2008-06-23 42 1 2 REPS 0 0 2008-06-23 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 5527 Miscellaneous 5527 12:00:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to say a few words in tribute to Jane McGrath. I join with all in the Sutherland shire community in expressing our heartfelt sympathy and deepest condolences to Glenn McGrath and to their children, James and Holly, for the tragic loss of their wife and mother, Jane, who passed away yesterday morning at their family home in Cronulla. Jane and Glenn chose to make their family home together in our shire community after Glenn first moved there in the early nineties. After their marriage, and the birth of their two miracle children following Jane’s first battle with breast cancer, their children attended local schools, and as a family they enjoyed together all the great things that make the area such a great place to live and raise a family. Jane and Glenn understood these qualities, and it has been a privilege to have Jane amongst us at the centre of the McGrath family. On behalf of all of those who live in the shire, I say that we want Glenn, James and Holly to know how deeply our community feels for them at this time and mourns the loss of their wife and mother, Jane. Jane was an inspiration to all of us. Her courage and determination were matched only by her compassion and generosity of spirit towards those women and families who faced the same challenges. Jane gave these women and their families, through her example and her work, that precious commodity we all need when going through difficult times—hope. Her work together with Glenn will continue through the efforts of the McGrath Foundation. The placement of breast care nurses in our hospitals is a worthy cause. Jane said: Having access to a breast care nurse allowed me to be Jane McGrath, the friend, the mother and the wife—not just Jane McGrath, the breast cancer survivor. This work has particular resonance in the shire, where the McGrath Foundation receives strong local support. On Australia Day we hold the Jane McGrath Classic at Cronulla, which was made even more special this year through the joint recognition of Jane and Glenn as members of the Order of Australia. Yesterday a minute’s silence was observed at Toyota Stadium—Shark Park—in memory of Jane, and this year’s Sharks players have committed to helping the McGrath Foundation by pledging $500 for every try scored in 2008. So far the tally is at $20,000. As we pay tribute to Jane at this time, may we also take the opportunity to make a contribution to her ongoing work and ensure that we continue to remember this work in the years ahead. Jane’s work placed great value on womanhood, as did her life. We all have mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces and aunts. When we see the tragic loss of one of these so early in life, it is a true tragedy. Mothers are the great carers and nurturers of our society, and in Jane McGrath we have lost a great mother in our community—a mother who cared lovingly and warmly for her children and did all she could to give them the best possible chances in life and to allow them to inherit from her a sense of values that will guide them for all their lives. Seeing the tenderness in the relationship between Jane and Glenn, we also know that together they were able to achieve another of life’s great successes, a healthy marriage. Above all, Jane was a fighter who fought for the most precious of all things in life: time with our family and those most dear to us. Her passing is a reminder of the gift we all have in family and community. As we reflect on Jane’s all too brief life and pray for Glenn, James and Holly as they cope with this great loss, may we also continue to be inspired by the way Jane lived her life for her family and others and do the same for those around us. I conclude with some comments of Jane’s in the interview she and Glenn gave to Andrew Denton as they discussed the challenges they had faced together: It all goes into making you the person you are, and for me now, just to wake up in the morning—it doesn’t matter if it’s raining or the sun’s shining. It really doesn’t matter, ‘cause every day’s a great day, you know? And … it really is the simple things in life that count … We need more mothers like Jane McGrath. We need more wives like Jane McGrath. We need more daughters like Jane McGrath. We need more friends like Jane McGrath. 5528 12:04:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —Mr Speaker, similarly, on indulgence: I would like to extend the government’s sympathies to the McGrath family and associate us with those comments. The member for Cook obviously has a close personal friendship, and I think that when you have local heroes in your community it is good, as a local member, to be able to acknowledge them. We all know in this House that Jane McGrath was also a national hero, and I think that it is really a very sad time for the parliament. I am pleased that the member for Cook was able to mention the breast cancer nurses, an initiative which I think is due to come online on 1 July and which received very strong bipartisan support. I am sure it will not be much solace to the family in the current circumstances, but it is something that will be of lasting benefit to the many families that will still have to fight breast cancer in the future. I am sure, and I hope, that that is something that will provide in the coming years some comfort to the family. So I would like to associate the government with the comments made by the member for Cook. I am sure there will be other appropriate occasions to recognise this. Our love and best wishes also go to the McGrath family in this difficult time. 5528 Miscellaneous 5528 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 18 June 2008, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Flynn, Riverina and Oxley. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 5528 Bills R3016 5528 Consideration resumed from 19 June. Senate’s amendment— (1) Page 47 (after line 14), at the end of the bill, add: 68   Review of operation of Act The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the first anniversary of the commencement of this Act. Further independent reviews of the operation of this Act must be made as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act and at three yearly intervals thereafter. The Minister must cause a copy of the report of each review mentioned in subsection (1) and (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the day on which the report is given to the Minister. The review must be conducted by a panel which must comprise not less than five persons, including: a person occupying the position of Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer; a person nominated by the Australian Dental Association; a person nominated by the Consumers’ Health Forum of Australia; two other persons nominated by the Minister, at least one of whom must have qualifications in medicine or dentistry. 5529 12:06:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. We have before us the Dental Benefits Bill 2008, which the opposition have amended in the Senate. I have to say that, after all their positioning on the dental issue, it has been quite hard to know what the opposition were going to do in the Senate on the dental bills. It looked for some time like they were going to be opposing them altogether. This is a bill which delivers significant benefits to families, particularly moderate-income families with teenagers, who should be encouraged to get the preventative dental check that this legislation, if passed, will allow them to get. So we are pleased that the opposition have finally agreed to support this bill, but their behaviour in the Senate on a range of matters related to dental care does demonstrate their very opportunistic and unprincipled approach to dental care. They claim that they care about dental health, after having spent 11 years doing absolutely nothing in dental care—ripping $100 million a year out of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and seeing those waiting lists grow to 650,000 people. Similarly, they claim to be economically responsible but they commit economic vandalism by blocking the offsetting savings from discontinuing their badly targeted, failed dental program. I need to make it clear that whilst we are prepared to agree to the Senate’s amendment to this bill which will provide for a review—we are not worried about reviewing programs that are introduced; it is obviously important to see how they work and if they can be improved—in doing so we see that the opposition wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want this new program. They now support this new program. They are now prepared to concede that it might help families with teenagers. But they want to continue their old program as well, with scant regard—absolutely no regard, I think—for the cost involved in doing this. This government were elected after asking the community to make a choice on dental care. We outlined significant new programs. But we also made it clear that we would close the previous government’s failing chronic disease program. Now, after much toing and froing, we see that the opposition are prepared to support our election commitments and allow them to be implemented—but they want to keep their programs as well. Sooner or later this just does not add up. We will have many other occasions where we will be able to highlight this issue. We are providing $780 million over five years to our two new dental programs: the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which is specifically the subject of this bill, and the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. They are both squarely targeted at the people who are the most in need of help, many of whom could not afford dental care without this assistance. The Medicare Teen Dental Plan will provide up to $150 towards an annual preventative check for eligible teenagers aged between 12 and 17. It will help the terrible state of our teenagers’ health, their teeth and their oral health—where the rate of decay quadruples from the age of 12 to the age of 20. Over one million teenagers will be eligible. The Commonwealth Dental Health Program invests $290 million over three years to provide up to one million consultations and treatments. This, as I say, is targeted at those most in need, such as pensioners and Indigenous Australians, and it will help address the Howard government’s legacy of those 650,000 people still on public dental waiting lists around the country. The opposition’s response on these major investments has been all over the place. We have seen confusion, contradiction and changed positions. We have seen spokespeople saying one thing and the leaders saying something else. The spokespeople have actually changed their position several times on this as well. The member for North Sydney, who is here in this House, has now said that he ‘certainly understands the burden of dental disease in our society’ but that was at the time when he was opposing the programs that we had planned to introduce. Now we know that they are prepared to accept them, but they are only prepared to accept them, it seems, at a very significant cost—that is, maintaining their program. It seems they think that governments do not have to make difficult choices and do not have to say that programs which may have helped some people but were poorly targeted, difficult to access and not helping the broadest range of people may have to be sacrificed in order to help a larger number of people and those most in need. This is something that we made absolutely clear that we were going to close during the election. We made it clear that we would discontinue the Liberals’ complex and poorly targeted scheme and that we would invest in our dental programs that were better targeted at those most in need. Let me just briefly remind the House when we are talking about this program that is being discontinued that the opposition have sought to prevent it being discontinued in the Senate and flag that this is the exact program that was so poorly targeted and failed so dismally (Extension of time granted) that it did not help a single person aged under 24 in the Northern Territory for the whole time it was in existence and did not help anyone at all in South Australia up to the age of 14 in the same four years. So, not one single child born in South Australia or the Northern Territory during the life of the Howard government had any assistance from this program. Nevertheless it is one that the opposition want to continue—at great expense—without acknowledging that choices have to be made and acknowledging the mandate that was given to this government at the election. As I have said, the opposition want to have their cake and eat it too. They are now supporting our better targeted investments in dental health but they want to cling to their failed and poorly targeted chronic disease scheme. It is irresponsible and would blow a significant hole in the budget. I think it shows their cheapness and politically opportunistic approach to these sorts of issues. It is confused, contradictory and economically irresponsible—not something that we would have expected, particularly from the member for North Sydney, who has prided himself on having an economically responsible approach to these sorts of issues. We do not think the amendments that have been moved in the Senate particularly add any value to the bill. Of course Medicare Australia will publish plentiful information that will allow the assessment of the dental benefits schedule to be made, but we are happy to have this review if the opposition insist on having it built into the bill—although I might say again that this does show their inconsistency and confusion: they constantly criticise the government for having reviews but they add an amendment that means we will be having another review every three years in perpetuity on just this one change. So the government are not prepared to oppose this amendment. It would be far worse for us to delay the introduction of the Medicare Teen Dental Plan because of the opposition’s point-scoring and we will not do that. We do not want to deny over one million teenagers access to the preventative dental health checks that they need. We do not want to stop our kids accessing dental care for months because of the opposition’s grandstanding politics. We think our kids’ dental health is too important to let this occur so we will vote in favour of this amended bill. We believe that we need to address the terrible state of teeth, particularly of teenagers, in this country. It is a legacy that the previous government’s inactivity has left us—quite a severe downturn in the status of and outcome for teenagers and their oral health. We know that we need to act now to turn this around. If this bill is passed, it will be an important step in doing just that. 5531 12:14:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —One of the benefits of having young children is that you get to watch lots of Thomas the Tank Engine. Whilst I would not accuse the Minister for Health and Ageing of being the Fat Controller, she does sound like Miss Jenny uttering the words of the Fat Controller about ‘confusion and delay’. On the one hand, the minister said that it is a great idea to have a review—she is not afraid to have a review of any program—but, on the other hand, the minister criticised us for insisting in the Senate on having a review. On the one hand, the minister says that there is a dental waiting list crisis but, on the other hand, the minister and her colleagues in the Senate opposed our revocation of the proposed regulation by the government to abolish Medicare dental. On the one hand, the minister says that our Medicare dental program did not provide services for people in South Australia over four years, particularly young people in South Australia, but, on the other hand, it is the law in South Australia for the state Labor government to provide dental services for students and, if they are not receiving any dental services, to ring up the Premier of South Australia and ask him why he is not doing his job. On the one hand, the minister says that only 13,000 services have been provided, yet in Senate estimates the minister’s own department says 300,000 services have been provided in five months. The words ‘confusion and delay’, uttered by the Fat Controller in Thomas the Tank Engine, could find no better home than in the words of the Miss Jenny equivalent, the Minister for Health and Ageing, because the contradictions are rich. We believe there are significant problems with the Teen Dental Plan put forward by the government. In providing a rebate of up to $150, the government’s own costings state that the analysis in X-rays will probably cost $240, so there is a $90-shortfall, even taking into account the fact that it is ‘up to $150’ that the government is proposing to give people who are in receipt of family tax benefit part A. There is, therefore, going to be a gap. The combined dental initiatives of the Labor government exceed the total cost of the continuation of Medicare dental, as estimated by the Labor government. The coalition believes that dental services for chronically ill people should be available through Medicare. To quote the member for New England—and I hope he will understand me delivering this quote in a more sanitised version—you have Medicare to remove a boil in an inappropriate part of your anatomy but you do not get Medicare to remove a boil in your mouth. The truth of the matter is that we, the coalition, introduced dental services on Medicare and the Labor Party in government tried to remove them. The fact that you have received more than 300,000 services, with a value of up to $4,250 over a two-year period, as a result of the Howard government initiatives, is a great thing, and we stand by that. Let it be forever marked on the headstone of the Labor Party’s attitude towards dental care that the Labor Party tried to take dental care for chronically ill people off Medicare and that it was only the coalition that was able to stop them. We make no apologies for that whatsoever. Finally, I would just say in relation to this specific amendment— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —What do you want to close to pay for it? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —That is a very interesting interjection by the minister. It is very helpful. ‘What would you like to close to pay for it?’ I will tell you what we would start with. We would start with the $35 million grant that was given to Toyota. Isn’t it amazing how the Labor Party takes $35 million off veterans and gives it to Toyota, a company that made a profit last year of $17 billion, which is nearly the entire Australian government surplus? Not even the member at the table would agree in his heart of hearts— YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr Combet interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I am digging deep here, son! I do not even think the member would agree with giving Toyota $35 million to develop a hybrid car in Australia when they are already developing the hybrid car. They are already going to build it, and the $35 million pig fat for the Prime Minister in Tokyo is a starting point. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Okay, two months worth—the Assistant Treasurer very helpfully interjects. I say to the Assistant Treasurer: did you, sir, approve the $300 million investment by Medibank Private in a private health insurer? Did the Assistant Treasurer approve that? Three hundred dollars is being spent by a now nationalised-for-ever Medibank Private in buying AMH, which is a private— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —AHM! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Sorry, AHM—I stand corrected—which is based in New South Wales, a private health insurer. So not only are the Labor Party opposed to private health insurance but they want to go out and buy some of the providers and spend $300 million of taxpayer’s money in doing so. The minister invited me to give suggestions on how you can save money from one area and put it into Medicare dental. I am making constructive suggestions here. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will direct his remarks through the chair. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I am an economic conservative in the Prime Minister’s mould! Being an economic conservative in the prime minister’s mould— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —It is a slightly larger mould with me. But, being an economic conservative, I say to you that there are savings to be made that can help to pay for better dental care. I just point out that I do not think the solution— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —You didn’t make them. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I would just say to the Assistant Treasurer that I have sat in the ERC, and I sat for a number of years in the ERC, and there are always savings to be made across government. He knows that and I know that. The question is where you save money if you make the hard decisions. Government members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I have got form! Now that I am being invited, I relish the opportunity to reflect on a glorious ministerial career! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member should ignore the invitations. The interjectors should not offer the invitations. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I sacked 500 people in Medicare, because Medicare never made a profit. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —And you are proud of it! