-talking head of the department, Sir Humphrey Appleby. There are many famous episodes of Yes, Minister but perhaps my favourite is called A question of loyalty. The minister had to front a select committee looking into the affairs of the department. He is fully briefed—so he thinks—and he goes to the committee with a scrum of public servants. His nemesis, opposition MP Betty Oldham, the member for Derbyshire East and a member of the committee, had leaked to her a new book by a retired civil servant detailing government waste in the department. This causes the minister much embarrassment and frustration at the meeting. When it is Sir Humphrey’s turn to front the committee, he gives a vintage performance. I mention this because it highlights why the Rudd government’s amendment is so timely. I would just like to repeat a passage which humorously illustrates the point. Mrs Betty Oldham says: Isn’t this a fantastic waste of taxpayer’s money? Do you agree the money was wasted? Sir Humphrey Appleby replies: It is not for me to comment on government policy. You must ask the minister. Betty Oldham says: Look, Sir Humphrey, whatever we ask the Minister, he says is an administrative question for you, and whatever we ask you, you say is a policy question for the Minister. How do you suggest we find out what’s going on? Sir Humphrey then replies in his own way: Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while we have government policy to regard policy as the policy of Ministers and administration has the responsibility of the officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with the responsibility for the policy of administration of policy … Mrs Betty Oldham replies: That is a lot of meaningless drivel, isn’t it, Sir Humphrey? Sir Humphrey replies: It is not for me to comment on government policy. You must ask the minister. I speak in support of this bill because it talks about the policy of administration and the administration of policy. Its purpose is to amend the legislation that regulates the financial affairs of Commonwealth authorities and companies under section 7 of the relevant act. Under section 7, a Commonwealth authority is a body holding money on its own account as a body corporate incorporated for a public purpose by an act of parliament or regulation. Under section 34 of the act, a Commonwealth company remains a Corporations Act company in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest. It is these definitions that are being repealed under the new bill. The test that determines whether the Commonwealth controls a company has been improved under the new bill; hence, we have a better definition of what Commonwealth companies are. The existing section 4 states that a Commonwealth company does not include a company in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest through one or more of the interposed Commonwealth authorities or Commonwealth companies. This new definition is a vast improvement because it provides greater certainty as to when the Commonwealth controls a company. It controls it if, and only if, it controls the composition of the company’s board—that is, it can appoint or remove the majority of its directors—it controls greater than 50 per cent of the total votes at a general meeting; or it controls greater than 50 per cent of the issued share capital. Why does this esoteric legal definition matter at all? It matters because legislation that governs these issues talks about reporting and accountability of Commonwealth governments and it talks about the regulation of Commonwealth companies and Commonwealth authorities. Commonwealth companies have reporting obligations beyond mere companies operating under the Corporations Law. We are talking about taxpayers’ funds. We are talking about the need for informed transparency and accountability. Hitherto, there has been uncertainty and vagueness as to just what is a Commonwealth company and what is a Commonwealth authority. Henceforth, amendments will be put in plain English. The bill says quite clearly that a person’s appointment as a director of a company follows necessarily from the person being an agency head or a statutory office holder. Thereby, that person is accountable. That is important. We expect as much of company directors. This leads to another important reform in the bill. It aligns the act with the Corporations Law for offences, penalties and terminology. This is particularly so relating to the failure to prepare financial statements or have them properly audited. A further important reform is to section 27F(1) of the act. A director of a Commonwealth authority who has a material personal interest in a matter that relates to the affairs of the authority currently needs only to give notice to the other directors. Under the bill, that director must not be present when the matter is being considered at a meeting or vote on the matter. This is an admirable reform in the area of law relating to conflict of duty and interest, and it surprises me that it was not included in the first place when the original legislation was promulgated in 1997. Further, the new bill clarifies the use of credit cards by Commonwealth authorities and introduces penalties for their misuse. The existing act is silent on the issue. We currently live in a world of vagueness. The bill sets out that cash, goods and services can be obtained by a Commonwealth authority by use of a credit card or a credit voucher. Regulations pursuant to the act will specify who is authorised to use that credit card or voucher on behalf of the authority and the circumstances in which it may be used, where it may be kept and the maximum amount that may be borrowed. There are tough penalties of up to seven years in prison for those who so misuse. The bill also simplifies the application of the general policies of the Commonwealth government, making those policies more efficient and transparent. Section 28 and section 43 will both be replaced. This is important: under those two sections a minister may notify the directors of a Commonwealth authority in writing of general policies of the Commonwealth government. The responsible minister must consult the directors before notifying them of government policies. This is an extraordinary reversal of what I think the relationship should be between elected government officials and the public service. This section in its original form could easily have been drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby out of Yes, Minister. He would have loved the section, because poor old Jim Hacker, the minister, was always required to consult with Sir Humphrey before even the general policies of the fictitious Department of Administrative Affairs were applied. Under the existing act, directors must ensure as far as practicable that policies are carried out in relation to subsidiaries of the authority. It is hard to see how they can do it. It is full of vagueness and obscurity, and I am certain Sir Humphrey could have drafted it even better than that. Even then, under this existing legislation, the minister could in writing exempt the directors of a Commonwealth authority from carrying out the general policies of the Commonwealth government. Section 43 of the act applies the same appalling drafting and bad public policy to Commonwealth companies. Really, the previous Howard government should be ashamed of itself for this particular piece of legislation in those sections. I am pleased that the new sections in relation to Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies make it plain who is in charge: the government is here to set the policy, and the public servants are here to execute it. The new provisions state explicitly that directors of Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies must ensure those entities comply with the general policy orders to the extent to which those apply. Further, directors may even exclude their requirements to comply with that order in relation to the ABC, the SBS, the ANU and the AIDC—and rightly so. The new bill is important in this regard—it has consequences that the directors of a Commonwealth authority or Commonwealth company, and not the Auditor-General, must provide financial statements and audited reports to the responsible minister. Also, the new bill requires all Commonwealth companies to provide a base level of annual reporting to the responsible minister, whose duty it is to table the report in parliament. Since the late 1990s, we have seen a toughening of duties and obligations for company directors under the Corporations Law. When the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act was enacted in 1970, it was modelled on the Corporations Law which was then enacted. In those days, officers’ duties were far less onerous and the corporate veil of protection was stronger than it is today. I welcome the strict liability offences under section 27F(1A), a new provision which states that strict liability applies to the circumstance where the director of a Commonwealth authority has a material personal interest in a matter that relates to the affairs of that authority—and so it should. They should be found strictly liable. I applaud the government in respect of the notification provision for general policies. General policies apply to Commonwealth companies, and Commonwealth authorities will now be identifiable. Those general policies will be published on a federal registry of legislative instruments pursuant to the Legislative Instruments Act, and the Australian public will then be better informed accordingly. These provisions show that the Rudd Labor government is serious about openness, good corporate governance and accountability. The amendments in the bill bring the bill and the legislation into line with the Corporations Law. The act when it was first enacted detailed rules about reporting and accountability, but we have had 10 years of corporate experience since that time. Much has changed in our society’s attitude towards corporations concerning corporate governance and accountability, and we expect more of companies and directors in the private sector. We expect them to follow the same rigorous rules that we expect also of Commonwealth companies and Commonwealth authorities and their directors. I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the member for Dickson, who seemed to be in denial when it came to so much of the previous Howard government’s performance—accepting all of the credit but taking none of the responsibility. He was then both politician and prophet, prophesying that the Rudd Labor government would excise and not commit itself to the commitments it made in the last election. I have news for him: we will carry out all the commitments that we made in Dickson as well as in Blair. The Rudd Labor government is fair dinkum when it comes to promoting the public interest. It is fair dinkum about not giving legislative licence to the Public Service to frustrate the policies of the elected government of this nation. Genuine reform to improve transparency, efficiency controls and practice is needed. The Rudd Labor government is prepared to do it. This bill is yet another step in the government’s reformist agenda to restore trust and integrity in government. This government is determined to build a modern forward looking and thinking Australia. It is determined to improve Public Service efficiency and get value for taxpayers’ dollars. The government is determined to face the challenge of economic management and accountability. The Rudd Labor government will ensure those who run Commonwealth companies and Commonwealth authorities report properly, act with probity and engage in best practice. Australia needs an impartial, competent public service committed to securing the public interest. The Rudd Labor government is determined to see it happen and any Sir Humphreys in the Public Service should beware. 2006 18:15:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise also in support of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Bill 2008, which is a bill to amend an important piece of Commonwealth legislation, the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. This act is an act that governs reporting and management requirements that are imposed on a range of statutory authorities and a number of Commonwealth companies in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest. By way of illustration, among the statutory authorities are important bodies such as the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Government Solicitor, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the land councils in the Northern Territory and a range of other bodies—the Australian War Memorial too is an authority that is governed as to its reporting and management requirements by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. Equally there is a range of companies in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest that are governed by this act. By way of illustration, the National Australia Day Council, Film Australia Ltd, the Telstra Sale Company Ltd and the Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd give the Committee some idea of the nature of the corporations which are governed by this legislation. This amending bill picks up a range of requirements that are long overdue. It simplifies the process for applying general policies of the Australian government to make it more efficient and transparent through the introduction of a procedure known as general policy orders, which will replace the current process that is provided for under sections 28 and 43 of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. It will require all Commonwealth companies to provide a base level of annual reporting to their responsible minister, who then tables the report in parliament. It will better align—this is one of the more important features of the legislation—the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act with the Corporations Act, particularly in relation to offences and in relation to penalties and terminology, so as to get a meshing between the Corporations Act 2001 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. Another purpose of this legislation is to clarify the use of credit cards by Commonwealth authorities and to introduce penalties for the misuse of those credit cards. It makes, I suppose, what could be described as a ‘machinery change’ in improving the test to determine whether the Commonwealth controls a company and thus better defines what a Commonwealth company is. It provides that directors of a Commonwealth authority or a Commonwealth company must provide financial statements and audit reports of subsidiaries to their responsible minister. It makes some quite important clarifications about compliance with statutory and other duties by amending the protection of directors and public servants in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act to ensure there is protection given to the persons who are intended to be covered. All in all, this set of reforms is directed at achieving consistency, transparency, accountability and the reduction of red tape—all of which aims are touchstones for the Rudd Labor government, all of which you will hear much more about in the years to come. I will start first with the general policy orders change which is proposed by this bill. That is a measure which is very directly aimed at improving transparency. The Rudd government is committed to transparency. This change will enable the making of general policy orders which will be publicly available. They will be listed on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and be more readily identifiable therefore to parliament, to the public and of course to Commonwealth authorities and wholly Commonwealth owned companies. It will not change the way in which a general policy is developed. What it will change is the way in which such policies will be notified in a transparent way to be issued by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation through a general policy order and listed on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. It will also improve consistency of the application of policy and reduce red tape, again those being themes of the Rudd Labor government. There are some important changes proposed by this bill to reporting requirements to be imposed on Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. Again, the aim of these changes is to improve consistency. The bill does so by ensuring there will be consistent reporting requirements imposed by treating henceforth all of the Commonwealth companies as public companies, notwithstanding that some of them are technically proprietary companies and have been, since changes were made to the Corporations Act, theoretically exempt from the requirement to prepare annual reports. That is not seen as appropriate. It is seen as appropriate that all Commonwealth companies should report in a consistent way. This bill will achieve consistency in that area. There will also be increases in reporting by wholly owned Commonwealth companies that are outlined in the bill. There are important alignments to be made by this bill with present provisions of the Corporations Act. I digress to make the comment that, while it is desirable that there be alignment of the provisions that apply to Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies with the provisions of the Corporations Act, the Corporations Act itself is probably sadly in need of some reform. A former Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, was moved to describe the Corporations Law—that is, the predecessor law of the Corporations Act 2001—in 1992, some 15 years ago, in these terms: Oscar Wilde would have regarded our modern Corporations Law not only as uneatable, but also indigestible and incomprehensible. Nothing much has changed in the 15 years since Sir Anthony Mason spoke. I regret to say that the Corporations Act has, if anything, only got more indigestible and incomprehensible since. It is to be hoped that in the short term rather than in the long term we will be able to pay attention to the whole of the provisions of the Corporations Act in order to try to eliminate some of the immense complexity of that piece of legislation. I speak partly as a former practitioner, as someone who has had to work with the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and its predecessor legislation. It is very much a project that I hope the Rudd government will be able to pick up. While it is desirable that there be alignment, for present purposes, of the requirements that apply to officers of Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies with the reporting requirements that apply to companies generally under the Corporations Act, it is a matter of regret that in one sense we are imposing the same level of complexity that one can find in the Corporations Act on those Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. The particular alignments—which I do say are appropriate, notwithstanding the complexity of the provisions of the Corporations Act that they are being brought into line with—deal with, first of all, including a definition of ‘senior manager’ to make the bill consistent with the provisions of the Corporations Act. As the member for Blair explained, we are going to see increased consistency with Corporations Act offences and penalties so as to bring the provisions that apply to Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies into line with the ‘officers’ duties’ provisions that are found in the Corporations Act. There are also going to be matching provisions to impose a criminal penalty where there is a contravention of a reporting rule, similar to the Corporations Act. There are going to be some matching provisions to bring accounting records requirements into line with the Corporations Act. Importantly, again in order to achieve consistency with the Corporations Act, there are going to be provisions in relation to a failure to disclose material personal interests. Also relating to alignment with the Corporations Act there is presently a very important provision in section 27N of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act which prohibits a Commonwealth authority from insuring its officers against wilful breach of duty, misuse of position or misuse of information. That gives effect to a very important principle relating to corporations, which is that it is wholly inappropriate and improper for a corporation to seek to insure its officers against wilful breaches of duty and wilful misuse of position. This bill will introduce a strict liability element in the same fashion as there is a strict liability element applied to this particular offence in the matching provision in the present corporations legislation. I will mention one other alignment where consistency is being achieved with the Corporations Act provisions, and that is the provisions of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act that— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 6.40 pm 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—It being 6.40 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. 2009 Statements by Members 2009 2009 18:41:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Today I wish to express my congratulations and thanks to a country and a number of its citizens. The country is Cuba, and the citizens are the 177 members of a Cuban medical team which returned to Cuba last week after two years of service to the people of East Timor. As members would know, the past two years have been marked by outbreaks of conflict in East Timor, requiring Australia to send additional military and police personnel. During this time the Cuban doctors were the only foreign medical team to remain in place. The team provided over two million consultations, often in the midst of violent situations. The team achieved a remarkable reduction in the infant mortality rate in East Timor. The benefits will be ongoing, as the Cuban team assisted in the creation of a medical facility which is training 148 East Timorese doctors to continue that much-needed work. The Cuban assistance to East Timor is only part of Cuba’s contribution. They are providing and training medical professionals to Latin America, Africa and the Asia-Pacific regions. While Australia can be proud of its military involvement in East Timor, the humanitarian contribution of Cuba and its people is worthy of our thanks—congratulations on a job well done. 2009 2009 18:43:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the chamber the problem being faced by permanent residents of my electorate of Forrest when they attempt to become Australian citizens and are required to sit the citizenship test. The government needs to ensure that adequate numbers of professionally trained people and adequate computer infrastructure are available to assist applicants with the citizenship test process to become Australian citizens. Many permanent residents in my electorate who were born in the United Kingdom are included in the national total of some 170,000 UK permanent residents in Australia eligible to become Australian citizens. One of my Forrest constituents, Mrs Maria Radosavljevac, came to Australia when she was eight years old on her mother’s passport. She married an Australian-born resident, raised three children and decided to treat the children to an overseas holiday at the end of the year. Thankfully, they have planned well in advance, because there is a five-month queue to sit the Australian citizenship test and then a further six months are needed to complete the rest of the process. We need additional resources. There is only one office for sitting the test in the regional area of Bunbury, and they fail to tell you there is only one computer to service the entire south-west region and also that Immigration personnel must oversee the test. We need to encourage Australian permanent residents from the United Kingdom to become Australian citizens, and the government must allocate sufficient resources and facilities. (Time expired) 2010 2010 18:44:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I would like to acknowledge the passing of one of Labor’s true believers and stalwarts, Mary Mildred Heffernan, otherwise known to most people as Molly. Molly was a stalwart of the labour movement—a one-eyed Labor supporter. Molly was born in Clarendon and, after marrying her husband, Luke, she moved to a house in Christies Beach, where she remained until her passing. For many years, Molly took a back seat in politics, leaving it to her husband, who was state secretary of the AMWU. It was after his passing, and after being doorknocked by the local state member, John Hill, that she became an active member. Molly would help out in any way she could. One example of this is when she used her 90th birthday celebration to help me, as the candidate for Kingston, meet the electors. Her enthusiasm for the Labor Party was matched only by her enthusiasm for her beloved football team, the Adelaide Crows. Her dedication to volunteering in our community, though, went well beyond the Labor Party. She spent many years involved as a volunteer in Little Athletics. Later, when her husband went blind, she fought very hard to establish, and was successful in establishing, the southern outreach office of the Royal Society for the Blind. Molly passed away peacefully at 90 years of age and will be very much missed. I take this opportunity to pass on my sincere condolences to her family. 2010 2010 18:46:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —On Sunday I attended the Annual Heritage Park Fair, in Castle Hill, which this year commemorated the 204th anniversary of the Castle Hill convict rebellion. This was the first ever convict rebellion on Australian soil and took place on the site of the modern-day Heritage Park. It was from this site that Governor King gave the suburb of Castle Hill its name, back in 1802, and declared the area the third convict settlement after Sydney and Parramatta. On 4 March 1804, 250 convicts broke out of the barracks at the government farm in Castle Hill, overpowered the guards and set fire to farms throughout Baulkham Hills and Winston Hills. The Castle Hill Heritage Park is a site of national importance and one of the nation’s most significant landmarks. The Castle Hill Heritage Park remains one of the least known government farms, dating back to 1801. However, with the enthusiasm of those involved in the commemoration on Sunday, I am sure the recognition of this important heritage site will only strengthen. I will work in this House to see greater state and federal funding given to, and recognition of, such an important and valuable resource for future generations. I would like to especially congratulate Warren Bowland of the Castle Hill Heritage Park 355 Management Committee and their dedicated volunteers Ian Nowland and David Sommerlad; the Hills District Historical Society; and Elizabeth Roberts, the Executive Director of the Convict Trail Project. Finally, I would like to especially congratulate and thank the talented young men and women of Northmead High School who played out a vivid and intense re-enactment of the battle scene at Castle Hill. They certainly have bright futures ahead of them and were great ambassadors for their parents, their school and the electorate of Mitchell. 2011 2011 18:47:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —I would like to thank the Gawler Health Foundation for their role in arranging a McLeod’s Daughters farewell. It was a farewell for a great series, which has been going since 2001. I have a list of service clubs and community groups to thank: the Lions; Apex; the Quarter Horse Association; the Zion Lutheran school; the Gawler Centrals Cricket Club; the Rotary Club of Gawler Light, for running the bar; the Rotary Club of Gawler, for providing the sunshades; the Gawler Health Service Craft Group; the Gawler Community Bus; Ron Sanders, for providing a crane; Bob and Marj Ahrens, of Ahrens Engineering, for providing the stage; the Gawler Visitor Information Centre; Willo’s Shed, which is a men’s shed, for looking after the toilets; the Scouts; the Bunyip Press; the Willaston Hotel; the Freeling Primary School; the Gawler Primary School; the town of Gawler; the Gawler Tourism and Promotions Committee; the Gawler Sport and Recreation Centre; St Johns; SAPOL; Krystal Collins; Bec Lavelle; the Trish Wilson Band; Ross Estate Wines; the Gungellan Coffee Break and Browse; the Gungellan Hotel; Bunyip Print; Steinborner by Design; the Gawler Health Foundation Board and their partners; the Sheoak Log CFS; Ivan Venning; Mayor Brian Sambell, councillors and staff; the Gawler Show Society; the Gawler Greyhound Club; and Tony Piccolo, the state member for Light, and his office. It was a great event. There were literally thousands of people there. (Time expired) 2011 2011 18:49:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I wish to speak about the policing crisis on the Mornington Peninsula and to speak in support of District Inspector Gordon Charteris. Very recently, there was an important meeting on the Mornington Peninsula of police from throughout that area and the community. The message from these very brave police was: ‘We believe in our community, we support our community but we need the support of additional resources.’ They do a fantastic job, but what is most important is that they were faced with a policing crisis. They dealt with that issue: they stood up in public, they declared the need for support and they did so at the risk of losing their careers. In particular, District Inspector Gordon Charteris stood up and laid out the case for more policing on the peninsula. He is correct, he is courageous and he needs to be supported. There is a very real chance that he will be subject to retribution from the Victorian government. This cannot stand and it will not be allowed to happen. We will fight it and work with the local police on every front to ensure that somebody as courageous as Gordon Charteris is protected, that his message is listened to and that additional police resources for Hastings, Mornington and Rosebud are provided. Above all else, if our democracy means anything at a local level it means that courageous people such as Gordon Charteris should be supported and protected. The Victorian government must guarantee that his career is safe. (Time expired) 2012 2012 18:50:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I want to pay tribute to the work done in my electorate by the Friends of Braeside Park. Braeside Park is a large area of restored native vegetation which forms part of the Kingston green wedge. This an important attribute of planning in my electorate because it provides relief from the large areas of suburban development that otherwise dominate most of the electorate. Braeside Park represents a very important area of native vegetation within the electorate because most of the native vegetation of the Port Phillip area has been removed by the processes of settlement over the last 150 or 160 years. The consequence is that there are very few areas of native vegetation. But through careful replanting and study of the indigenous species of the Port Phillip area, it has proved possible to achieve a situation whereby some areas of, in effect, rehabilitated indigenous vegetation have now been created. The Friends of Braeside Park work at weekends during the year on organised planting sessions with the assistance of state authorities. (Time expired) 2012 2012 18:52:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to praise the efforts of the Liberal team at the recent Gold Coast election. Whilst the result was clearly not what we had hoped for, the effort, the support and the team work that went into the campaign were second to none. Let me firstly praise FEC chairman Peter Gallus for his foresight and the work he put in. It was a sterling job—well done. Let me also acknowledge the six divisional candidates who ran in the area of Fadden—division 1, Cher Coad; division 2, Cheryle Royle; division 3, Keith Douglas; division 4, George Frame; division 5, Daren Riley; division 6, Grant Thompson—and, of course, the mayoral candidate Tom Tate. Whilst a number of results are outstanding, the six candidates and the mayoral candidate put in an outstanding effort. Let me also thank the Fadden branches for their work in supporting and manning the booths. It was a credit to the Liberal Party on the Gold Coast. Let me say a big ‘well done’. 2012 2012 18:53:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —In the time available to me I want to express my very great concern over events in Tibet and the actions of the communist Chinese authorities in suppressing what I believe ought to be the democratic ability of people to express their points of view. I am a great admirer of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and I am deputy chairman of the all-party group for Tibet in this place. I have to say that the Dalai Lama is one of the people I most admire. No-one in this world has had to put up with more than he has, yet he does not seem to bear any particular grudges. When the people of Tibet express their quite reasonable concerns, the Chinese authorities clamp down on them in a way that is completely unacceptable for a country which is hosting the Olympics this year. I support the continuation of the Beijing Olympics, as does His Holiness the Dalai Lama, but I want to express my concern and I hope that the Chinese back off. Australia does not recognise the independence of Tibet. This is a country which was occupied by force by the Chinese authorities, yet the world recognises Chinese authority over Tibet. One cannot possibly support the actions against innocent Tibetan citizens carried out by the aggressive Chinese forces. I ask China to reconsider. If it wants to take its place in the world as a major power then it must respect human rights. It must respect the rights of individual Tibetan citizens. (Time expired) 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Order! In accordance with standing order 192(a), the time for members’ statements has concluded. 2013 Private Members' Business 2013 Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Hall: That the House: recognises that epilepsy is the most common serious brain disorder and is the most universal of all medical disorders; acknowledges that 200,000 people live with epilepsy at any one time in Australia and that up to three times as many Australians will have epilepsy at some time in their lives; that people living with epilepsy are disadvantaged by lack of research into the disorder and by the lack of a national plan for epilepsy or deeming it a disorder that is a national priority; acknowledges the impact that epilepsy has on the lives of people living with it; calls on the Australian Government to fund greater research into epilepsy; and calls on the Australian Government to establish a nationwide educational strategy on epilepsy modelled on the World Health Organisation’s global campaign. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. 2013 18:55:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —The World Health Organisation has identified that epilepsy is arguably the most misunderstood, most stigmatised and most underresourced health condition in the world today. There are an estimated 60-plus million people with epilepsy in the world, including at any one time around 200,000 Australian citizens. While Australia has a great deal to be proud about in its medical treatment of people with epilepsy, there are many for whom current medical treatments are woefully inadequate. As many as 10 per cent of Australians with epilepsy have poor control of their seizures, and for a smaller percentage there is so little control that life is almost unbearable for them and for those who love and care for them. I have experienced this at a personal level. My sister-in-law has suffered from uncontrollable epilepsy since she was 10 years of age, and I know the impact that it has had on her and her family’s lives. In countries such as the Netherlands and England, for people with uncontrollable or refractory seizures, programs exist that enable them to spend the time needed to be safely taken off all their medications and then reassessed and remedicated in light of the new diagnostic assessments. In conjunction with medical makeover and some social and employment support, help with developing independent living skills and whatever else is needed to get the person back on their feet with a chance of a better life. It is a more comprehensive approach than is offered anywhere in Australia. Once again, I can speak from experience, having worked with people with disabilities and epilepsy prior to coming into parliament. Even where seizures are fairly well controlled, the truth is there is often an accompanying sense of shame and fear attached to this condition. There are many burdens borne by people who live with epilepsy which make it particularly difficult to diagnose and to deal with. Epilepsy is a very complex condition and manifests itself in many ways. People living with uncontrolled or refractory epilepsy suffer enormous and unnecessary pain and hardship. It is time for us in Australia to accept the challenge and take steps to make the lasting changes to the lives of people with epilepsy and their carers, whose lives are impacted on in various ways. The recent mental health initiatives are a good example of what governments can achieve. Despite significant medical research and treatment initiatives, there has been a failure to address many of the issues facing people living with epilepsy. The Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia, which is the Australian chapter of the International Bureau for Epilepsy, is a key player in the World Health Organisation’s global campaign. The JECA has asked that a national epilepsy working group be established and resourced to oversee a national public education program, in tandem with an applied social research program to ensure that the right messages are being targeted to the right people, and to develop strategies to address many of the issues faced by people with epilepsy based upon credible, rigorous applied social research. Areas requiring urgent attention include looking at the impact of epilepsy in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; developing a better informed and more workable national response to the transport and driving difficulties faced by people living with epilepsy; ensuring appropriate, timely diagnosis and assessment is possible for all Australians who experience seizures, not just those living in selected capital cities; and making it possible for people whose seizures are totally uncontrollable to access longer term, up to nine months, reassessment and treatment centres. The critical role of trained epilepsy counsellors working throughout Australia with state and territory epilepsy associations needs to be recognised and given consistent support by the states, led by the Commonwealth. We need to listen to expert groups such as the Epilepsy Society of Australia and the American Academy for Neuroscience and put an immediate end to prescribing and dispensing practices that are high risk to people with epilepsy. The Joint Epilepsy Council has asked the parliament to form a parliamentary friends of epilepsy group. I am pleased to advise that this will take place. In conjunction with Senator Humphries, I will convene this group. We hope to launch it on 27 May this year. I hope that those people who are speaking in the debate will become members of this group because I believe it is a way by which we can make real changes. We will work to ensure that people living with epilepsy are able to be included in the mainstream life of Australia and, as the World Health Organisation global campaign puts it, ‘come out of the shadows’. 