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yes, I am proud of that, because it was the right thing to do. Service actually improved in Medicare offices, and 500 people out of head office here in Canberra was hardly missed by the general public. In fact, efficiency actually improved. But it was a hard decision that was made two years ago because we had to save some money. So you do actually make hard decisions without having an impact on the quality of health care for individual patients out there. We were able to introduce a dental service on Medicare for Australians with chronic dental problems because we had a budget surplus, because we paid off the Labor Party’s debt. We, when we came into government, got rid of not only the $90 billion of Labor Party debt but the ongoing $10 billion deficit that we inherited from the Keating government. When you have got the money you actually can deliver better services and you can deliver them efficiently. I do not think giving more money to the state governments to provide dental services in their public hospitals is a solution when 90 per cent of the dentists are in fact in the private sector. So the only way you can address the backlog of demand for dental services in the public system is by moving dentists from the private system to the public system. Dentists are not going to do that, having just spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, buying state-of-the-art equipment for dental surgeries that they have to pay off over a period of time. They are not going to close a dental surgery in which they have built up goodwill and simply move to a public hospital for less pay. Therefore, no matter how much money you put into public hospitals, unless you get the dentists into those public hospitals you are not going to be able to do anything about the backlog. That is why we set up Medicare dental: so that the Medicare scheme—after first going to a doctor and laying down a plan of management for chronic dental disease—would provide people with the services that they needed as soon as possible from a dentist rather than waiting in a queue at a public hospital. We stand by our policies in relation to dental. We think the Labor Party have got it wrong. We respect the Labor Party’s mandate in a way they never respected our mandates on the privatisation of Telstra, a whole range of different tax reform measures and other things. They never respected our mandates; we will respect theirs in relation to dental care. On that basis we are glad they accept our amendment to the Dental Benefits Bill 2008. We stand by Medicare dental, and let it be forever said that the Labor Party wanted to walk away from dental care through Medicare. Question agreed to. 5533 Bills R2957 5533 Consideration resumed from 18 June. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7), omit “9 to 11”, substitute “9 to 13”. (2)    Page 38 (after line 20), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 12—Austudy rent assistance Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1  Section 52‑15 (cell at table item 4, column headed “the supplementary amount is the total of:”) Repeal the cell, substitute: (a)    so much of the payment as is included by way of rental assistance; and (b)    so much of the payment as is included by way of remote area allowance; and (c)    so much of the payment as is included by way of pharmaceutical allowance 2  Application The amendment made by this Schedule applies to assessments for the 2007‑08 income year and later income years. (3)    Page 38 (after line 20), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 13—Carer adjustment payments  Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1  Section 11‑15 (table item headed “social security or like payments”) After: ABSTUDY scheme, payment under... Subdivision 52‑E insert: carer adjustment payment.............. 53‑10 2  Section 53‑10 (table item 1) Repeal the item, substitute: 1 Carer adjustment payment The power of the Commonwealth to make ex‑gratia payments None 2 Disability services payment Part III of the Disability Services Act 1986 None 3  Application The amendments made by this Schedule apply to assessments for the 2007‑08 income year and later years. 5534 12:24:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The government agrees to the amendments made to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 by the Senate. These amendments add new schedules 12 and 13 to the bill. The new schedules are identical to schedules 3 and 4 which were removed from Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008, as the opposition advised the government that it would be referring other measures in that bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry. The amendments are necessary to ensure that these measures, which are of benefit to taxpayers, are passed before the end of the income year in order to remove doubt for taxpayers. Schedule 12 exempts from income tax the rent assistance paid to Austudy recipients, and schedule 13 exempts carer adjustment payments. Unless these amendments receive royal assent before 1 July 2008, payments made in the current income year will be included in the assessable income of recipients. Full details of the amendments are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. 5534 12:25:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —The opposition supports the Senate’s approach to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. They are essentially measures that we consider to be non-controversial and they were brought back to this House to be passed by the end of the financial year, as is appropriate. There have been some measures contained in tax bills that we believe should go through a fuller legislative process, and that is what we have moved to do in the Senate—although, as I said, the opposition support the approach that the Senate has taken on these particular amendments. We support them going through so that they can be enacted by the end of the financial year. Question agreed to. 5535 Bills R2986 5535 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 3, page 2 (line 14), omit “responsive to”, substitute “advances”. (2)    Clause 5, page 6 (after line 10), after the definition of foreign law, insert: individual producer means a wheat producer who deals solely in wheat which that individual producer has grown himself or herself. (3)    Clause 7, page 9 (after line 7), after subclause (1), insert:       (1A)    Notwithstanding subsection (1), an individual producer may export wheat provided that it is wheat produced by that individual producer. (4)    Clause 15, page 18 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (d) do not apply:               (a)    to the export of wheat in:                     (i)    a bag; or                    (ii)    a container;                        that is capable of holding not more than 50 tonnes of wheat; or               (b)    to an individual producer exporting wheat produced by that individual producer. (5)    Clause 21, page 25 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) do not apply:               (a)    to the export of wheat in:                     (i)    a bag; or                    (ii)    a container;                        that is capable of holding not more than 50 tonnes of wheat; or               (b)    to an individual producer exporting wheat produced by that individual producer. (6)    Clause 22, page 27 (lines 26 to 29), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) Paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) do not apply:               (a)    to the export of wheat in:                     (i)    a bag; or                    (ii)    a container;                        that is capable of holding not more than 50 tonnes of wheat; or               (b)    to an individual producer exporting wheat produced by that individual producer. (7)    Page 69 (after line 3), before clause 87, insert: 86A  Operation of certain State and Territory laws          (1)    In this section: corporation means a trading corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. sale contract means a contract for the sale of grain or for the growing of grain and the sale of the grain, being a contract to which a corporation is a party and which is entered into by a corporation in the course of, or for the purposes of:               (a)    the export of the grain; or               (b)    trade and commerce:                     (i)    among the States; or                    (ii)    between a State and a Territory or between Territories; or                   (iii)    within a Territory. service contract means a contract, agreement or arrangement for the storage, handling or transport of grain for a corporation, being a contract to which a corporation is a party and which is entered into by the corporation in the course of, or for the purposes of:               (a)    the export of the grain; or               (b)    trade and commerce:                     (i)    among the States; or                    (ii)    between a State and a Territory or between Territories; or                   (iii)    within a Territory. State or Territory enactment means:               (a)    a State Act; or               (b)    an enactment of a Territory; or               (c)    an instrument made or issued under such an Act or enactment.          (2)    A sale contract or a service contract is not rendered unlawful or unenforceable by any prescribed State or Territory enactment.          (3)    A party to a sale contract or a service contract does not incur any liability, penalty or forfeiture under a prescribed State or Territory enactment by virtue only of having entered into the contract.          (4)    Nothing in any prescribed State or Territory enactment operates to prevent a party to a sale contract or a service contract discharging obligations under the contract according to the terms of the contract.          (5)    In the case of a sale contract, nothing in any prescribed State or Territory enactment operates to prevent the property in the grain passing to the purchaser according to the terms of the contract.          (6)    A person who, under a contract (including a contract of service), agreement or arrangement with a party to a sale contract or a service contract, does anything on behalf of that party in the discharge of an obligation under the sale contract or the service contract does not incur any liability, penalty or forfeiture under any prescribed State or Territory enactment by virtue only of having done that thing, and the contract, agreement or arrangement between that person and the party is not rendered unlawful or unenforceable by any prescribed State or Territory enactment.          (7)    A corporation does not incur any liability, penalty or forfeiture under a prescribed State or Territory enactment by virtue only of storing, handling or transporting grain for a purpose referred to in the definition of service contract in subsection (1).          (8)    Nothing in any prescribed State or Territory enactment prevents a corporation storing, handling or transporting grain for a purpose referred to in the definition of service contract in subsection (1).          (9)    A person who, under a contract (including a contract of service), agreement or arrangement with a corporation does anything for the corporation in, or in connection with, the storage, handling or transport of grain by the corporation does not incur any liability, penalty or forfeiture under any prescribed State or Territory enactment by virtue only of having done that thing, and the contract, agreement or arrangement between that person and the corporation is not rendered unlawful or unenforceable by any prescribed State or Territory enactment.        (10)    Nothing in any prescribed State or Territory enactment operates to prevent a party to a contract, agreement or arrangement referred to in subsection (6) or (9) discharging obligations under the contract, agreement or arrangement according to its terms.        (11)    Subsection (5) does not affect the rights of the holder of a security over grain for money owing.        (12)    Subject to subsection (13), a reference in this section to a prescribed State or Territory enactment is a reference to:               (a)    a State or Territory enactment declared by the regulations to be a prescribed State or Territory enactment for the purposes of this section; or               (b)    a State or Territory enactment included in a class of State or Territory enactments declared by the regulations to be prescribed State or Territory enactments for the purposes of this section.        (13)    The regulations must not prescribe a State or Territory enactment except in relation to the storage, handling and transport of grain or the marketing of wheat.        (14)    The regulations may provide that a State or Territory enactment, or a State or Territory enactment included in a class of State or Territory enactments, is a prescribed State or Territory enactment only to the extent, or only in the circumstances, specified in the regulations.        (15)    Regulations prescribing a State or Territory enactment for the purposes of this section must not be made unless the Minister has notified the Minister of the State or Territory responsible for the administration of the enactment of the subject matter of the regulations. (8)    Clause 89, page 70 (line 2), omit “Before 1 January 2011”, substitute “By 1 January 2010”. (9)    Clause 89, page 70 (line 17), at the end of paragraph (4)(b), add “before 1 July 2010”. 5537 12:27:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. It would be considered an outrageous thing to hear in this House, but it was actually interesting watching the Senate on Thursday night. When watching the Senate on Thursday night we saw a whole lot of things that I certainly never expected to see. The Liberal Party had indicated through the Leader of the Opposition in this House a number of amendments they were going to move. The key amendment was to remove access provisions across the board that were contained in this legislation. That amendment, notwithstanding having been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in this House as being critical to the amendments that would be moved by the opposition, was never moved. There were a number of amendments moved, though, and, for reasons which will become clear as I speak, the government are in a position to respond positively to each of them. There was a change to the objects clause in the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 which changed the obligation from being ‘responsive’ to growers to ‘advances’ the needs of growers. We have accepted that. Regarding the review date, there was some discussion where the government suggested to the opposition that it might have made more sense to have a later review date so that there were two harvests, so that the access provisions under this bill were able to be taken into account. If they were able to be taken into account that would make the review more worth while, but the Liberal Party were determined that the start date should be 1 January 2010. In the interests of having a constructive approach in the other place, the amendment was accepted. There was also a particular issue regarding transport and trying to make sure that state governments did not try to impose transport monopolies on the way grain is transported around the country. That amendment was put by the opposition and agreed to. The bit that got really interesting, though, was an amendment about individuals. This was raised by the Liberal Party and was that any individual grower should be able to export their own wheat without any regulation on them whatsoever. You could describe this amendment as being the total deregulation of the wheat industry. The National Party voted for it. In the Senate on Thursday night the Liberal Party put an amendment forward that amounted to the total deregulation of the wheat industry—not moving from having a single desk to having the regulated but competitive system that the government is proposing but actually allowing every single grower the right to export their own wheat wherever they want and in whatever quantity they want, completely outside any international pool. The government was opposed to that amendment. We supported the system that we put forward. The Liberal Party put forward a system of total deregulation and the National Party on Thursday night voted for it. Interestingly, when you go to the reasons they gave, the most telling comment came after Senator Minchin had described the fact that he believed this bill would be unacceptable to the government and said: So I suspect we will be talking about this bill once more next week ... To that, Senator Joyce said: I understand completely the tactics. What would possess the National Party to decide on Thursday night that they would support the total deregulation of the wheat industry? HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr Bidgood —Spell it out! DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —I will spell it out—I respond to the interjection favourably—because it is an easy thing to spell out. You spell it this way: A-W-B. There was a late request that was going through the corridors of this house with respect to having a particular set of rules that would cause the one port in Melbourne, part owned by AWB, to have a set of rules different from those that would apply to every other port in the nation. AWB was never named in the debate—no, no, no. It kept being referred to as the ‘joint venture matter’. AWB sort of became the Voldemort of the Senate debate on Thursday night: everyone knows what you are talking about but you dare not speak its name. It was said by Senator Minchin in these terms: In the meantime, the government will have the opportunity to further consider its position with respect to the joint venture matter. (Extension of time granted) An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The people in the gallery will please respect the House. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —Senator Minchin said: In the meantime, the government will have the opportunity to further consider its position with respect to the joint venture matter. But certainly at this stage, it is the position of Liberal senators that we concur with the remarks of Senator Sherry on that matter. So, to try to get the special deal for AWB, amendments were put forward, and so determined were each of the coalition parties to make sure they could delay the legislation that we saw the National Party on Thursday night vote for the total deregulation of the wheat industry. As it happens, they made a mess of their own amendment that they put forward for the total deregulation of the wheat industry. I will start a step back from that. The objections and the barriers to individuals exporting their own wheat directly occurred in two places: one, in the principal bill, the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and, secondly, under the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, which had an amendment to some of the regulations contained under the Customs Act. The Senate amended the first bill but never read the second bill. So the House is in a situation now where, because there are no amendments to the second bill, it is impossible and not open to us to send those bills back to be corrected because one of them has now been approved in identical forms by both houses. That option is not open to the parliament now. The amendments were done in a lazy fashion by the opposition when they went for total deregulation. The attempts by both coalition parties to completely deregulate the wheat industry have fallen over, thankfully, because the one thing standing between protecting growers from total deregulation and it happening was competence from coalition senators in the other place. That did not happen and therefore we have the protection. There was not competence; we have the protection that the bill before us now cannot provide for individuals to export their own wheat because the second amendment to the other bill was never carried. These decisions and recommendations from the government have to be made on one question, and one question only—not on the basis of what tactical games the opposition tried to play, not on the basis of how bizarre it was to see National Party senators voting for total deregulation, but on the basis of: does the legislation before the House match government policy? And the answer to that is yes. What we have before us is legislation which ends the AWB monopoly on exports. It includes amendment to the objects clause, the review date and to transport systems which are acceptable to the government. What it has actually done in a legal sense with respect to individuals is take away any barrier to individuals exporting their own wheat in the principal legislation but left a regulation in place, which could conceivably be changed by a minister in the years to come, should a minister choose to make that change—I certainly will not be choosing to—to allow individuals to export their own wheat directly, by removing a customs prohibition. With that in mind, the legislation which we have before the House accords with the policies of the government. The government is not interested in providing a special deal on a commercial matter to a particular company exporting wheat. With that in mind, I commend the motion to the House, which is that the amendments be agreed to. That takes us into a new era of wheat export marketing. An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The people in the gallery will be quiet or I will have the attendants remove them. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to, Mr Forrest dissenting. 