2014 19:00:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —One of the more memorable experiences I had as a young child in primary school was when another child suffered an epileptic fit. As I had not heard of epilepsy, I was quite shocked by this particular fit and how this girl reacted. Therefore, I am ashamed to say, I and other students moved some distance from this person because we simply did not understand what epilepsy was. We did not understand then that so many Australians suffered from epilepsy. Today 200,000 Australians suffer from epilepsy on a regular basis. It is very clear that this is a disease that really needs more research. Obviously, it is a disease about which most people in the community have insufficient knowledge. While I and others in primary school saw what occurred to this particular child, I suspect that in 2008, were a similar event to occur in a school anywhere in Australia, students would react in much the same way as we did at that time. That means that, during the ensuing years, we as a country simply have not done enough to improve our community store of knowledge of this insidious disease. We simply have not spent the money we need to spend to ensure that research is undertaken to try to do whatever we can to both find a cure for this disease and make sure that those living with this disease are able to do so in the best possible manner. Thirty per cent of epilepsy cases have an identifiable cause ranging from head trauma, viral infection and substance abuse to brain tumours or stroke. But 70 per cent of epilepsy cases have no known cause. I imagine that when an epileptic situation occurs in a family, particularly a family which has not had any prior history of epilepsy, there must be a great lack of understanding and, I suppose, a failure of a willingness to accept the particular diagnosis. While the types of seizures experienced by sufferers vary quite dramatically, from simple moments of inattention lasting only seconds to complete loss of muscular control for several minutes, it is not difficult to understand that, regardless of the degree of severity of an epileptic seizure, one ought to sympathise with those who suffer from this disease given the obvious concern they must harbour as they go through their daily lives. As we all know, significant injuries can arise as a result of a seizure. They range from head injuries as a result of falls, through to those injuries from other accidents that occur as a result of a sudden epileptic seizure. For those diagnosed with epilepsy and their families, such a concern is never far away. The unease such people carry as a result of not knowing when or where an episode could occur is clearly a matter that must be a constant worry. It is also a real concern for sufferers that their seizure might impact on others, and it is true to say that those who have been unable to satisfactorily manage their condition have been forced to give up pursuits such as swimming or driving a car, which of course puts further demands on their loved ones. I suspect that those people who suffer from epilepsy, were a seizure to occur in the workplace, would be concerned about the impact on their job prospects. Even though the person concerned could well have the same capacity as anyone else to carry out a particular role, if there were a collapse at work, particularly a dramatic collapse, that would work to their disadvantage. It would seem that in such cases many sufferers would sustain a loss of job opportunity and prospects. They would certainly suffer a loss of promotion and in some cases a loss of job. It is, I understand, possible for anyone under certain circumstances to succumb to an epileptic seizure and it is only when someone suffers a series of those seizures that epilepsy is ultimately diagnosed. I could talk at length about epilepsy and go into many more details but regrettably time is short. I believe, while we have made enormous medical advances in so many areas and while, as a country, we have much to be proud of with our health system, that does not mean we ought to be complacent. There is a group of people who suffer from epilepsy in their families and who do warrant, in my view, additional research to make sure that we are able to get more positive outcomes to let those living with epilepsy have a very much higher quality of life. 2015 19:05:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —Epilepsy affects approximately 50 million people across the globe. It accounts for one per cent of the burden of disease worldwide. Nearly 80 per cent of the burden of epilepsy is in the developing world. More than 80 per cent of the people in some developing countries receive no treatment at all. Epilepsy is a very common but serious disorder of the brain. It is up there with depression, Alzheimer’s, dementia and other brain disorders in commonality. According to the World Health Organisation’s Global Campaign against Epilepsy report in 2005, it ranks with breast cancer in women and lung cancer in men in terms of commonality. This report makes it very clear that those people suffering from epilepsy are ‘forced into the shadows’. They suffer far more than seizures; they suffer from ‘fear, misunderstanding and the resulting social stigma and discrimination’. The seizures are unpredictable but still many people do not understand that the disorder is noncommunicable. In ancient times those suffering from this disorder were considered to be suffering from demonic influence or possession and treated as outcasts—lepers, indeed. Many myths and superstitions abounded. One wonders whether reports in the Bible were really of epileptic fits rather than the casting out of demons et cetera. Fortunately, we have moved on since then, but not far enough. In 1997 the Global Campaign against Epilepsy was launched by the World Health Organisation, in consultation with other bodies, ‘to improve acceptability, treatment, services and prevention of epilepsy worldwide’. In Australia, we need to acknowledge that one in 120 people suffer from epilepsy and that up to five per cent of people in our society may have a seizure at some time in their lives. Unfortunately, it is usually only when seizures are recurrent that diagnosis occurs. Often epileptic seizures are put down to febrile convulsions or some other cause. Many people outgrow epilepsy or go into long-term remission, suffering no further seizures. In other words, epilepsy is not always a lifetime condition. That is a fact not always understood. In my family we have had our own experience. In Maryborough on 26 December 1990, my eldest daughter, Alex, had seizures. After fitting for some time she lay motionless in my arms, lifeless, as I took her to the Maryborough Base Hospital. She was hospitalised for many days. My wife was pregnant with our second daughter. I did the night shifts and Carolyn, my wife, did the day shifts. Subsequently, Alex had further seizures in Ipswich, our home town, and was hospitalised yet again. I worked out then that medical diagnosis was problematic, confused and often difficult. Alex was put on Epilim and she was on it for a long time. Her prognosis was uncertain, and we lived with the memory and with fear and anxiety about what might happen in the future. Fortunately for Carolyn and me, Alex has become seizure free and she no longer requires medication. She is now a very happy, healthy and opinionated young woman of nearly 19 years of age. But the experience for me is seared into my brain and, as a parent, I will not forget it as long as I live. It is one of those memories I will take to my grave. I can barely imagine what life must be like for those parents and children who suffer and for sufferers generally. I only suffered it vicariously. We must help. We must do more. We must lift the veil of ignorance. We must fund more research. We must engage in education programs to improve community awareness. We must encourage philanthropic donations and support families and individuals better with confidence-building assistance and practical help. High-profile sufferers such as Wally Lewis, the Australian test rugby league great, have brought home the message that epilepsy can strike anyone. It is not just specialist surgical cases which must be the focus. We need programs in Australia to enable us to spend time getting people off medication and then reassessing them and remedicating them when necessary after a new diagnosis has been undertaken. They have these programs in western Europe but not here. I urge the federal government to heed the voice of the Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia in this regard. Community health centres are an ideal way to assist people. I think that the government’s super GP clinics can play a role in promotion, education and medical service delivery and I call on the government to place a greater emphasis on dealing with this very important issue accordingly. 2017 19:10:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Shortland. Approximately one in 120 people have epilepsy and approximately 17,000 people in Western Australia suffer from epilepsy. Anyone can be affected by seizures at any age but epilepsy is most frequently diagnosed in infancy, childhood, adolescence and old age. Epilepsy is more than three times as common as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and cerebral palsy. Epilepsy is a condition of the brain and is not a mental illness. It is commonly thought that epilepsy always involves convulsions or grand mal seizures. In fact, there are around 40 different types of seizures. Many people outgrow or have a long-term remission from seizures. Epilepsy is not necessarily a lifelong disorder, but it can have profound social, physical and psychological consequences. People who have epilepsy continually face social stigma and exclusion. A fundamental part of reducing the stigma is raising public and professional awareness. There is the Epilepsy Association of Western Australia, which has been in operation since 1963 and is run by a committee of volunteers. It aims to raise the profile of epilepsy in the community, act as an advocate for persons with epilepsy and their families, provide education to those living with epilepsy, provide education to the community, provide support services to those touched by epilepsy and improve the quality of life of persons with epilepsy to enable them to integrate successfully in the community and enjoy a full and productive lifestyle. The Epilepsy Association of Western Australia is able to provide support services to people living with epilepsy due to the generous continued support of many donors. Whether it is through donations, regular giving, support by the WA Lotteries Commission, people leaving a bequest in their will, workplace giving or marathon running, the public support assists the Epilepsy Association to continue to provide these much-needed services. Of course, the Epilepsy Association has had to be continually creative and innovative in thinking up ways to make it easy for the public to donate, and it has partnered with projects such as Everyday Hero and ‘action partner’ to make donating more convenient for loyal supporters to ensure continued health for people living with epilepsy and their families. Even though there have been significant dollars contributed to this in the past, there is always a need for more. In fact, the Australian government, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, provided $8.3 million in funding. Professor Peter Gage and his team from Canberra’s Australian National University received $400,000 to undertake research that aimed to better understand the function of anti-epileptic drugs, anaesthetics and tranquillisers, which act by modulating specific protein receptors in the brain. Building on his earlier research, Professor Gage’s project studied mutations in receptors found to be associated with some forms of epilepsy. Professor Gage and his team believe that, if the properties and actions of anaesthetics, tranquillisers and anti-epileptic drugs are better understood, it is possible that new, more selective drugs could be discovered. There is a strong need for these types of drugs, with the potential annual market estimated to be worth over $2.7 billion. This seriously equates to a genuine need in the community for all forms of resources to be devoted to this particular condition. Anybody who has lived with, worked with or been affected by those who have epilepsy could only support a greater level of funding for all forms of research and for that which assists people to integrate with their local communities and families. 2018 19:15:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise tonight to speak in support of the motion brought to the House by the member for Shortland. The electorate of Shortland borders my electorate of Dobell, and I thank the member for Shortland for once again bringing a motion to the House that advocates fairness and justice. As the motion states, epilepsy is the most common serious brain disorder. Everyone in this room and everyone in this parliament will know someone who has suffered from epilepsy. Prior to the late 19th century, epilepsy was generally seen as a form of insanity or possession. It has always been a condition that has caused alarm to many people and it can still disturb people who witness convulsions. There are around 200,000 people diagnosed with epilepsy at any one time in Australia, with possibly another half a million family members involved in their care. There are somewhere between 360,000 and 540,000 Australians who will be diagnosed with epilepsy during their lifetimes, and over two million Australians will have a single non-epileptic seizure at some stage in their life. There are many burdens placed on the men and women of Australia who live with epilepsy. The Joint Epilepsy Council lists some of the problems as: a lack of acceptance by people in many sporting clubs and other significant social activities; reduced opportunities for education; difficulties gaining employment and sometimes in keeping it; a host of safety concerns, both in the home and in the community; having to learn how to deal with rejection by peer groups, exclusion, marginalisation and loneliness; living with the fear of never really knowing when the next seizure event will take place or how bad it will be; being unable to drive for mandatory periods of time unless you have fully controlled seizures; knowing that most people are afraid of seizures when they see them happening and are ill-prepared to deal with them. The new government, the Rudd government, has a vision for a more inclusive Australia. As ANZ’s Saul Eslake and the Business Council of Australia’s Michael Chaney have recently told us, reducing disadvantage is now both a moral and economic imperative for Australia. As people who suffer from epilepsy have reduced opportunities for education, difficulties in gaining employment and increased difficulty in retaining employment, it is essential that our government look to fund greater research into epilepsy. In my electorate of Dobell there are tens of thousands of men and women who drive to Sydney every day for employment. Epilepsy can stop someone from being able to drive, and thus some epilepsy sufferers on the Central Coast would be given an added burden of not being able to gain meaningful employment in Sydney, where many of the people who live in the electorate find employment. This is an opportunity for the government to bring in policies of compassion that will make our community and our economy stronger. The Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia, which is the Australian chapter of the International Bureau for Epilepsy, a key player in the World Health Organisation’s global campaign, has asked parliament to work with it to develop a national strategy for epilepsy. A national epilepsy working party should be established—and the member for Shortland has already spoken on that. It would include representation from the Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia, which could act as a key advisory body. The Joint Epilepsy Council further asks that the working party be given the resources to oversee a national public education program in tandem with an applied social research program to ensure the right messages are being targeted to the right people. Research reports that were sent to members of the last parliament by the Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia demonstrated how important it is to look beneath the surface when investigating issues like stigma, isolation, depression and any of the other burdens associated with epilepsy. Why does one football club allow a player with epilepsy to participate in the team when in another town a player with epilepsy may be left out of the team—and to all intents and purposes left out of the life of his peer group? Why do people who have seizures take the risks they do? Why do they keep standing up, going out in public, driving to the supermarket, taking part in sport, attempting to study and all the rest of it, when a seizure could put an end to what they are doing with unexpected and unpredicted ferocity? What are the relative risks for people living with epilepsy compared to those for people with other health conditions? Social inclusion is at the very heart of this government. The motion moved by the member for Shortland is congruent with the values and spirit of social inclusion. I commend this motion to the House. 2019 19:19:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise tonight to speak in support of this motion as I believe that greater research into epilepsy should be a priority for the federal government. I would like to commend the member for Shortland for bringing this motion into the House. As the motion states, at any given time there are 200,000 people living with epilepsy in Australia and up to three times that many will suffer from epilepsy at some stage in their lives. It is estimated that around 50 million people, or one in 120, have epilepsy at any given time around the world. It is the most common serious brain disorder and one that needs further research. Epilepsy is an illness which greatly affects the lives of those dealing with the disease and their friends and families. Epilepsy sufferers usually rely on regular medication to help control their illness. Other treatments include controlled diets, alternative therapies and, in some cases, surgery. These treatments are not only costly but can have a big impact on the lifestyles of epilepsy sufferers. Other lifestyle issues associated with epilepsy can include the loss of a driver’s licence, the effect that the disease can have on relationships and the effect that it can have on finding and maintaining a job. Dealing with epilepsy can also be that much harder for those living in rural areas such as my electorate. In country areas, it becomes much harder to access medical services. The lack of public transport makes it a lot more difficult for those epilepsy sufferers who can no longer drive. Also, a lack of support groups in rural areas can make it very much harder to cope. As an MP representing a large rural electorate, I support this motion, as it addresses some of the major issues faced by epilepsy sufferers within my electorate of Parkes. Epilepsy can be a very frightening disease and there are over 40 types of seizures. Some seizures can often hit without any warning. My first personal experience with epilepsy came as a schoolboy footballer. One of the players in my team had a seizure in the middle of a game. He was the biggest, strongest, toughest and meanest player we had, and the seizure rendered him completely defenceless. At that stage I realised how absolutely debilitating this disease could be. It also frightened me and, I suspect, my team mates as well, because we did not know what to do. We did not know how to help him. There was talk—‘Be careful that he doesn’t swallow his tongue,’ and other such things that I now believe may or may not happen. But it was a great shock and a wake-up call to us about how prevalent this disease was in society. From my personal experience, I fully support the motion that the Australian government establish a nationwide educational strategy. People need to understand what epilepsy is and how to deal with the situation if someone you know has a seizure. An educational campaign would also go a long way in addressing some of the social stigma attached to the disease. In conclusion, I would like to put on record my support for this motion and I urge the Labor government to seriously consider the items that are being proposed. 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—I thank the member and all the members who contributed to the debate, and I thank the member for Shortland for moving the motion. 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. 2020 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Broadbent: That the House consider what action should be taken by the Australian Government in response to the humanitarian tragedy that is Darfur. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. 2020 19:24:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I caught a part of your address to the parliament today in which you mentioned your late parents and your desire that they might have been with you for your re-entry into the parliament. I identify with you, along with many other members of parliament, who might also have liked their mum and dad to have been part of their re-entry into this place. I congratulate you on your re-entry and your elevation to the position that you hold at the moment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are a legend yourself. Thank you. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —In his Faithworks blog in the Sunday Herald Sun on 16 March 2008, Bryan Patterson writes: About 1.3 billion people now live in war zones. A child will die as the direct result of war in the time it takes you to read this sentence. Think about that. A child with a name and a personality. A child whose hope has been extinguished. About 26,500 of these children die every day from the effects of poverty and war. Meanwhile, the wise leaders of the world collectively spend $1.1 trillion on weapons. It might make you empathise with the words of Martin Luther. ‘If I was God, I’d kick this world to pieces,’ he said. Fortunately, God doesn’t do that. The purpose of this motion is to draw attention to the desperate situation in Sudan’s Darfur region and to consider what Australia can do to help alleviate the situation. More than four years of armed conflict involving rebel groups, armed militia and government forces has resulted in an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths. Millions have fled their destroyed villages, many of them fleeing across the border into neighbouring Chad. More than 240,000 refugees from Darfur are being cared for by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other agencies in camps along Sudan’s western border with Chad. The UNHCR is at present in the process of transferring another 13,000 refugees who crossed the border in recent weeks to escape an upsurge in fighting. These camps are located in arid and remote areas which the UNHCR says would normally support no more than 20,000 people. Food aid has to be brought in to the landlocked Darfur region by overland convoys from Tripoli in Libya. The treacherous roads become inaccessible during the annual rainy season, which is rapidly approaching. If these natural hazards were not enough, armed rebel groups have taken to attacking the vehicles of the relief organisations. The UN’s World Food Program says that, as a result, it is transporting only half the food relief it normally would at this time of the year. Truck drivers are unwilling to risk making deliveries on the dangerous roads. Since the beginning of this year 45 trucks have been hijacked and 23 drivers are unaccounted for. This places greater reliance on the delivery of food aid by air. The World Food Program announced last week that this operation was also at risk because of lack of funds. Operations could not be guaranteed beyond the end of March. The operation has been temporarily reprieved by a contribution from Hollywood celebrities, led by actor George Clooney, but the World Food Program remains in urgent need of confirmed contributions from donor countries. It has become abundantly clear that the only way of addressing this humanitarian tragedy is by an end to the fighting, but there appears to be little prospect of this given the recent upsurge of rebel activity. The situation is complicated by the unrest in Chad, where armed rebels have also tried to overthrow the government. There are also tensions between the Sudanese and Chadian governments, which have each accused the other of allowing rebel bases on their territory. There was a glimmer of hope last week when the two governments signed a peace agreement, but this has been dismissed by rebel factions and there is now a real concern that fighting in Darfur has entered a new and more deadly phase. When African rebels launched their uprising against the Arab central government four years ago, there were two main rebel groups. The government responded by arming and supporting the Arab militia. Both the African rebel groups and the militia have since splintered and there are now as many as 16 competing factions involved in the violence. Agreement has been reached on the deployment of a combined United Nations African Union peacekeeping force of 26,000 in Darfur, but to date just over 9,000 have been deployed. In just over three months 800,000 members of the ethnic Tutsi community were slaughtered by rival Hutus. Already, 200,000 people have died in Darfur. We must act as part of the international community now to see that the bloodbath that was Rwanda is not repeated. 