5539 Bills R2969 5539 Debate resumed from 19 June, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mrs Bronwyn Bishop moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to the give the Bill a second reading, the House: notes that the bill creates a new category of memorial—namely a Military Memorial of National Significance; 5540 12:38:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I rise to speak in continuation, after a very brief appearance before question time last Thursday, which some even described as ‘saucy’. The Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 delivers the government’s election commitment to recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a national memorial. The memorial is the result of an outstanding effort by the Ballarat RSL, the Ex-Prisoners of War Association and the city and people of Ballarat to recognise the bravery and sacrifice of more than 35,000 Australian prisoners of war held during the Boer War, the two world wars and the Korean War. They built this magnificent memorial with fundraising appeals and their own hard work. They sought and rightly received significant funding from the previous government in support of their project. But the previous government refused repeated requests to recognise it as a national memorial; they said it could not be done. They said only memorials located in the Australian Capital Territory could be national memorials. The Australian Labor Party insisted that it could be done if the government was willing. This bill delivers that commitment. I am pleased that the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat will be the first memorial declared under the new act. This bill will also establish a clear process and stringent criteria to recognise other memorials of similar importance to our wartime history. The bill will apply to eligible memorials located outside the Australian Capital Territory and specifically will not apply to the establishment of national memorials in the national capital. The legislation will enable the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, with the written approval of the Prime Minister, to declare a memorial under the proposed bill. The Commonwealth will not be responsible for funding or maintaining a memorial that has been declared, so the memorial must also be owned or managed by an authority at the state, territory or local government level. The responsibility for ongoing maintenance or any refurbishment of a declared memorial will remain with the authority that owns or manages it. I acknowledge the commitment and fine work of these levels of government in establishing and maintaining memorials around Australia during the last century and trust that they will continue to preserve these important components of our heritage. National memorial status should not be something that is taken lightly. To ensure this is the case, the bill sets out strict criteria that must be met before a memorial can be declared. This legislation will support the strong tradition of commemoration in Australia’s communities, recognising significant memorials that are worthy of being declared national memorials. This has been a long debate in the House, and I think that has shown the interest that exists on both sides to ensure that these issues are dealt with seriously and the real significance that commemoration has in Australian society—and I commend that. However, as is usual with a summing up with respect to a second reading, it is appropriate that I go through some of the issues that were raised by a number of speakers, in order to clarify some of the points that were made. The shadow minister, in moving this amendment, said that she spoke with some sadness. I guess I would have to say that in some respects I do too, because I think this is something where we could concentrate on what is positive and good about this bill rather than looking at aspects of what might have been said, could have been said or has been said, in order to confuse the matter. I will go through a number of the points that were made by some speakers and make some comments in response. One of the things that has been said—by a number of members, including the member for Hinkler, the member for Ryan, the member for Fisher, the member for Moncrieff and, I think, also the shadow minister—is that this bill does not meet an election commitment but in fact breaks one by creating a new category of a military memorial of national significance. It has been said that national memorials can only be located in Canberra and that, in those circumstances, this is not the way to go forward. I want to go through some of those points in some detail, lay out some of the history and go through what people have said on the record about some of these points, in order to ensure that we have it clearly understood what is being proposed here. The fact of the matter is that ‘national memorial’ and ‘military memorial of national significance’ are interchangeable terms, and they have been used by a number of people on an interchangeable basis. I will explain to the member for Mackellar, in the very near future, who some of those people are. To lay the groundwork with respect to that, I go to an exchange in the Senate estimates hearing just the other day, between the head of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and Senator Cormann, which I think outlines the nature of the thinking, intention and understanding on behalf of government and the department with respect to what was done with this legislation: Senator CORMANN—Can you describe to us what the status of a military memorial of national significance is? Mr Sullivan—It is a national memorial. The current government, as you are aware, pushed for the fact that memorials outside of Canberra—and particularly the POW memorial— Senator CORMANN—Sorry—I have made a technical error. As I understood it, the pre-election commitment was to make the ex-prisoners of war memorial in Ballarat the national memorial, rather than a military memorial of national significance. Mr Sullivan—That is semantics—it is a national memorial. Senator CORMANN—Is it semantics, or is there a statutory definition? Mr Sullivan—No, it was decided to call this a ‘military memorial of national significance’. The current government’s intention was very clear: in opposition, they argued for the fact that a national memorial outside of Canberra could be nominated under the existing ordinance, and they had some legal opinion which, in their view, supported that fact. The policy intent of the then opposition, and now government, was to say, ‘We want national memorials outside of Canberra, and we will enact to have one.’ Senator CORMANN—But not a national memorial: memorials of national significance. Mr Sullivan—A memorial of national significance is a national memorial—this is a Commonwealth piece of legislation. I think you have heard the minister, I have heard the Prime Minister, and I have heard members of the opposition describe the fact that what we are doing is catering for the recognition of national memorials outside of Canberra. If there was fault anywhere, maybe it was the fact that we came up with the name ‘Military Memorials of National Significance Bill’, which the minister accepted. Senator CORMANN—Yes. Mr Sullivan—If I had known that the semantics of that title would suggest to anyone that we were not talking about national memorials, I would rue the fact that we called it that. It is understandable why the question about what those terms meant was in fact confusing to some people. More to the point, as I will outline, a number of people associated with this debate over the years have used both terms in the context of the same situation. I quote from the Ballarat Courier of 17 February 2006 with respect to this very issue. It says: The Federal Government has snubbed a new request from Ballarat MHR Catherine King to have the Australian Ex-POW Memorial in Ballarat listed as a monument of national significance. Ms King wrote to newly appointed Minister for Veterans Affairs Bruce Billson last week asking the Federal Government to list the Ballarat memorial as nationally significant. But Mr Billson last night said any listing would require a change in the law and could open up a flood of similar requests from across the country. So that is the member for Ballarat, who has had an interest in this issue for quite some time now, utilising the terms in those circumstances. But that is not all. The Ballarat Courier, which has been one of the local institutions that has run very strongly on this issue for some time, has also had a view with respect to this terminology and the nature of what it means. I quote again from an editorial opinion in the Ballarat Courier of 23 January 2007. It says: It should get the support of the Federal Government which must realise that monuments of national significance are not always situated in the nation’s capital. So that is the local newspaper taking that view. But there is probably an even higher authority than that, probably even someone whom I would have to view as really central to this debate, because it was his decision around the question of what was done, and that is the former minister, the member for Dunkley, Mr Billson. I quote from an article, again in the Ballarat Courier, with respect to this issue. It says: Mr Billson said the advice referred to the labelling of the monument, rather than its listing as nationally significant. He remained firm that monuments listed as nationally significant must be in the ACT and questioned the relevance of the legal advice. So in the context of the use of the terminology the situation is that everybody has used this terminology in a manner which would allow you to interchange it. That is the intention, that is the reality and that is in fact how it should be understood. Again, this is a difficult technical argument in some respects around some of the other issues that have been raised. I want to go to a couple of other points. In the context of the position that was taken—and this needs to be very clearly understood—the circumstances with respect to the previous minister were very much this, and I quote again from the Ballarat Courier with respect to this issue. It says: New Veterans’ Affairs Minister Bruce Billson says to declare it a national monument would require a change in the law and— wait for it— would potentially open the floodgates for many similar requests related to other monuments. That is the point here: there was scope for the government to act but it required, in their view, legislative change. The key point to remember is that they refused to do it. To say it was illegal under the current standing in the law is an argument that can be put and it is an argument that the government stuck to. But rather than change the law—and this is the federal parliament; I thought that is what we did—the position the previous minister took was to refuse to change the law, and the position the current opposition are taking is endeavouring to confuse the matter about the question of the semantics of the wording in order to try to get away from the fact that this is a situation where the government is acting and doing something