2021 19:29:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I congratulate the member for McMillan on raising this important issue of Darfur, about which I have spoken a number of times in the House. The murder of 200,000 African Muslims in Darfur, principally by their own government, is attested to by the United Nations and that is the central cause of the problem in that area. The Australian government voted in the Security Council on Resolution 1591 in March 2005. We voted to strengthen restrictions on the supply of arms and materials to Darfur in Resolution 1566, we demanded that the Sudanese government cease offensive military flights over Darfur and we imposed travel bans and asset freezes on individuals who impede the peace process. Australia also supported the United Nations Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 1593 of 2004, which referred crimes committed in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. One of the aspects of this conflict in Darfur that are most distressing is that these mass killings see the government in Khartoum continuing to prosecute this war against its own people. Sudan is principally an Islamic state. The people of Darfur in the west of Sudan are African Muslims and they have been killed in tens of thousands by the Janjaweed militia backed by their own government in Khartoum. One of the people who was referred to the International Criminal Court, like the people in Serbia who undertook the terrible massacres in Kosovo, was a Janjaweed who has been appointed as the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir—Ahmad Muhammad Harun. When the government of Sudan acts with such insolence, when it fails to take into consideration the humanitarian requirements as outlined by the United Nations and when it consistently refuses to deploy or allow the deployment of the UNAMID force of 20,000-plus people in Darfur, it is clear that the government of Sudan is involved in activities that many in the international community regard as genocide. It is not just Mia Farrow, George Clooney and Kevin Rudd who have been over there to western Sudan to see what is happening in Darfur. It is clear to the international community that the Janjaweed militia are armed and financed by the government in Sudan and, whatever the proclivities of the rebel groups, the central problem is the intolerance of the government in Sudan for its own people. The world has to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ One Western country has to step up to the plate and provide the transport assets that will allow the United Nations force, UNAMID, to be deployed all over Darfur. I do not think the people in the Janjaweed militia will take on the principally African troops once they know that the UN can arrive in a village somewhere in Darfur within a few minutes by helicopter. This is one occasion, just as in Kosovo, where military action of a peacekeeping type can be the most important humanitarian assistance that we can give. The Australian government—as was the previous government—are being generous in the amount of aid that we are giving Darfur. In fact, we even have a number of soldiers, 15 ADF people and 10 AFP people, with the UN mission in Sudan. But one Western country has to step up to the plate and help the United Nations deploy the well-intentioned UNAMID force in Darfur. We must call on the government in Khartoum to cease the persecution of its own people. Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago, 150 people were killed in a village and mass rapes were undertaken to ethnically breed out the African Muslim population. These kinds of events are disgraceful in a modern world. We should not tolerate them after what happened in Cambodia and Rwanda, in Ukraine in the eighties or under Nazism in the forties. I commend the member for McMillan for raising this crucial issue. The Western world, which has the resources to provide transport for the United Nations, in particular ought to step up and ensure that the United Nations has the wherewithal to do what is necessary to protect the people in Darfur. I conclude with a specific point: the Australian government should consider processing refugees in Cairo who are Darfurian refugees from Sudan. Currently the UNHCR does not permit people to be processed there, because Egypt is sympathetic to Sudan. We should go around that bureaucratic blockage and bring Darfurians to Australia after processing them ourselves. 2022 19:34:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —May I first take the opportunity to thank my good colleague the member for McMillan for bringing this motion to the House and for the opportunity to speak to it. His concern for humanitarian work, both domestically and internationally, is well known and respected in this place and beyond. In his opening remarks he gave some very sobering statistics on the impact of war, particularly on children, and it is indeed sobering to reflect on that. It is a matter of record that an immense tragedy has been unfolding in the Darfur region since 2003. As the member for Melbourne Ports has just indicated, this is a civil conflict, largely driven by a government against its own people. They put a British king, Charles I, to death for waging war on his own people. It is a pretty terrible situation when you have to kill thousands of your own to make some kind of political statement. This conflict has taken a terrible toll on human life and it has caused untold misery to thousands of citizens of Darfur. The conflict began in Sudan’s western region but has now spread to Chad and will undoubtedly lead to continuing conflict on a wider front. It has been estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 people have died from war, malnutrition and disease. This makes the delivery of aid perhaps more crucial and critical than it otherwise would be. Three million people have been displaced and four million are now entirely dependent on humanitarian assistance. This conflict has been said to be the site of the world’s worst humanitarian disaster—and that is really saying something, because we have seen some appalling tragedies unfold, in this last decade in particular. Any escalation in the conflict will make it increasingly difficult to support the vast number of people so desperately needing humanitarian care. It will also increase the risk to those courageous and generous people endeavouring to deliver the aid. My colleague the member for McMillan has pointed out the incredible risk to the convoys of trucks taking aid into the region. There have been increasing attacks on humanitarian aid workers and there have been many abductions. This has understandably led to agencies winding down the delivery of humanitarian aid. Most of the 20,000 peacekeepers who form the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur force have been pledged by African states. The United Nations has expressed concern at the lack of key military capability, particularly air assets, to deliver aid and medical supplies. If peace is to be restored in Darfur and if there is to be an easing of human suffering and misery, Darfur will need a much more rigorous peacekeeping operation than currently exists. It will require skilled, high-level intervention to negotiate a political settlement between the various militia groups that is lasting. We know that our Australian peacekeepers have the skills, and they have already made a significant contribution to resolving conflicts in many parts of the globe. We are proud of those efforts. While the Australian government has made a significant contribution of $20 million and limited personnel to the peacekeeping operation in Darfur, there has not been a commitment to provide the much-needed air support and additional personnel. Somebody once told me, ‘If it has got to be, it has got to be me.’ I think that if we want to see peace restored in the region—and it is in everyone’s interest that that happens—we need to consider providing more peacekeeping support. A recent report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute concluded that, while the Australian Defence Force is busy, it is not overstretched. Given the real risk of escalating violence, further destabilisation in the region and the level of human suffering, it would be a positive move for the Australian government to consider the request, for air support in particular. This would be a commitment that I am pretty sure that everyone here would welcome. 2023 19:38:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I commend you today on your second maiden speech in the House, and I hope it is the last time we have to hear one of those! I am pleased to speak to the motion put before the House by the member for McMillan, and I commend him on the initiative. Sudan is a country that knows severe famine, disease, environmental crisis and war. As we have already heard in such graphic detail from the previous speakers, the country is experiencing rapid and unsustainable population growth, which is further straining already depleted resources. Along with the other reasons mentioned by the previous speakers, the effects of climate change and overpopulation have pushed the country to the brink and led to the conflict that has crippled Darfur. There is no doubt that the civil war has impacted on millions of lives. I have seen the results of this in the suburb where I live, where there is a significant refugee population from Sudan. Concentrated in the western region of Sudan, the war is predominantly an ethnic and tribal struggle for useful pastoral land and scarce natural resources—land and resources that are being impacted on by climate change. On one side you have the Sudanese military and a militia group known as the Janjaweed, which, I think, literally means ‘devils on horseback’. On the other side are rebel groups like the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. As a result of the civil war, many hundreds of thousands have been killed. Millions of families have been forced from their homes and scattered all over the world and all over Africa. It is one of those occasions in history where humanity must stand up for humanity. The plight of the people of Darfur is neither forgotten nor ignored by Australia. Australia has strongly supported the actions taken by the UN Security Council to address the conflict. Through resolution 1591, the Australian government helped to ensure that the UN Security Council strengthened binding restrictions on the supply of arms to Darfur, demanded the government of Sudan cease offensive military flights over Darfur and imposed travel bans and asset freezes on individuals who oppose peace. Australia continues to urge all parties to the conflict in Darfur to facilitate the deployment of the United Nations African Union Mission and work towards a comprehensive peace settlement. We are directing funds towards alleviating the humanitarian crisis. Australia has provided more than $71 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan since May 2004, including $57 million for Darfur and $13 million for southern Sudan. A further $11 million has been provided to help neighbouring countries deal with many of the spillover effects. I commend the initiative put forward by the member for Melbourne Ports to process visa applications outside the region. These financial contributions have funded water and sanitation projects, mine clearance and road maintenance, food aid, logistics and communications. Australia has also provided 15 Australian Defence Force personnel and 10 Federal Police. Australia has also opened its doors to more than 23,000 Sudanese refugees who have resettled in Australia since 2001. As I said, many hundreds of them now call the suburbs in my electorate of Moreton—such as Moorooka, Annerley, Yeronga and Salisbury—home. I have heard firsthand from many residents in my electorate of the crisis that is facing humanity and the individual struggles to survive in Darfur. That is why I was particularly disgusted with the remarks of the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship late last year slandering these Sudanese refugees. He made an accusation that Sudanese people are not integrating into the Australian way of life. That is certainly not my experience in Moreton at all. These kinds of divisive statements are unhelpful. Instead, as the member for McMillan, who moved this motion, said, we should be directing our attention towards lasting peace and humanitarian aid in Sudan. The biggest diaspora in my electorate is not the Sudanese community; it is actually the Chinese community. As China is a major trading partner with Sudan, we would all recognise that China must step up to its responsibility to aid the war-torn country. I have been informed that China is already engaged in some diplomatic efforts and providing aid to Darfur. The Chinese President met the Sudanese President twice in 2007 and appointed a special envoy to attempt to ameliorate the dreadful circumstances in Sudan. China has taken an active part but more can be done to help with practical humanitarian aid. All countries must step up to help relieve human suffering in the Darfur region. 2025 19:43:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —Darfur in the Sudan is another African tragedy. It is another saga in the African tragedy which, increasingly, the Australian community is becoming aware of. In my own electorate of Cook, recently an issue regarding the reuniting of a Sudanese family in the Sutherland shire attracted great local interest and a great deal of local sympathy. As these issues continue, I hope that the Australian community more generally will become more aware of what is taking place and what has been taking place on the African continent literally for centuries. There has been a 20-year civil war between the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the government-backed militia, the Janjaweed: the human cost of this is 200,000 dead at present—what many would describe as yet another genocide—and more than two million people displaced and who knows how many more raped, mutilated and brutalised. John Prendergast and Don Cheadle, in their book Not on our watch, summarised it well when they said: Sudan is where all the world’s worst atrocities come together like a perfect storm of horrors. War, slavery. Genocide—you name it. But particularly genocide. Beyond the Sudanese Government and other perpetrators of mass atrocities, however, the bad guys in this story are apathy, ignorance, indifference and inertia. This is another significant example of the humanitarian tragedy that is Africa. In 2001, the United States committee for refugees estimated there were 9.5 million refugees in Africa. More than a million people have been slaughtered in conflicts and civil wars. In Rwanda, we know there was a conflict between the rival ethnic groups the Tutsi and Hutus. Civil war culminated in April 1994 with the genocide of roughly 900,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus in just 100 days. More than two million Hutus fled to neighbouring countries to escape retribution. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly known as Zaire, since August 1998, there have been 3.3 million people killed—mostly women, children and the elderly. In Northern Uganda there was a 20-year civil war involving the Lords Republican Army and the government. There were 1.6 million Ugandans displaced and more than 30,000 children were forced into servitude as child soldiers, which was so effectively highlighted by Sir Bob Geldof. No less than 28 Sub-Saharan African states have been at war since 1980. The root causes of these problems are: political exclusion; dysfunctional governance; and greed, where there is a lack of preparedness to share national wealth. As Geldof also noted, it is in countries where the resources are greatest that often the conflicts and the human tragedy are most significant. Those with the most tend to have the most grief, and the scourge of corruption that feeds off this greed is equal. There is an impunity for unspeakable crimes, plus no accountability, no rule of law, no penalties, no sanction. And we must acknowledge that there is a legacy of European colonisation and arbitrary nation states; however, we should stress that no way of drawing borders could ever justify people walking around with machetes and hacking off people’s limbs as some sort of colonial legacy. These are acts of evil and should be called as such. The motion that we are debating talks about what we should be doing here in Australia. I think it is important to note that the United Nations, in handling this issue, significantly dragged their feet in allowing the African Union to deal with the problem for so long and dawdled in making a decision to go in and ensure that there was a proper peacekeeping force in place. This delay cost literally hundreds of thousands of lives and should never have been able to take place. There is a strong view in the United States, from both sides of politics, that we dawdled in Darfur and, as a result, we encountered a tragedy that never had to be as great as it was. Australia has been doing its bit in relation to Darfur but can do a lot more. As we look at this issue as we go forward, yes, we need to increase aid to Africa. It accounts for 2.9 per cent of our global aid budget. This increase in aid should not be done at the expense of problems closer to home, but the government has indicated they are about to increase aid—so did the previous government indicate they were going to increase aid. So as we increase aid, Africa should be more in our minds, but the thing I would stress above all is the rule of law on issues, in particular relating to corruption and good governance. If we want to make poverty history in Africa then we first have to make corruption history in Africa. To that end, I commend the report From corruption to good governance, released today by the Uniting Church in Australia. 