about something they refused to do, something the previous government refused to act upon. That is a really important point in terms of this debate. Going on from there, on the issue of funding which, again, has been an issue that has raised some concern, there is no doubt over the long debate that occurred around this issue before this legislation that funding was a concern raised by a number of people. And some local officials have sought funding with respect to this. Our position has been clear from the start. We made an initial commitment around the question of a one-off grant with respect to the forward estimates in terms of funding for maintenance, with a very clear understanding that that was it. We have legislated on this occasion to deal with that issue around the question of recognition on an official basis. That is what we have done. In the context of the funding issue, though, I think there a few points that need to be made. For one, it has been said that the 1928 ordinance attaches funding. It does not. Again I quote from estimates: Mr Sullivan—In terms of the 1928 ordinance, I have just been told that it does not have any provision for funding—that is, there are a range of systems that provide for its funding. The ordinance itself does not result in any funding. At the local level, who is responsible for the funding now? It is the Ballarat council. There is no doubt that at earlier times they did raise this issue as something they thought needed to be addressed. But let us go to more recent times, the last couple of years, to see the position that has been stated publicly in terms of this debate. I quote from the Ballarat Courier dated 2 March 2006 on this very question. It says: However, Ballarat Mayor David Vendy said the issue of the memorial was not about council getting extra funds, but about the 36,000 Australians who suffered as prisoners of war. Then again, a year later, on 6 February 2007, an article in the Canberra Times states: But Ballarat City Council chief executive Richard Hancock said yesterday it allocated $48,000 a year for the upkeep of the memorial, without complaint from ratepayers. It was not seeking any funding from the Government, simply the national recognition. Would some organisations like funding provided? Of course they would. That is the nature of organisations. I understand that, and it is quite an understandable position to take. However, we have been very clear about what we will and will not do. And the key organisation responsible for providing funding locally has also publicly, twice now in the last two years, made it clear that from their point of view that is not the issue. The other point that has been made is that essentially we backed away from what we said very much in terms of the approach. I will concede this to the opposition: the situation we now face—and the shadow minister is correct here—is that we are dealing with this issue in the manner which the previous minister said was required in order to deal with it. I accept that. To give the background to it—and I want to make it clear that there is a bit of background, but I will be brief because of the limited time I have left—it goes like this: the member for Ballarat had a legal opinion which said that action could be taken under the ordinance. The government of the day had advice that that was not the case. The position the opposition took with respect to that, on more than one occasion, was to basically say, ‘We support the legal opinion as a basis to go forward, but we are prepared to act and do whatever has to be done in order to ensure this issue is dealt with.’ I want to draw on a couple of quotes. Again, I will go back a couple of years, to 24 February 2006. The then opposition leader was Mr Beazley. An article in the Ballarat Courier said: Mr Beazley called on the government, which claims the current law does not allow for the listing of national monuments outside Canberra, to change it. “It’s been said by the Federal Government that the ordinance doesn’t permit it—well, there are various legal opinions on that. But if the ordinance doesn’t permit it, the ordinance can be changed and we’d change it to ensure that it is possible to recognise the national memorial outside Canberra,” he said. “The case here is impeccable and the government should adopt it. If they don’t, when we get into office, we will.” I will now move to the current Prime Minister and what he has said on at least two occasions. One quote, which is from the Age of 28 June 2007, said: Mr Rudd, visiting Ballarat yesterday, promised he would “move anything necessary to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial”. And in a radio interview with Mike Cooper on 27 June 2007 on 3BA Ballarat, Mr Rudd said: If we form the next government, I will move, I will move anything necessary to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial. He goes on to say: You know, I spend a lot of time in Canberra and I’m just as happy to see memorials outside of Canberra as well. COOPER: Of national significance— there is that term again, ‘of national significance’— RUDD: Memorials of national significance, yeah, and Ballarat, beautiful city that it is, it’s a great location for such a memorial. So the bottom line with these points is: there has been a long-standing interest from the government with respect to these issues. The member for Mitchell suggested this bill had come about from a mistake and a hasty promise. Well I would hate to see one that has taken a while to gestate! The fact of the matter is that this has been on the books for some years now. There has been considerable public debate about it, both locally and nationally, and the key point that I am making in response to what has been said is that the terms are being used by some to try to hide behind the fact that their original position cannot be defended. The bottom line position here is that any government could act, but, in acting, would have required a change in the law. The circumstances here are that we accepted that position and we have acted according to that. The previous government had years to do that and refused to do it. So when members opposite stand up and say they support what is being done, as a number have done, but then at the same time say, ‘Actually, it’s not meeting the promise,’ it is a semantic argument that basically does them no credit. What we should be saying now is that this is a national memorial, a memorial of national significance. It is something we should accept and get behind. There are other aspects which relate to the amendment that I think are factually incorrect around aspects of what has occurred. I do not have the time today to go through those, but what I would say to all present is that this legislation deserves to be supported and the arguments that have been put in favour of the amendment deserve to be rejected. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mrs Bronwyn Bishop’s amendment) stand part of the question. 13:00:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke) 71 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. 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. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Georganas, S. 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. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. 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. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 52 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. 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. * Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. 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. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 3 Danby, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Garrett, P. Costello, P.H. Gillard, J.E. Downer, A.J.G. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5545 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 5545 13:06:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I wish to refer to the first part of the bill, which sets out the title, the commencement and the definition. I want to draw the minister’s attention to the explanatory memorandum and his comments during his summing up that a national memorial is the same as a military memorial of national significance and that this debate has merely been a semantic debate. I reject that right from the outset and I would direct him to the outline and financial impact statement in the explanatory memorandum. I do so in this context. We as legislators have an obligation always to make the law clear, and definition sections of bills, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech—which are source material for courts, which may subsequently use them to make a decision—are most important. The outline says: The Bill will provide a mechanism to honour the Government’s election commitment to declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat, to be a national memorial. It then says why it needs a mechanism: National memorials are recognised under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 and are restricted to memorials within the Australian Capital Territory. This Bill will recognise the national significance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat and will enable, in the future, other memorials that meet specified criteria, to be recognised as a Military Memorial of National Significance. It makes it quite clear that this is a new category of memorial. I accept that the minister said that this is the way to go forward. I agree with that. This is the way to go forward. I said in my speech in the second reading debate, and I will go on saying, that this is a magnificent memorial of enormous importance that needs to be recognised. The minister conceded that a change in law was required, as the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs always said, and that the spurious legal opinion going around was not worth the paper it was written on. The point is this: another way that this could have been done would have been to simply have a special piece of legislation to declare the Ballarat memorial a military memorial of national significance. It could have provided ongoing finance. Although the minister said in summing up that there is nothing in the ordinance that says funding for national memorials comes from the Commonwealth, the fact of the matter is that it does. There are other aspects in this legislation relating to the question of funding that I want to go through during consideration in detail. I notice there was a line item in the budget for further funding for this particular memorial—to which the former Howard government had already given $500,000. We did that because we believed in the significance of the memorial. Here the government and the opposition are in fact in unison. It needed to be recognised. But I heard the parliamentary secretary rise in the House last week and say they were declaring a national