2026 19:49:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —The situation in Darfur is and has been appalling since 2003, when the government of Sudan began its counterinsurgency campaign against the newly active rebel groups in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, more than a million people have been displaced and the atrocities, the indiscriminate slaughter, the gruesome injuries and the sexual violence perpetrated, in many cases against women and children, are from the very deepest sump of human behaviour. Sadly, the Darfur peace agreement signed in May 2006 by the Sudanese government and one of the main rebel groups has long since broken down. The African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, which performed quite effectively in the early days of its operation, has proved unable to deal with the scale of the disaster and was supplanted late last year by the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur, UNAMID, effectively a hybrid UN-AU force under UN control. This is a new development and it goes without saying that the success of the UN-AU operation cannot be judged now. In fact, it is critical at this point that member states, including Australia, renew their financial and practical support for the UN efforts in Darfur. The UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Jean-Marie Guehenno, visited the new operation in January this year and reported to the UN Security Council on 8 February. He noted that the number of troops and police and their enabling capabilities currently in the mission area were simply not sufficient to provide protection for Darfur’s civilians in the current hostile environment. He also noted that continuing hostilities were evidence that parties to the conflict on all sides were simply not prepared to put aside violence in favour of dialogue. The tensions that work to resist a political process upon which a lasting ceasefire could be based are numerous, but they certainly include insufficient commitment by the Sudanese government to such a process and a similar lack of commitment by some rebel groups, in addition to the splintering of those groups into subgroups whose political objectives often present new obstacles or demands as conditions precedent to negotiation. While the focus in Darfur is understandably on bringing the armed groups to the table, it is important to remember that the armed groups themselves, whether it be the government and the Janjaweed militias on the one side or the rebel armies on the other, are not natural or complete representatives of the people in Sudan. For there to be effective peacekeeping there needs to be, firstly, a basis for that peace even if it is limited to a program of negotiations. Otherwise, in the absence of that political foundation for peace, or its imminent prospect, the only way to stop the violence in Darfur would be through the military imposition of that oxymoron, the ‘enforced peace’. History shows that an enforced peace is often just a pause in the carnage, especially when the enforcement is supplied from the outside. The situation in Darfur has been given many names. It is without doubt a humanitarian crisis or tragedy, as the member for McMillan has described it in his notice of motion. It has also been described variously as a civil war, a conflict between insurgents and counterinsurgents, a case of ethnic cleansing or even as genocide. These descriptions involve a degree of simplification. Several commentators have chosen to characterise Darfur as a conflict between Arab perpetrators and African victims, partly at least because this fits into a larger geopolitical template and its related agenda. The UN Security Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Darfur report, released in February 2005, declared that violence perpetrated by the Sudanese government against civilians, either directly or through the Janjaweed militias, amounted to crimes against humanity. But it also found that sections of the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement were responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes. I do not make that point in order to move from a position in which Darfur is seen in the black-and-white terms of a perpetrator and a victim to a position in which Darfur is hopelessly complex and everyone or else no-one is to blame. I make the point in order to reiterate the essence of the problem: that without acknowledging that the violence in Darfur arises from underlying political and material conditions there can be no progress towards a stable peace. The issue that the member for McMillan puts quite plainly in his notice of motion is about what action should be taken by the Australian government. It needs to be recognised that Australia has been directly and significantly involved in supporting international efforts in Darfur. The Australian government has strongly supported the action taken by the UN Security Council and has fully implemented all operative sanctions into domestic law. Furthermore, the previous and current governments are to be commended for practical contributions which include more than $71 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan since 2004; approximately $11 million to cope with the spillover effects in neighbouring countries; contributions to the World Food Program that made Australia the fourth largest bilateral donor to the WFP’s emergency operation in Sudan in 2006; and the provision of 15 ADF personnel and 10 AFP personnel to the UN mission in Sudan. (Time expired) 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. I thank all those members who made a contribution to it, and I thank the member for McMillan for moving the motion. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 2028 Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs Gash: That the House: calls on the Australian Parliament to adopt a bipartisan approach to improving the provision and delivery of disability support and care to Australians living with severe and permanent disability, their families and/or their carers; considers that for too long the ball of responsibility for the funding and delivery of disability support and care has been kicked between Federal and State governments and that game has to end; and considers that the Federal Parliament must address the need for improved disability funding, support and services to see progress is continued beyond the individual terms of governments and is coordinated at such a level that inter-governmental disability service provision is clear, concise and indisputable. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. 2028 19:55:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —Let me make no bones about it: Australia’s treatment of those living with severe and permanent disabilities and their families or carers is offensive and discriminatory. In a society as advanced as ours, as wealthy as ours and as mature as ours, it is a failure of morality that we are not doing more. This is a group that crosses every culture within our community but remains significantly marginalised from participating in community life. There is so much that needs to be done. It is bigger than one minister, bigger than one government and requires us to recognise the need for bipartisan support. I first spoke on this subject in 1999 when speaking to the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill. I said at the time, and it still holds true: I cannot begin to imagine how difficult life as a parent could become while looking after the needs of three children with disabilities … There is no holiday pay, no sick pay, no workers compensation or superannuation. The job that carers take on is a lifetime one. The carers in this country, ranging from a young child looking after a parent to the elderly parents of a severely disabled adult child, are treated as second-class citizens. These are people who should, in no uncertain terms, be revered and recognised as our heroes, but we have let them down. We have been able to get away with it because they are all too tired and too busy to fight us. The huge surplus this government has been left provides an ideal opportunity for us to show we are bigger than the blame game. The Prime Minister has to be taken at his word—that he and his government will put a stop to the blame game. We need to ensure that choice is the key. Just as the Prime Minister has identified with the Indigenous housing problems, there is no such thing as a ‘one size fits all solution’. For too long disability services have been chopped and changed depending on the minister in control. A joint policy commission to end the handballing of responsibility needs to be established as a matter of urgency. A joint commission must understand that organised advocacy groups are not the only voice for those living with disabilities. They are a voice, but to date they have often had too much say and control, with sometimes dire consequences for those affected but not consulted. This politicisation takes on a life of its own and eventually superimposes its needs over the primary goals of the group. The member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, got it right when he said: In this great country, if I were another skin colour or if I were a woman and could not enter a shop, ride a bus, catch an aeroplane or get a job, there would be a hue and cry—and deservedly so—but if I am in a wheelchair or have a mental illness or an intellectual disability then somehow the same treatment is accepted. Why should I be told to be grateful to receive charity rather than equality? The Wikispace WhatCarersNeed is the perfect space for all carers to have their say and for governments to use as a resource. One contributor said: I am a mother, a nurse, a therapist, a playmate, a teacher, a friend, a babysitter, a cleaner, a nutritionist, a psychologist, a secretary and other things. The person I am caring for would prefer I was just a mum and that others would enter his world and share some of these roles. There really needs to be a shake-up, as there is too much bureaucracy—too much ticking and flicking and updating databases with our personal information and no hands-on support. We need help at home, we need somewhere safe to take our kids when it is just too difficult. We want some tax relief for the special equipment we have to purchase, and extra activities that gives our children more opportunity in life. Closer to home is the story of Gloria and Keith Masson and their daughter, Jenny. Mr and Mrs Masson have written to me imploring that something be done to help them because they were in desperate straits, highly stressed and with little prospect, if any, of finding respite. After detailing in their letter to me just their expenses for sending their 31-year-old daughter to a respite service in Canberra, they justifiably asked, ‘How can that be fair?’ It was a huge cost to them, $631 per night, which for a 10-day stay cost them $6,310. There are myriad stories out there, all pointing to the fact that not enough is being done. The Labor Party is in government at both state and federal levels, so what better opportunity to enter into a pact and to actually get something done? In the end, any initiative must endure beyond the term of any one government and must be coordinated in such a way as not to be compromised by multiple levels of bureaucracy. In this matter, it must be a one-stop shop and must take away unnecessary pressures from the very people it purports to assist. This has to be a bipartisan approach, above and beyond the temptation to score brownie points. We are a prosperous nation; we can afford to do this. We are also a nation with high ideals and morals; we must do this. We are also a highly compassionate nation; how can we not do this? I commend this motion to the government in the strongest possible terms. 2029 19:59:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I congratulate and thank the member for Gilmore for bringing this motion to the House. As she and other members know, this has been an area of enormous interest to me ever since I have been here, which is 11½ or 12 years. I have had many an opportunity to stand up in this place and speak about the needs of people with disability. In 2003—there may be more recent figures, but these are the most recent ones I have—the ABS estimated there were approximately 700,000 Australians under the age of 65 across Australia who were living with severe and profound disabilities. That included almost 250,000 children. During the Senate inquiry into the funding and operation of the CSTDA, which was completed last year, people with disabilities and their families and carers made a compelling case for disability reform. Amongst other things, they spoke—as did the member for Gilmore—of the blame game between governments. One of the witnesses to that inquiry could not have put it better when they said: The States say they are doing their bit, but the Commonwealth is falling short. The Commonwealth says just the opposite. Frankly, I don’t care about playing the ‘blame game’, I just want the system to work. Nearly all witnesses told the inquiry that disability must be the responsibility of all levels of government working together. The job cannot be done by one government alone, nor by each government working in isolation. I am really pleased that we have a motion talking about a bipartisan approach and bipartisan support. I join with all of my colleagues on both sides of the House in supporting, together with the state and territory governments, the idea that we work to reform and improve the disability system in this country. On 1 February Jenny Macklin, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Bill Shorten, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, met with state and territory disability ministers to progress negotiations on the fourth Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement. The meeting proved successful, with all representatives from each level of government agreeing to implement eight priorities and to the development of an overarching national disability strategy. It is an acknowledgement of the valuable work taking place across the jurisdictions that that sort of approach is there. But, as you have asked, Member for Gilmore, it is now about ending the blame game and working cooperatively together. I believe that we are on the right track to improving the lives of the over 3.9 million Australians—that is one in five of the population—with a disability, if we take the measure as a whole. The eight priorities that were listed through that meeting include disability reform relating to: better measurement of current and future needs for disability services; moving towards national population benchmarks for key disability service types; making older carers a priority for all disabilities services under the CSTDA; quality improvement systems based on the National Disability Services Standards for all CSTDA services; focusing—and I am so pleased about this—on early intervention, lifelong planning and increasing the independence and social participation of people with disabilities; workforce planning; and access to disability services by Indigenous Australians. I know that most of us in this House who have been here for a while have had the opportunity to work, through committees and in other ways, where disability is concerned and have had wonderful opportunities to see what we do really badly and to understand what needs to be done to improve the services across the board. We could all stand and cite example after example of individuals and communities—all sorts of people and all sorts of places around our society—where we see such a terrible distinction between how people with a disability or chronic illness are treated and how people without those circumstances are treated. I am just so pleased that we are now on a path, hopefully, that will take us right through to the fruition of lifelong planning. If a child with a disability comes along, why do they continue to fall off that pathway as they go through their lives? There needs to be seamless planning. There needs to be underpinning of resources. There needs to be a commitment—and we already have it, it seems to me—that across jurisdictions and across all different socioeconomic and other areas of the community we will see definite forward planning and services to improve the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers and allow them to participate in our communities and our society in a very full, wholesome and proper way. I do not think any of us could wish for anything better than that. 2030 20:05:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN I first thank the member for Gilmore for bringing this motion to the House today and say that her advocacy for carers, the disabled, the aged and the chronically ill has been consistent, strident and heartfelt since she was first elected to this House. I also acknowledge the staunch advocacy that has come from the member for Canberra since her election. I am pleased to support this motion and have the chance to speak to it. How shameful it is that, despite being a wealthy nation and blessed beyond belief, we continue to treat those with a disability like second-class citizens. As a minister in the first Howard government with the responsibility for the disability sector, I have to say I was proud that for the first time a Prime Minister took serious notice of carers and, indeed, during that term of office funding for carers grew by 440 per cent. They had previously not been recognised at all. They had trouble, even as an advocacy group, making their voices heard in this place. I was also in awe and many times inspired by those with a disability, by their determination and their stoicism, and by the dedication of the few who devote themselves to caring for people with a disability. People with a disability come from all walks of life and, within our community, the range of disability varies both in type and in terms of the impact on people’s lives. As the member for Gilmore has said, the challenges for these people remain significant and it will take genuine bipartisan support for us to be able to meet those challenges in any meaningful way. Like my colleagues, I have encountered parents of children with profound disability whose lives are inexorably changed and who take on the caring role with love, with determination to minimise the impact on the quality of life of their children and with cheerful dispositions but, on a practical, day-to-day basis, carry on that caring role 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Over these past few days since the debacle over the threats to do away with the one-off payment for carers—which we are reassured will continue now—one mother wrote to me saying that she and her husband had spent three years trying to get an electric wheelchair for a severely disabled daughter and had to take desperate steps to get noticed before support was forthcoming. This really and truly is a shameful situation and again highlights—and it has been highlighted by the comments both my colleagues have made—the need for there to be greater coordination between the state, territory and Commonwealth governments and less ticking of boxes and more action on the ground. Ageing parents who continue to care for grown sons and daughters long after their physical, if not mental, health has been severely strained, live day to day with the stress of worrying about the future of their children after they, the ageing parents, pass away. One of the worst cases that I ever had to intervene in was an octogenarian whose adult son moved into the hospital with his mother when she fell ill. He was in his 50s. Sadly, when she passed away he continued to live in the hospital ward until I was contacted by a member of the community and, with the help of the local shire president, we made arrangements for his admittance into an aged-care facility. I must say it was long before he really needed that level of care, but that was the only place that could be found for him to go to—such a disgrace. As minister, I frequently met youngish couples who had both given up jobs in the paid workforce to take care of ageing parents so they did not have to be admitted into aged-care facilities. With much reduced incomes and increasing costs, they struggled to balance the budget. They had given up work in the paid workforce, which had implications beyond budgeting for the many additional costs and medications of caring for ageing parents; it meant sacrificing superannuation. I fully concur with the sentiments expressed in this motion and I give the call for genuine bipartisan support for a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of  those with a disability and their carers. They have my full and totally unqualified support. 2032 20:09:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —I am happy to support the motion. During the campaign, I had 71 street-corner meetings and invariably at these meetings either people with disabilities or their carers would tell stories that would make your heart melt. There were stories from mothers with autistic children and parents with adult disabled children who were terribly worried about what would happen when they as carers passed away or were unable to care for their children. I visited many schools—such as Elizabeth Special School, which has far more demand than it has space for. This is obviously an issue which affects the whole community and it is bipartisan in nature because one cannot help but be moved by some of these experiences. My observations are that families are the greatest resource in this area, but they need services close to where they live. That is a big problem in Adelaide, where all the services tend to get put right in the middle of Adelaide rather than in the suburbs. Respite is a problem. I think that families often need to share their experiences with others in a similar situation. I think those networks are important. Schools, GPs and community groups do a good job, but I think that, in particular, awareness, empathy and understanding could be improved. The government has a big role in that. Many of the parents I talked to had to discuss things over and over again with GPs, schools or other institutions just to get their needs heard. There are some very interesting figures on this issue. In terms of education, 29.6 per cent of people with disabilities aged 15 to 64 who are living in households completed year 12 compared to 49 per cent of people without a disability. In terms of labour force participation, 53.2 per cent of people with a disability in the age group of 15 to 64 are in the labour force compared to some 80 per cent of people without a disability. So there are life-changing incidents caused by a disability and I think the government and the community need to continually look at what they are doing to improve that. As my colleague the member for Canberra said, there have been some meetings. Jenny Macklin met with her state counterparts on 1 February, and we have eight priorities. We also have a national disability strategy, which is basically the same as this motion in its policy effect. We will be working cooperatively with the states and territories to implement that strategy. It will canvass the full range of issues that impact on disability policy. It will set the direction for future disability legislation policy and standards. It provides the opportunity for innovative approaches, including support for social inclusion and participation. It provides an opportunity for people to work together across sectors and jurisdictions to ensure that there is coordinated and comprehensive policy planning, and the strategy will build on the good work of the disability policy reform that has been undertaken so far. I think that a national disability strategy will provide a foundation for leadership in this area and that will continue for more than one government term. Bipartisanship requires some responsibility to be taken on the part of all the parties, and I think that some of the opposition’s rhetoric about bonuses—and its seizing on media stories—has been both irresponsible and desperate. It has worried a great many of my constituents. I think that the Prime Minister’s commitments in these areas have been welcome news to those people, but they should never have been concerned in the first place. 2033 20:14:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I have long been an advocate in this House for the disability sector, along with the member for Gilmore. I would like to bring to the House’s attention the almost 24,000 Australians who are in need of disability accommodation and respite services. This fact alone demonstrates the need for governments to substantially increase their funding. This must be a joint effort. In the electorate of Riverina is an industry group, Kurrajong Waratah, of which I am the patron. Kurrajong Waratah has a growing waiting list of parent-carers who are ageing and still looking after a son or daughter with a severe and permanent disability at home who needs accommodation support. There are over 40 families known to Kurrajong Waratah who are literally a heartbeat away from a care crisis. The oldest is a 92-year-old mother still looking after her 65-year-old daughter at home. The carers are too busy with their care role to have the energy to advocate for their clients’ needs. Many have simply given up on Commonwealth and state governments ever helping them. Last year’s important bipartisan Senate report into the Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement made 29 recommendations. All of the recommendations are worthy of support. The primary recommendation of the report was that funding for disability services from both levels of government be substantially increased. Prime Minister Rudd has promised to end the blame game between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, and I really do welcome that. There is no policy area more urgently in need of this commitment than disability services. The challenge for the new government is to turn its rhetoric into reality; older parent-carers have heard the talk before. I have advocated this in this House before, as a member of the former government. It is time for governments of all persuasions to stop using one of the most vulnerable groups in the Australian community for populist rhetoric, and to walk the walk and provide the hope and the security that these families need. They deserve greater certainty. To achieve that, governments need to commit to multiyear budgetary planning based on realistic estimates of the current and future need for services. Aged care has a planning ratio of around 113 places per 1,000 Australians aged 70 years and over. Unfortunately, in disability services there is no equivalent. There definitely should be. We know that only 50 in every 1,000 Australians with severe or profound disability receive any form of accommodation support funded through the CSTDA. The chronic lack of funding underpins the culture of crisis management that dominates the administration of disability services. Victoria’s Auditor-General has recently reported that the lack of planning in Victorian disability accommodation has created a ‘crisis driven system’. That criticism could be justly made of all disability accommodation systems around this country. No wonder that our ageing family-carers are very apprehensive about what the future holds for their sons and daughters who have disabilities. Kurrajong Waratah and the disability industry in general are facing an additional crisis that will affect both the quality and availability of care, particularly in regional and rural areas: labour shortages—a shortage of those who are willing to work in the disability sector. It is granted that there are workforce shortages—they are common in many industries—but the shortages in the disability sector are exacerbated by the low public recognition and low valuing of disability services as a career option; the lack of national workforce data to inform planning for disability services; and indexation of disability service grants at a level that does not keep pace with wage costs—and we all have that in all of our facilities in all of our electorates. Nationally, general wages in the year to March 2007 increased by 4.1 per cent, yet the Commonwealth government indexed disability grants at only 1.8 per cent. The inadequacy of that indexation was highlighted in evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into the operation of the CSTDA. Whilst in July 2007 both state and federal disability ministers agreed to add workforce issues to their priorities for the next CSTDA, no nationally coordinated effort is yet evident. I thank the member for Gilmore for raising this issue in the House and giving me the opportunity to state the facts as to what the disability sector is experiencing in the electorate of Riverina and right across Australia. 2034 20:19:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I thank the member for Gilmore for moving a motion calling for a bipartisan approach to improving the provision and delivery of services to Australians living with severe and permanent disability and their families and carers. This is exactly what is needed in so many areas and it has been for such a long time—a comprehensive look at the way state and federal governments work together to deliver services and a clear recognition that this most vulnerable group in our community is more in need of being put first, above politics, than perhaps any other group. I am pleased that the Rudd government moved very quickly on this. In fact, in the government’s first 100 days, the federal and state ministers for disabilities got together to progress negotiations on the fourth Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement and the development of an overarching national disability strategy. The national disability strategy will provide a foundation for national disability policy leadership which will continue beyond any individual government’s term. It is absolutely time to end the blame game and work cooperatively together for the benefit of the over 3.9 million Australians—that is, one in five Australians—who live with a disability. In my first weeks as the representative for Parramatta—about three and a bit years ago—I was well and truly put in my place by one of my constituents about my responsibilities when it came to federal-state relationships. Her name was Elizabeth—she knows her last name and so do I. She wrote to me about a state matter and I responded by saying that it was a state matter. She wrote back to me in the strongest terms pointing out that that was my problem—that politicians make choices about what is or is not in their area of responsibility and that I should not impose my choices on her. She said state-federal divisions were my problem, not hers. I have to say that she had a point. It is not a perfect point and it is not always a practical point but, when it comes to people living with disabilities, it is the only practical approach. Families of people with disabilities already live with extraordinary barriers due to their disabilities. The rules, the extraordinary routines of care, the unpredictable nature of their needs and difficulties travelling or even moving about are obstacles to overcome just in moving through a normal day. These people do not need additional bureaucratic obstacles or governments creating divisions of responsibility based on anything other than how best to make it possible for people with disabilities and their families who care for them to do the things they need to do just to get through the day, let alone flourish. There are many examples in my electorate of people trying to find services but being stuck in funding or service boxes that do not quite fit them or stuck between boxes and trying to find ways to live their lives within funding models that are rigid or inadequate for them. They are unclear of which level of government is responsible for what or, worse still, they do not know who is responsible. But they live somewhere in the gaps that are left after responsibilities have been allocated to one level of government or department. One of the most compelling of these is the families with children at Kingsdene School. It is a school with about 20 children. It is funded on a three-way agreement between the New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, the then Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, and Anglicare. Kingsdene is part of the lives of families with children with profound disabilities. Most of the students are non-verbal, and they cover the full range from preschool to age 17. They go to school to do things like learn to use a modified spoon or make friends without pulling their hair out. Kingsdene is unusual because it is a combined residential school facility, with the children staying overnight at the school during the week and going home on the weekends. While the state funding is recurrent, the school has had to apply to the federal government each year without really fitting within the funding guidelines. The strain of not knowing each year whether the school will be able to offer a place for their child has had families at breaking point. Kingsdene is an example of an extraordinary service for people living with a profound disability but, because it provides a different kind of service from most other schools, it does not fit neatly into the funding boxes. If Elizabeth who wrote to me about state-federal responsibilities is listening, she will write me a letter tomorrow saying that I am in the government and the funding categories are my problem and should not be the problem of the parents of Kingsdene—and she would of course, once again, be absolutely right. In government we have to have rules because we are responsible for taxpayers’ money. But it is worth reminding ourselves today and every day that, in a perfect world, services would be delivered as needed, particularly to those in most need. We are unlikely to reach the perfect world, but we can start towards it by removing the politics and the artificial divisions of responsibility that make life easy for governments and bureaucrats but harder for those who need help. We on this side have started it with the beginning of the development of the National Disability Strategy. We have a long way to go. I have met the parents of Kingsdene. They are good parents. I will no doubt face them again in a few months and they will want to know how we are going. (Time expired) 2035 20:25:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 0 Mrs VALE —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue and I am grateful to the member for Gilmore for raising this important matter before the House today. I am very pleased to note the warm response to and bipartisan support for this important motion. So urgent is the need in my electorate for supported accommodation that a group of parents concerned about the lack of services available in the Sutherland Shire formed a group called the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group back in 2005. One of the issues most raised on the occasion that the group was formed was the lack of supported accommodation for their adult children with intellectual disabilities. Sadly, we are now into the third month of 2008 and the issue still exists unresolved and untouched in the electorate of Hughes—and, I assume, in many other electorates across the nation. In December 2006, this group became an incorporated association, with Mrs Judy Foord appointed as president and Mrs Kate Tye as secretary. Both these women are mothers of children with intellectual disabilities. The association has three main objectives: to obtain supported accommodation for family members located in their own area, to obtain accommodation that offers tiered layers of continuous care and to create a register of need. Alarmingly, the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group found that there was no planning for future accommodation needs. The group then facilitated a public meeting on 6 February 2007, which was attended by 95 parents and carers. The objectives of the group were published and a register of need was commenced, with 71 registrations received that day. Another 47 names have been added since, and there are more added on a weekly basis. Perhaps the most important way of explaining the situation of people who have a serious disability within their family is to tell a personal story. I would like to recount one from a lady known as A.M. She writes: Whenever I read about another mother killing her disabled child, I wonder whether it will come to that for me, and would I be able to do it? People do become desperate and overwhelmed. My disabled daughter ‘S’ has become my world and I, hers. And therein lies the problem. She was born in 1978—induced for the doctor’s convenience as he was going on holidays. She turned blue and stopped breathing. She had streptococcal pneumonia and was found to be 4-6 weeks premature. She spent a month in special care. From about six months of age I knew there was something wrong. Then followed years of doctors and therapies until I finally had to admit you can’t mend a broken brain. Eventually, she attended a special school. Transport was provided but I needed to be there before and after school so full-time work was out of the question. One problem with going to school out of the local area was that she had no friends to play with and so all her time was spent with me. Eventually I found a job with a small company run by a couple with children of their own. They were very flexible with hours and emergencies and phone calls. I brought ‘S’ to work with me on schools holidays. In 1996 my marriage, like so many others involving disabled children, had come to the point where I took ‘S’ and left. I had calculated all eventualities before taking such a big step—or so I thought ... I was working for the small company and ‘S’ was travelling by train to her day-program and managing alone with a few phone calls, until I got home. Six weeks later the small company collapsed. I quickly found a job with a big company—no flexibility, longer hours and NO phone calls. ‘S’ went on a 4-night ... camp for a break. When she returned, something was terribly wrong. She didn’t sleep, muttered all night to someone, cried all day, got lost following ‘voices’ and didn’t remember to eat or drink. Eventually she was diagnosed with schizophrenia brought on by her absolute terror in being apart from me. Even with hospitalisation and treatment the situation was horrendous. She was drugged, terrified, and either constantly crying or staring at the wall for hours. In the 30 minutes it took me to get to work each day there would be 10-12 phone message awaiting for me with her just crying. She could not travel alone or stay at home alone. Finally, the company gave up; I was fired, and thus became her carer. People sometimes think that carer equals no full time job, equals what a life. Well, imagine all you’d for very young children—dressing them, washing them, cleaning them after ‘accidents’ and then imagine doing it for a 28 year old woman, who won’t learn to do more than she does now. Imagine never being able to go anywhere alone—not even to see a friend for a chat or a cup of coffee without your ‘child’ with you. Imagine listening to her cry all night because you have a cough and she fears you might die and leave her. Imagine lying awake every night worrying about what WILL happen to her. We do have respite, but only one day a month. And now, four years ago, I was diagnosed as having Parkinson’s disease. My caring time is infinite. It will be the most difficult task to settle ‘S’ into a group home or similar accommodation. It must be done while I am here and able to help her cope. I commend this important motion to the House. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 2037 Miscellaneous Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 2037 2037 20:30:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —Last year I brought to the attention of this parliament a situation regarding my constituents who had purchased Lenard’s chicken franchises—Rochelle Bailey, a former franchisee of Lenard’s Mirrabooka, and Leanne McCullagh, who had the Lenard’s franchise in Livingston. This franchise issue is something that I wish to make sure this parliament understands will not go away, and I intend to take it up until we get some help in a number of areas. I take the opportunity to update the House on the circumstances of my constituents’ situation and the continued and long saga and sad, financially destroying issue that the parties are involved in. The stories of franchisees going broke and losing all their assets are becoming more frequent. In the case of Lenard’s, my constituents have lost their homes and all of their financial resources. As I advised the chamber last year, the problem is where unscrupulous franchisors are often deliberately taking the opportunity to send these people to the wall because there is far more profit in sending a business to the wall, reselling it and starting it up again. It is a quick turnover. In an ideal world legitimate franchisors operate by charging the franchisees a fee—let us say in the case of Lenard’s a fee of about $300,000. This is payable by all franchisees no matter how big or small the franchise is. These fees are invested in training, marketing and advertising—services that provide the franchisor with a profit to their core business. However, this is where the rub occurs. There are franchisors who take advantage of their franchisees. They recycle or churn their franchise, forcing people against the wall through a lack of business support. They provide little or inadequate advertising and poor management. They use physical and financial intimidation and serious bullying, as my constituents experienced firsthand. By the time these franchisees seek help with what is going on, they are already nearly losing their homes and assets and cannot afford litigation, as has happened to my constituents. Churning, as it is called, has become a common word in the franchising industry. The practice is becoming more frequent with franchisors intentionally targeting a percentage of their franchisees for destruction, simply to make more money out of them. With the way the franchisors operate, the failure of the business is easy to pin on the franchisee, many of whom have left solid careers to operate their businesses. This is the easy way out: to blame the lack of business acumen of the franchisee. In many cases and in fact in most cases, it is wrong. Once the franchisees are in financial difficulty, the franchisor uses the contract default provisions that have been deliberately put into the agreement to get rid of these franchisees. They then acquire the franchise for resale at something like 20 times less the nominal fee—offered to the desperate franchisee to leave. Excuse my French, but it is often called P-off money. The fact that there are rogue franchisors operating is something that the ACCC chief has finally admitted to on Radio National. It is real, so Mr Samuel does understand that this is a real situation. This is something that the ACCC had turned a blind eye to for some time but in October last year they could not ignore it any more. My colleague, the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, has referred to this process as orchestrated robbery, and I hold to the attention of this House the case of her constituent, a Ms Deleeuw, who is continuing to go through a very expensive and financially ruining situation with Bakers Delight, another franchise organisation that has been named in this place previously. I am sure the member for Gilmore will see that one through as well. I am informed by the National Federation of Independent and Small Businesses that the profit margin of this unconscionable behaviour is many times that of the legitimate businesses and goes straight to profit before tax. The government takes 30 per cent of this in company tax and perhaps unwittingly becomes an accessory to white-collar crime. This is a serious issue in itself and I have raised this, as I have mentioned in the House before, with Mr Martin, the ACCC small business commissioner. I am seeking a meeting with him again to make sure that the ACCC uses its powers to do something about this issue before it goes any further. In fact, we know that some people have actually harmed themselves and, I am told, taken their lives because of the desperate situation they were in. So I appeal to the ACCC to use their powers as they were intended. I do not intend to go into the intricacies of the Trade Practices Act or the Franchising Code of Conduct, which is codified in legislation; suffice it to say that section 51AC of the Trades Practices Act, relating to unconscionable conduct in relation to business transactions, codifies the law in this area. Most of the interested parties agree that the law is sufficient, as I have said. However, the big problem is enforcement by the ACCC, and I encourage them to use their powers. This was borne out in a letter