memorial. That just is not true: it is a new category, it is important and it matters. To simply have semantic arguments when we are dealing with legislation and when there is the need to be precise simply will not do. We moved the amendment to put it on the record. In no way did we ever want to deny this bill passage, as I made quite clear all along. The Ballarat memorial for ex-prisoners of war is enormously important in our heritage. There are some other significant points in the bill I want to raise with the minister, but I would like to give him the opportunity now to reply to the points I have made. 5546 13:10:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —To go to the question on the status of a national memorial: the point we are making—and I think it is relatively clear in that paragraph—is that this is about national memorials outside the national capital. That is really what we are talking about here. It sets up the circumstance which allows that to occur. The shadow minister mentions the legal advice. I will clarify our position with respect to that. Our view is that that legal advice was capable of being acted upon. However, upon being appointed in government I had further discussions with the department. They raised some significant questions about what might occur in those circumstances. Therefore, it was a matter of what was the best way in which the government could meet its commitment and ensure that what was intended was actually put in place. In those circumstances there were several options that could have been pursued. This was, in our view, the best option and the cleanest and clearest option to ensure that we had a justifiable and defendable process in the future. The debate has centred around the Ballarat memorial because of the status of that memorial and the work that has gone on— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —And its importance. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —and its importance, as the shadow minister interjects—and I agree. But it has also opened up the other argument, which is: if a memorial in Ballarat—outside the Capital Territory—can be of such significance, is there a possibility that other memorials might be considered in the same fashion? That was the very question that the previous minister was concerned about when he came to his view on funding implications. The government took the view that it was worth while putting in place a process to allow individual memorials to be considered but that we should ensure that that would not occur lightly. It is incredibly serious for a memorial to be granted such status. On the funding issue, I guess what we tried to do was to be up-front straightaway. There is no ongoing funding, there will not be ongoing funding and that is the way it is. That is the position of this government and will remain the position of this government with respect to memorials outside the national capital. 5547 13:13:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I want to go to clause 4(3) of the bill, just to reinforce the point that you cannot say that a national memorial is the same as a military memorial of national significance. You cannot say that black is white and expect it to be accepted. According to the explanatory memorandum: ... the memorial must be owned or managed by a State or Northern Territory authority and that authority must be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial, including financial responsibility. The authority must also be responsible for any refurbishment of the memorial. You will notice it says that it must be owned by a state or the Northern Territory authority, because it specifically excludes the ACT. It says: The Australian Capital Territory ... is excluded from this Act because national memorials in the ACT are approved under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928. The Ordinance applies only to National Land within the ACT. The Ordinance cannot apply to memorials located outside the ACT and this Act cannot apply to memorials located in the ACT. In other words, it is stating very clearly that the two are not the same but are different, and it makes that difference for a very good purpose. In the ACT, the Commonwealth does pay for the ongoing upkeep. The bill makes it very specific. Part 3 of the bill says the Commonwealth is not responsible for declared memorials, which it is responsible for in Canberra under the old ordinance. This bill does not amend the ordinance. This bill will stand alone. Clause 9 in part 3, entitled ‘Miscellaneous’, says: The Commonwealth does not have any responsibility (financial or otherwise) for a memorial merely because a declaration has been made under section 4 in relation to the memorial. That is very clear. But a memorial that is declared under the ordinance of 1928 in the ACT is the responsibility of the federal government, whereas this bill specifically says that the War Memorial will not, must not and cannot be the responsibility of the federal government. I would ask the minister to reply. 5547 13:16:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —On the question of the difference with respect to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 and the reason why the ACT is excluded, if you wanted to put it in absolutely anally specific terms, this is for national memorials outside of the ACT versus the question— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —I mean I am being specific. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Keep it clean, please! VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —I meant no offence. I think we know in what context I meant that term. The member for Sturt knows, I am sure, that that is what I meant as he is a fine user of the English language on occasions and would know that what I meant was the retentive nature of what I said. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I am sure you meant anally retentive. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —Indeed. My point, though, is that, in respect to the actual situation, that is the difference. On the question of what occurs in relation to the ACT and national memorials in the ACT, it is my understanding that there are different approaches taken around the question of funding provision for maintenance et cetera with respect to some memorials which are national memorials in the ACT. My understanding is that, for example, the financial support for maintenance of the police memorial is provided through police sources. I believe that to be the case. I have seen a report to that effect. I also understand, from some discussion that I have had, that different sources sometimes provide the financial support or have, on occasions, passed that financial support on to authorities that have then had responsibility. I do not think it is quite as clear-cut as what has been suggested. My point, though, is that, if we get into an argument about funding and funding sources, I think we take away from the significance of what we are supposed to be talking about here, which is about recognition of how significant a memorial is. I do not think we want to get into a situation of arguing that it is about the question of how much money is provided in the longer term or get into a situation of saying a memorial that cost $5 million is better than one that cost $7 million or one that cost $3 million. The point here that we need to stick to and emphasise is that it is about the significance of what the memorial stands for and the size and nature of its construction—it is about the issues that go through the bill about what the criteria should be to judge these sorts of matters. My point is that this provides a vehicle for memorials outside the national capital to be considered on that question of whether they qualify as national memorials, and we ought not to be in a situation where we focus that onto a question about provision of national funding. Frankly, it misses the point. 5548 13:19:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —The reason I said that a second alternative would have been to have had a Ballarat prisoner of war memorial specific bill is that it then the bill could have provided ongoing funding for that memorial and the Commonwealth could have remained responsible for that memorial. I do believe that the nature and history of this memorial is such that it was deserving of such status. But the government has chosen to create this new category. As I listen to the debate that has gone on in the chamber, I heard again and again members talk about memorials in their own electorate—ones which, I would imagine, people are going to be making applications to have listed. The criteria are set out in the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 for how the Prime Minister has to be satisfied. Firstly, the minister has to be satisfied that the criteria, which are very broad, are met, and then the Prime Minister has to sign off on it in writing. Then it can be declared. I suspect that, in developing just what the meaning of these protocols or these criteria are, some people are going to become disappointed. The other thing that has not come out in the debate to this point is that the government retains the right to publish in the Gazette a revocation of such a declaration. It simply says in the bill: if: …            …            … the Minister is no longer satisfied that the memorial meets the criteria specified in subsection 4(3); or the memorial has been altered since the declaration was made, and the Minister has not approved the alteration under section 5; and If that is the case, it becomes automatically no longer so from the time of that signature or that gazettal; it immediately becomes a memorial which no longer has the title of military memorial of national significance. The really disappointing part of this is that, because we are dealing with something that is so important in our national psyche and because of our national concern with memorials, which are important to us, the bill specifically declares that it is not a legislative instrument, which means that it is not subject to tabling disallowance in both houses of parliament, which in turn means that the parliament will have no say on whether or not that revocation of status of military memorial of national significance remains or fails. It will merely be on the personal interpretation of the minister of the day and the Prime Minister as to whether or not the memorial is, for instance, being modified in a way they do not approve of. Perhaps it is no longer playing a major role in the community or perhaps the flag protocols are not being observed. Indeed, because there is no money provided, it might have become run down and might not have been preserved. By saying that we have this important new category of military memorial of national significance which, unlike a national memorial in the ACT, can by the stroke of a pen have its status taken away without the parliament having a say and with this legislation specifically saying that there will be no money or responsibility taken by the Commonwealth, I think we have created a difficulty for the way ahead. I would like the minister to respond. 