to Mr Samuels from Mr Ray Borradale of Queensland, but I will not have time to go through that letter. In the case of Lenard’s, many will be aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of the Lenard’s master franchisee in WA, Mr Frank Cianciosi. His business partner, Gerritt Heijne, has been charged with his murder, so I will not go any further into that because it is before the courts. I am not aware of all the facts of this case and I am not intending to dwell on the tragedy. However, I raise it in the context of what it now means in terms of seeking a resolution—that is, compensation—for my constituents, one of whom will shortly be made bankrupt as a result of this horrific franchise experience. Should my constituents wish to pursue their claims, it becomes unclear who or what entity they would claim against, given the fact that one is dead and one is in court. In any case, any compensation payable could be tied up in the estate of the deceased, and battles over the estates, as we know, can take many years. It would seem appropriate in the circumstances that Lenard’s executive management take some responsibility and at least recognise that their WA master franchisees played a significant role in the demise of the Lenard’s businesses of my constituents. My constituents should not have to wait any longer for compensation. Such actions by Lenard’s executives in Queensland would send a strong message that they do not condone the practices emerging from these franchising arrangements. My constituents have advised me that Lenard’s have told the WA franchisees that they now recognise that there were problems. I have also been informed that there are a number of outstanding debts owed by the master franchise company, which adds to the uncertainty as to my constituents receiving any compensation for their significant losses. I am pleased that the Western Australian government has launched an inquiry into the operations of franchises in that state. I know that my constituents have made submissions to that inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to enhance the franchising business environment and it will examine the issues of fairness in franchising operations. I trust that some positive action will come from that local inquiry. John Farrell, the president of the NFIB, has worked tirelessly on these cases and continues to fight for stronger enforcement against rogue operators and better rights for franchisees. His assistance to people in the direst circumstances is greatly appreciated. Finally, since I first raised this issue in the parliament I have been approached by dozens of disgruntled franchisees and former franchisees throughout the country seeking my assistance. However, I have not gone on a national crusade on this issue, as I probably should, because it is so widespread. I have confined my efforts to those constituents in the electorate of Canning but I continually get representations from people who have suffered at the hands of Lenard’s, of Midas and of Bakers Delight on the same issues of churning. I ask the ACCC once again to use their powers to deal with these issues before they get out of hand. The people I have mentioned want some action. They have horrific stories. It is time that action were taken to redress this situation as it is becoming all too frequent. As I have said, there are already others that have been outlined to me, and I have received many emails, of which I now have a very thick file. I will be happy to hand it over to Mr Martin, from the ACCC, should he have the meeting with me that I have been seeking for some time. Families are going broke and losing their homes all because the big guys want to make more money using whatever means they can in this franchising malaise. 2039 2039 20:40:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —The state of the economy has been the subject of much discussion of late, and we know that we are facing serious inflationary pressures which will definitely be putting and have put pressure on interest rates. In turn, the effect this will have on working families is of high concern to all of us. Before I go further into that, though, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of the promises that federal Labor took to the election and Prime Minister Rudd’s and our absolute determination that we will deliver on all of our commitments. Amongst those commitments that we promised were—and this list is not exclusive, but it is a fairly long one: funding to address elective surgery waiting lists; increasing financial support to help older Australians and people affected by disability; increasing the childcare rebate to 50 per cent and paying it to parents quarterly; funding for investment in renewable energy and funding to assist businesses become cleaner and greener; funding for schools to invest in solar energy; funding for loans and rebates to assist families in making their homes more energy efficient; the provision of an improved broadband network to this nation—and I was pleased to speak on a bill earlier this evening on that issue; funding for new investigative mechanisms to look at the prices of petrol and groceries; $44 million for trades training centres in ACT schools; funding for a computer for every student in years 9 to 12; funding to ensure every eligible child has access to early childhood education; funding to increase efficiency and effectiveness in our hospitals; funding to re-establish the Commonwealth dental scheme; funding to build more homes for homeless people; funding for a national rental affordability scheme; investing in a housing affordability fund; initiatives to reform federal FOI laws, journalist privilege and whistleblower protection; initiatives to reduce red tape for small businesses and to strengthen the Trade Practices Act; initiatives to develop low-tax home saver accounts; and initiatives to cut government expenditure for MPs’ printing allowances, cut ministerial staff numbers, abolish the Government Communications Unit, cut back on media monitoring and reduce the level of taxpayer funded government advertising. Those are just a few of the promises that federal Labor took to the election. These commitments are not divided into core and non-core commitments. They are in fact what we will be delivering on now that we are in government. It has only been four months, and already this government is delivering or beginning to deliver on the promises that we made. Some of the things that we have already done or begun include: ratifying the Kyoto protocol; offering an apology to the stolen generation; increasing the powers of the ACCC to investigate the price of petrol; the appointment of a petrol price commissioner; the introduction of legislation to prohibit Australian workplace agreements; the introduction of legislation to make the National Film and Sound Archive an independent statutory authority—and, I have to say, that is something very dear to the hearts of anybody in Canberra who has anything to do with the National Film and Sound Archive, and we are very pleased about it; negotiating the next Commonwealth state/territory disability agreement; beginning the process to implement the National Secondary School Computer Fund; investing significant funds in new health and medical research projects; working to establish the First Home Saver Account; delivering a $643 million cut in government expenditure through the first round of saving measures announced earlier this month; the introduction of legislation to establish Skills Australia, the Rudd Labor government’s first step in addressing the skills crisis; initiating a Productivity Commission investigation into paid maternity leave; establishing a formal ACCC inquiry into grocery prices; initiating a process to boost nursing numbers in our hospitals; and, more locally, the funding of $2.5 for elective surgery in the ACT. Delivery of all of the commitments that I have mentioned will benefit this great city of Canberra. The inflationary pressures this country faces are well documented. Many external commentators have expressed their concern at the current economic situation. The Reserve Bank has projected that inflation will likely run ahead of its tolerance margin for the near future, and Mr Chris Richardson, from Access Economics, in a recent interview on the 7.30 Report, stated that he believed interest rates will be high throughout 2008. There is a significant need to eliminate wasteful government spending and inefficiency. In an answer to a question without notice, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation said: The government inherited challenging economic circumstances: underlying inflation running at 3.6 per cent, five interest rate increases over the past 18 months—with another one well and truly in the pipeline—and government spending growing by 4½ per cent in real terms. We made no secret of the fact that this government, if elected, would be looking at ways to make very serious expenditure cuts. My particular favourite is the overwhelming overexpenditure of the previous government on itself. Well before the election, we announced that we would seek an efficiency dividend from government departments. That is underway. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation reiterated this commitment during the February sittings, saying in question time: The Rudd government is committed to cutting into government spending to get it back in line with appropriate fiscal settings to ensure that the budget is putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That involves taking tough, challenging decisions. The reason that I went laboriously through those two lists was to make a point. The point is that we as an opposition going into government made commitments that we believed needed to be made for the benefit of the community that we live in and the country generally. We cannot keep them without being tough and looking very hard at how to do it. There is no doubt that there are going to be some difficulties faced by some people in understanding how our priorities are different to those of the former government. Within the Public Service, for example, there are some programs that we have already announced we will close because we do not believe in them and we do not want them, and there will be other programs which we will start which will help to initiate the very programs that we have said we want to implement. So there is no doubt that there is going to be movement. There is going to be a little bit of angst out there, understandably so, about how it will all wash through and how we will implement these commitments. I am very pleased to be part of a government that is going to make these decisions for the benefit of the Australian community. There is no doubt about that. We have to make them to be able to initiate the plans that we have in mind. I am also very mindful of the fact that, in my electorate and in the ACT more widely, we have a high number of public servants. They are not all here, but we do have a number of them. I want to assure them that every effort is being made to ensure that there is a smooth transition—and there has been to date, I have to say—from the previous government’s programs to ours. I am really looking forward to seeing those programs that are still to come on begin. I listed the things that I did because I think it is worth reminding ourselves that we have a program of reform in many areas of government and we are determined to carry it out. I am looking forward to seeing those things happen and I am looking forward to continuing to work as hard as I possibly can to represent the concerns of my community through that process. I will be doing that with great gusto. Mind you, I think that the things that I have already mentioned have been very welcome in my community. Wherever I go out in the Canberra community, people are still very pleased that we now have a government with new energy, new initiatives and new programs that they are happy to see us implement, and I am looking forward to being part of that process as well. 2041 2041 20:49:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —Of course the Australian Labor Party have a great reform program, member for Canberra! They want to drive up unemployment, interest rates, petrol prices and grocery prices—and that is happening now. Congratulations on your first 100 days. Grocery prices and petrol prices have spiralled up. The Prime Minister went to the electorate saying that he would do something about this and of course it has gone in the other direction. Tonight I want to recognise 22 February as an important day to reflect on the contribution of the federal Liberal Party to the advancement of Australia. That date, as the member for Bowman knows, was the Friday when the parliament first sat and when it last sat. I was to give this speech on that particular Friday but, unfortunately, with all of the problems in the parliament, I was unable to give the speech. Twenty-two February was the day in 1950 that the Liberal Party of Australia, having won the December 1949 federal election, first took their places on the government benches in the Parliament of Australia. It was also the start of a long and distinguished period of political leadership, a day that laid the foundation for a collective period of over 40 years of Liberal leadership in government in Australia. In this light, it is important to reflect on the deeply held principles and unfettered commitment to improving Australia that has underpinned the Liberal Party from 1944 to this day. Young, spirited idealists were drawn to the newly formed Liberal Party of 1944, unified in their desire to make Australia a better place. When in 1949 the Liberal Party took government, 38 new Liberals were elected. Their average age was 43, and 12 were under 40. Twelve had university qualifications and 29 were returned servicemen. First and foremost, the Liberal Party is a broad church. As Ian Hancock pointed out in his paper on the party’s early history: One article of faith drew all the early Liberals together. They believed that their party was national and not sectional, inclusive and not exclusive. It was a party for all Australians, irrespective of class, region or religion. And that is true today. The pejorative ‘born to rule’ tag that members of the Labor Party are quick to hang upon us could not be further from the truth. Just look down the list of hardworking Liberal members of the parliament and you will find people from all walks of life—from the country, from our cities—men and women dedicated to the principles of liberty of the individual, opportunity for all, freedom of choice and reward for effort. Our members are locals in their community, unlike the Labor Party, which often parachutes in ring-ins with no local connections, in safe electorates. Women too have flocked to the Liberal Party since its formation in 1945. Liberal women can take great credit for breaking down many of the barriers to political equality in Australia. The first woman entered the Commonwealth parliament on 28 August 1943. She was Dame Enid Lyons, widow of former Prime Minister Joseph Lyons, representing the United Australia Party and later the Liberal Party. Dame Enid was elected to the House of Representatives and in the new Liberal Country Party ministry, under Menzies, she was appointed vice-president of the executive council. In 1947 federal Liberal Senator Annabelle Rankin became the highest placed woman in the parliament through her appointment as Opposition Whip. In 1951, following a change of government, Senator Rankin was elevated to Government Whip. She also broke new ground as the first woman to have responsibility for a Commonwealth portfolio when she was made Minister for Housing in 1966. Liberal Senator Margaret Guilfoyle entered cabinet as Minister for Education in 1975, and in 1976 she was made Minister for Social Security. Guilfoyle stayed in cabinet for over seven years. She was overtaken as the longest serving woman in cabinet by another Liberal, Senator Amanda Vanstone. The Liberal Party and its supporters have much to be proud of, and today we pay tribute to our founding fathers and hope to continue their fine traditions of leadership and representation. The coalition’s economic credentials are unchallenged. Over the last 11½ years the coalition has put the budget back in the black, eliminated Labor debt, started saving for the future, restored Australia’s AAA credit rating and delivered more jobs, lower inflation, lower interest rates, lower taxes, higher wages, more productive workplaces, higher pensions, better living standards, more funding for important priorities like health, education, defence, transport and environment, and more funds to state governments for them to provide services. However, tonight in the main chamber the Labor Party are undermining what we have done. They are stealing $2 billion worth of communications funds. Remember Whitlam in 1972 to 1975? Remember when Whitlam stole the superannuation of our Defence Force members? It was a fully funded fund at that stage. To Labor members opposite it must be embarrassing to know that your party stole the funds of our Defence Force members meant to pay for their superannuation and has never returned them. Now tonight the Labor Party government are trying to steal the Communications Fund—$2 billion worth of money—by taking money out of rural and regional Australia to put into metropolitan Australia, when the current providers of infrastructure in telecommunications would have funded it anyway. We have a proud record on financial management. We did inherit a $10 billion deficit. Remember back in 1995-96 Keating saying that we were not in deficit but were in surplus? Of course we were in deficit. We inherited $96 billion in debt, which we completely eliminated. We inherited levels of government spending equal to 25 per cent of GDP. We inherited a ballooning unfunded superannuation liability. We introduced accrual accounting to provide details of the full cost of service delivery. For the first time, we published a balance sheet for the general government sector and for the whole of the public sector. We introduced for the first time consolidated whole-of-government financial reports audited by the Auditor-General. We introduced the outputs-outcomes framework to place the focus on what was actually being delivered for the money spent. We increased the efficiency dividend on government departments to ensure money was being spent on services at the sharp end rather than on administration. We completely reformed property management and procurement practices to ensure best value for taxpayers’ money. We instituted the Uhrig review of governance in the public sector. A strong economy is not something that happens by chance. Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy requires discipline, focus and experience. It requires an ability to put aside short-term politics and media spin and take hard decisions in the national interest. The coalition took those difficult but necessary decisions. We established the Future Fund. We reformed the tax system, which, by the way, was opposed by the Labor Party. We gave further encouragement to enterprise initiatives and savings. We created a simple and more flexible workplace relations system. We reformed the waterfront. Remember the Labor Party opposing the waterfront reforms? 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Do you remember that, Member for Fowler? Look what we did on the waterfront. The employees on the waterfront actually ended up with better conditions, and Australia ended up with a better waterfront. We invested in key infrastructure, including AusLink. We promoted competition in airlines, energy and telecommunications. We boosted the worth ethic in Work for the Dole and Welfare to Work reforms. We pursued free trade agreements to help boost exports. We took a more strategic approach to immigration, with a greater emphasis on skills. We boosted apprenticeships and restored the status of technical education—but now you want to close the Australian technical college in Townsville, the best performing technical college in the nation. That is extraordinary. To reach our potential as a country, we solved problems that arose so as to ensure that the next generation would have the opportunity they deserve. So the anniversary on 22 February of the Liberal Party should not go unmarked. (Time expired) 2043 2043 20:59:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —It is quite obvious that the previous speaker still cannot get over the fact that those opposite lost the election. In the 107-year history of the parliament of Australia, on only two occasions has the Prime Minister of this country lost his own seat at a general election. The first of those prime ministers was Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who lost his seat at the general election in 1929. The second of those was John Winston Howard, in 2007. On both occasions the central issue— Opposition members interjecting— 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs IRWIN —and listen very carefully—of the election campaigns was government policies which stripped away the fair and reasonable guarantees of the Australian industrial relations system. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Herbert was heard in silence. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs IRWIN —How easily they forget. It is no coincidence that both prime ministers fell on this issue. Clearly the second of those, John Howard, did not learn from history and suffered the fate of all those who do not learn from history or, as in his case, rely on their own false version of history. What John Howard—and I might include all members opposite who were part of his government—failed to understand was that fairness in the workplace is one of the most fundamental of all Australian values. Here was a government that spoke often about Australian values. We had an education minister, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, who would have had his version of Australian values inscribed above the chalkboard of every Australian classroom. And we had an immigration minister who devised a test of Australian values to be passed before you could become an Australian citizen. But nowhere on that list and nowhere in that test was included the fundamental Australian value of fairness in the workplace. Is it any wonder that the member for North Sydney made the shocking confession on Four Corners that some cabinet ministers did not realise that Work Choices stripped away conditions from working people? That just about sums up the value system of those in the Liberal and National parties. When it comes to any understanding of Australian values, they have not got a clue. The former government thought they knew it all. They thought workers across Australia were too stupid to realise that they were being ripped off. They thought that, if they spent hundreds of millions of dollars advertising the benefits of Work Choices, they could sell Work Choices to the Australian people. When the trade union movement in this country embarked on a sophisticated campaign to tell the truth about Work Choices, the former government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising campaigns of its own. In the end it was money down the drain. It could not save the Howard government and it could not save Work Choices. They tried to change the name. They tried a mickey mouse fairness test. But in the end the good ship Work Choices went down and—absolutely fantastic—the skipper went down with it. The union movement’s television campaign drove home the issue to working families and forced the government onto the back foot. We all saw the wasted efforts of the former government’s $100 million advertising campaign. They even trotted out Barbara Bennett, the public servant responsible for the program. But like all ‘I’m from the government; I’m here to help you’ campaigns it was doomed to fail. Of course, the employers threw in their lot with the government as well. The result is history and so are the careers of so many members of the former government, including the former member for Deakin—the former government’s backbench cheerleader for Work Choices—who raised the issue of Work Choices more than 100 times in this House. We now have a different member for Deakin, an excellent member for Deakin, and he sits on the Labor side of the House. Still the members of the former government do not know where they stand on workplace relations. They have learned nothing in the past three years and they show no sign of learning anything in the next three years either. They thought they knew it all. They thought they could give us an American-style industrial relations system which would hold down wages, as has been happening in the United States. They thought they could knock over the trade union movement in this country and the Labor Party would be the next domino to fall. Well, they lost and they lost very badly. What they must now realise is that it would be a very brave conservative government that would try to break the Australian model of workplace relations fairness. There was a gap of 80 years between Stanley Melbourne Bruce and John Winston Howard. Perhaps it will be 80 years before another conservative leader tries to do it again. But whenever it is tried it will fail again and again. I would like to place on record my congratulations and thanks to the trade union movement—a movement that I have been a member of since the age of 16—for their efforts in the campaign. One thing was obvious from the time the Howard government introduced its Work Choices legislation: it was aimed at killing off the trade union movement in this country. The whole of the labour movement knew that we had our backs to the wall and that, unless Labor was successful in the 2007 election, the unfair workplace laws would become entrenched in this country and trade unions would find it harder to organise and campaign on behalf of working families. The future of the labour movement was at stake. This factor united the labour movement as never before. It was great to see unions with different factional leadership pitching in to work for the election of Labor candidates. But behind the campaigns was a determined leadership and a conviction to overturn the Howard government’s unfair workplace laws. As I said, the campaign was sophisticated and, I am sure, took many government ministers by surprise. In New South Wales, the Your Rights at Work campaign was possibly the largest and most effective political campaign ever devised. If the government thought that the unions would rely on industrial action in their campaign, they were wrong. Instead of giving up wages in industrial action, union members contributed to the cost of the media, an on-the-ground campaign that made workplace relations the focus of the election in many marginal seats. I might mention just one person in particular who played a key role in the campaign: a dedicated and talented young woman, Emma Brindley, who worked for the Unions New South Wales Your Rights at Work campaign. Emma devised the merchandising and other on-the-ground strategies for the campaign and travelled from one end of the state to the other, rallying local union members and presenting the union case to the voting public, especially the young public. With other union members, Emma did a great job. They all deserve the wholehearted thanks of Labor members for their efforts. What we are seeing is a new strategy being employed on behalf of working people. Judging by its recent successes in both the New South Wales and federal elections, we can expect to see many more campaigns just like Your Rights at Work. What members opposite failed to understand throughout the whole sorry history of Work Choices was that sooner or later workers would realise that they were much worse off under arrangements that cashed out entitlements. Usually that realisation came at the end of the financial year, when they found that their annual income had fallen or had not increased, even though they were working more hours. When it came to increased flexibility, which was supposed to be one of the great advantages of Work Choices, workers soon found that the only flexibility was in the hands of the employer. Rather than it being the favoured system for high-paid jobs in the mining industry, the greatest increase in the number of AWAs was in the hospitality and retail industries. In those industries, flexibility was almost always to the benefit of the employer alone. There never was any flexibility, there never was any negotiation and there certainly never was any fairness. That is the system that this Labor government is tossing into the rubbish bin, where it definitely belongs. In its place will come a new system, one which has input from all sides of workplace relations, not like Work Choices, which was drafted by employers’ legal representatives and passed into law without any input from workers’ representatives. The new system will be put together by a government that definitely understands the great Australian value of fairness in the workplace. 2046 2046 21:08:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —I wish to raise my concerns over the lack of commitment by the Rudd Labor government to ensure that local schools in the electorate of Greenway have access to funding assistance for basic school infrastructure. We have now learnt the Rudd Labor government has no intention of continuing a very successful infrastructure assistance program known as the Investing in Our Schools Program. The government has misled the House with the claim that the coalition had not committed to continuing the Investing in Our Schools Program. I would suggest those in the government, including Senator Carr, look beyond a press release from 19 February 2007 by the then Prime Minister when trying to accuse the coalition of scrapping the Investing in Our Schools Program. I would suggest they refer to a more recent release, on 28 August 2007, which was located on the DEST website, where the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon. Julie Bishop, said that there was ‘continued support for the Investing in Our Schools Program’ from the then government. The decisions on education funding and policy are now with a Labor government. The question is now about the future. The Investing in Our Schools Program was very successful. Schools in my electorate, as in every other electorate in this country, appreciated the opportunity to set their own priorities for their school communities. The challenge for many school communities across Australia was lack of state government investment in repairs, maintenance and equipment. Whether it was for a new school without library books, a well-established school with toilet blocks at Third World standard, shade structures for outdoor activities or musical instruments, the Investing in Our Schools Program enabled school P&Cs, together with principals, to identify the needs of their school and their children. Schools applied for funding based on what they needed and in the majority of cases received the money that they required. When the Prime Minister asked all his MPs to visit local schools, surely those MPs would have reported back that schools wanted this funding to continue. I put this question to every MP in this House: is there any member who could honestly say that if they had a choice between putting computers in secondary schools only or providing funding to all schools for what those schools identified that they needed, the choice would be the computers-only option? I think not. This is going to disadvantage school communities. On 20 February, in an article in the Daily Telegraph, Bruce McDougall said: Angry ... principals are seeking an urgent meeting with new Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard at which they are expected to voice a strong complaint about the decision— to cancel or not continue with such funding. On 20 February this year during question time the Prime Minister said, ‘This government believes in investing in our schools.’ I believe this statement too could be regarded as misleading. While most members in this House would support computers being supplied to secondary schools, what about our primary school students? There are some significant flaws in Labor’s plan. Across Western Sydney, I have come across incidences of the electricity supply not being sufficient at the local school level to cope with additional equipment such as air conditioning and computers. In this instance, what if the electricity supply is insufficient to cope? What if the rooms where the computers will be held are in such a poor state that safety will be at risk? On 29 April 2007 at the ALP national conference Stephen Smith said: We’ve made it clear that we are not interested in taking one dollar off any school. We want to invest more in all our schools, but have that investment made on the basis of need and on the basis of fairness. So let us begin with ‘we want to invest more in all our schools’. That is a little hypocritical when you consider that primary schools are excluded from the digital revolution. Does the Rudd Labor government consider that children aged between five and 12 do not need or use computers? Secondly, let us talk about investments being ‘made on the basis of need’. The dictionary defines need as being ‘a lack of something useful, desired or required’. So if we have a school that does not need more computers but desperately needs to replace worn and mouldy carpet, does that mean that the school will get the carpet rather than the computers because investments are being made on the basis of need? That seems appropriate. This is what the Investing in Our Schools Program did. The President of the Australian Council of State Schools Organisations has stated that the Investing in Our Schools Program was their ‘No. 1 priority’, and country schools talked about the extra challenge now being placed on rural communities already affected by drought to raise funds for basic school equipment—equipment and projects they could fund through the Investing in Our Schools Program. The Deputy Prime Minister, when talking about investment in schools, only referred to the digital revolution and trade centres, which have absolutely nothing to do with primary schools. It appears that the government does not care about primary school age children. Primary schools in my electorate such as Windsor Park Public, Vineyard Public and Quakers Hill Public will all have a choice: raise the funds themselves or join an exhaustive list of government run schools in New South Wales waiting for the Iemma Labor government to support their requests. I suspect the wait will be long. Last year, the coalition government increased funding to schools by over 11 per cent, but the state and territory governments only increased funding by an average of 4.9 per cent. While the state and territory governments continue to short-change their own schools, school communities such as those in my electorate may be waiting a very long time. During Senate question time, Senator Carr was asked whether the Labor government intends to scrap the Investing in Our Schools Program, to which he replied: The Rudd Labor government is committed to a more targeted approach to infrastructure funding through the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program and the Digital Education Revolution. Again, this is based in secondary schools—which no-one would deny would be a good idea—with no benefit whatsoever to primary schools. I call on the Prime Minister to be fair dinkum as he travels around this great nation of ours listening to the people, to stop what he calls the blame game, to accept instead that the coalition government introduced a program that benefits all schools across this nation and to reintroduce Investing in Our Schools so that schools such as those in my electorate can move forward rather than lie idle waiting for state Labor governments to do something. 2048 2048 21:16:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —Today I wish to grieve for the men and women who have served in defence of this country and are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health conditions. In particular, I wish to grieve for the loss of Geffrey Phillip Gregg, a young man we lost too soon and of whom I and the previous member for Cowan and Vietnam veteran Graham Edwards have spoken in this place before. The case of Geff Gregg first came to my attention some 12 months ago, when I received an email from Geff’s sister Bec asking for assistance for her parents, Chris and Phil, in the struggle that they were having in getting an investigation launched to find out just what happened to their son through his time in the ADF and his interactions with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. When their son was 19, Chris and Phil entrusted him to the Australian Defence Force. He enlisted in the Army and, like many young men who have enlisted, had a dream of becoming one of our elite soldiers. He was described as confident and fit, an outgoing young man and perhaps a little overconfident and sure of himself—but what young man at the age of 19 is not? His family were enormously proud of him as he made his way through his basic training. He eventually became attached to 152 Signals, the signalling corps for the SAS. By the age of 25, Geff was dead, having taken his own life. He had been discharged from the Army suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. Here started a litany of attempts by Chris Gregg in particular to recover any information that would shed light on how the son who they so willingly entrusted to the Army had come to end his own life. Geff’s mother in particular was hitting brick wall after brick wall as she attempted, on her own, to make her way through the maze of ADF and DVA sections in pursuit of medical and other reports that might help them understand what went wrong and why they were not informed as to just how unwell their son actually was. At the instigation of the family, I wrote to the then Minister for Defence, asking for an investigation into the circumstances of Geff’s death. This letter was then referred to the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Very little happened. There were a couple of media stories by a few journalists who had taken a specific interest in post-traumatic stress disorder amongst service personnel, but no formal response came from the minister. The family then took the trip here, to Canberra, during Senate estimates hearings to see whether any answers would be forthcoming in a far more public forum. The family met with the then minister and, despite assurances that lessons were being learnt, very little appeared to have been done by way of progressing any formal independent inquiry. It took some courage for the Gregg family to come to Canberra, but their persistence eventually paid off. At their instigation, three separate inquiries commenced last year. General Leahy, who I commend for acting so quickly once he became aware of the circumstances of this case, referred the matter to the Inspector-General of the ADF. This sparked the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to agree to have an inquiry into Geff’s interactions with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and other government departments. What happened to Geff, the way in which his enlistment progressed through the ADF, his deployment to Afghanistan, his and his patrol’s now reported engagement through the Redback Kilo Three patrol, his subsequent decline in mental health, his litany of medical appointments and struggle to be treated, his interactions with DVA and military compensation have all been the subject of these investigations. Reports have now been prepared, and the family is in the process of receiving a briefing on them. The contents are of course confidential, but it is my hope that at some point some of the contents of these reports will be made public, as there are many things that the ADF, DVA, military super and the wider community can learn about what we owe to these service personnel and how we need to better treat and support those suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and also their families. I commend the new Minister for Defence Science and Personnel’s announcement that there is to be a review of mental health services in the ADF. It is long overdue, and I hope that Geff’s case informs the review. I want to pay tribute to the strength of the Gregg family. They have been severely traumatised by the death of their son, brother and brother-in-law. They have my utmost admiration for their determination to try and find out where the system failed them and their son, and to make sure lessons are learned and that no other mother’s son or daughter suffers this experience. The case has been somewhat complicated by a dispute between the family and Geff’s former girlfriend over her status. Having spent a great deal of time with this family and been part of their lives as they go through the terrible pain of losing their son, I have no doubt that they are firmly of the belief that the relationship between their son and his former partner was over at the time of Geff’s death. These sorts of disputes are never easy, but I ask particularly those veterans who are supporting Geff’s former partner and to some extent see this case as a way of seeking change, as we all do, to respect that every time a story about Geff and his family appears which they have no knowledge about or in which their status in his life is unacknowledged, it is a fresh wound to them. For his father and for his mother—who bore him—who watched him grow; for the sister who loved him like a twin; for his other family members to whom he forever remains a hero, I ask that you respect that this family has been and continues to be torn apart by this experience. The Gregg family loved their son. When they first came to see me, they attached to the file of papers that they brought with them this photo of Geff that I am holding. They said, ‘We want you to see our boy as we saw him to know that it is a real person that this happened to—to know who it is you are fighting for.’ I never met Geff. He was gone just under six months when I started on this case, but I see him in the faces of all our armed service personnel when they return from deployment and are embraced by their families. Geff Gregg could be any one of them, and that is why we must as a parliament grieve for Geff not only for his own and his family’s sake but so that we in this place absolutely do all in our power to make sure that the mental health services and the follow-up that we provide for our veterans and their families is second to none. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—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. 2050 21:24:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.24 pm