5549 13:23:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —Again, I think we are getting into arguments around the edges about the nature of how this will operate. The intention from the government’s point of view is to ensure that there is an open process. If decisions are taken, they will be gazetted and it is clearly understood publicly that that is the case. It is hard to envisage a situation where something could occur with a memorial of this significance. An example I could think of would be perhaps a natural disaster such as the complete destruction of the memorial with the decision being taken that it is not appropriate to rebuild at a location. But I cannot think of too many examples. The nature of what is intended, which goes off the criteria that are there, is that there is no doubt that these are memorials which will be maintained into the future. The intention with this bill is that the authorities that are currently responsible for them will continue to be responsible for them, in many cases as they have been responsible for them for 20, 30, 40, 50 years. There is the question of what might happen in the future with regard to other applications for national memorial status. There is no doubt, having heard from a number of speakers on both sides of the House, that individual members of parliament have a strong belief that there are memorials in their electorates that are worthy of consideration for national memorial status. I would say that that is true; there are certainly some that are. There are others that I think probably are of enormous significance in themselves that do not meet the criteria we are talking about. That is something that will be tested by an application process. It will be an application process where, as I said, the results will be clear and public and the circumstances are that the debate will be considered on that basis. 5550 13:25:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —As I said, the provisions in clause 4(3) set the criteria out very specifically. I have to say to the minister, one can talk about intent and one can talk in global terms. You can wish something will happen but, when you are talking about the initiation of a policy and you start to put that policy into legislation—and I am sorry; I know you are not a lawyer—you must put it in specific terms. It is our obligation as legislators to make it as clear and precise as we possibly can. You said I am talking at the edges when I am talking particularly about the clauses in the bill itself. That is the reason we have this discussion in detail because we are looking specifically at the way in which those clauses may impact. So I now want to look at the general nature of clause 4(3) and what is required for a memorial to be declared a military memorial of national significance. It says that it must be ‘of a scale, design and standard appropriate for a memorial of national significance and appropriately dignified and symbolic’. In whose judgement is that to be the test? Secondly, it must commemorate ‘Australia’s military involvement in a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history’ and that must be its sole purpose. Again, there are subjective criteria there. The memorial must have a ‘major role in community commemorations’. What is the evidence to prove that? How does one judge whether that is the case or not? The observation of Commonwealth flag protocols in relation to the memorial is another requirement. Does it have to be every day, all day or a majority of the year—what is the test to be applied? The memorial must be ‘owned and managed by a state or Northern Territory authority that has responsibility, including financial, for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial and for any refurbishments’. It can be an authority under either the state or the Northern Territory and it may be an authority which has an ongoing nature or an authority that does not. What happens if that authority folds? What judgement will the minister make? The memorial must comply with ‘applicable planning, construction and related requirements’. That seems to be a straightforward requirement. It must be on public land. It must be publicly accessible and there must be no entry fee. What happens if some barricade is erected? What sort of judgement will be made there? The memorial must be a ‘completed and functioning memorial’. I am not sure what a functioning memorial is, but no doubt there will be some criteria developed. The bill says the memorial must not be associated with ‘a commercial function that conflicts with its commemorative purpose’. What will be the judgement about that? Will people be able to buy replicas of the memorial or whatever the case may be? I note that there is provision for a regulation-making power. These are such broad definitions and their impact is so great. Even if one achieves a declaration for a memorial in one’s own electorate that makes it a memorial of national significance, what happens when those tests are no longer met and that status is taken away? As I said, it can be taken away by the stroke of a pen and without the parliament having any say because it is specifically not a disallowable instrument. There is power to make regulations. I wonder whether the minister will comment on the comments that I have made and also tell me whether or not it is intended that there will be regulations drawn up and what will be the timetable for those regulations if that is to be the case. 5551 13:29:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I am sorry; I was not alerted to the fact that there would be a significant amount of questioning occurring at the consideration in detail stage—there is no requirement that it be done—so I apologise to the House for having to seek further advice on aspects. It is getting much more like a dealing in the Senate, but that is fine. On the criteria with respect to the operation of the bill and how a decision will be made, what we have there, if you like, are the parameters—the basic bones for consideration. Yes, there will be an element of testing how those matters will be considered over time. I will use an example which relates to the operation of my portfolio now with something which I think is similar although not exactly the same. I think it makes the point by way of example. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has responsibility for the use of the word ‘Anzac’—where it can be used and in what circumstances. There are regulations with respect to that which outline a number of sets of circumstances for when it can be used in a commercial setting—for example, anzac biscuits cannot be called ‘cookies’ and so on and so forth. On a regular basis—and on a much more regular basis than I expect for applications under this legislation—applications come in from various sources seeking approval to use the term ‘Anzac’. When they do, applicants are required to consult with the department around the question of what circumstances they will use it in. As is always the case in these circumstances, you can have only so much prescription around the question of the operation of the regulations, and there is often a need for some interpretation as to how you would apply the regulations. In those circumstances—and I note that Mr Deputy Speaker Scott would be aware of this from his time as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs—sometimes a judgement is required to be made as to whether or not the guidelines have been met. What do you do in those circumstances? You endeavour to form a judgement on the basis of advice. Your principal source of advice will be the department, but if there are other circumstances which may be taken into account then you could consult—and I have consulted—with ex-service organisations about their view and sometimes also with local authorities. On this issue, those criteria give you the basis to work from. The minister will seek advice from the department and from other organisations like the RSL—in my view—and come to a decision. If that decision is viewed as being the wrong decision, I guess that will be tested in the court of public opinion. But I stress that I do not believe that we will face this situation on a regular basis, and I do believe that we have to test the legislation and any criteria on the basis of the applications received. I certainly believe that there will be a need to see how that develops over time, but I am conscious of the fact that this is a significant set of criteria which will not enable many very good memorials to meet. However, I believe that there are some that will. That will be tested through the application process in consultation with the department and the ex-service community. 5551 13:33:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Minister, the reason we have consideration in detail of a bill is to see how, precisely, the legislation is going to operate. There is no provision in the bill for consultation with anyone. The decision is to be yours and the Prime Minister’s. Indeed, under the ordinance of 1928 there is a group of people who make a decision about the ACT and a national memorial. This is a different category and a different way that a decision is made as to whether a memorial will be a military memorial of national significance or not. So it is not good enough to say that there is some analogy with using the term ‘Anzac’ in relation to a cookie. I am afraid that we are dealing with a specific piece of legislation here. In that instance you are not. So there is a difference. That is precisely why I said that a better route may well have been to have declared the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a specific military memorial of national significance, given it ongoing funding and given it very specific status so it would be certain and not subject at any time to a revocation clause. That would have been my preferred way to proceed. Should there have been other memorials of similar importance, those could have been considered by the government as a matter of policy and further legislation introduced to make those memorials similar memorials of national significance. But in introducing a bill such as this and to simply say about the Ballarat memorial that it does not have to apply—in other words, that it, and it alone, is automatically said to meet the criteria, which is the way you have chosen to proceed—there is nothing to save the Ballarat memorial from the revocation clause. So, although you say that you are going to consult, there is no provision to consult—the decision is yours—and that is precisely why I asked you whether it is your intention to bring forward regulations and what is the timetable for those regulations if that is your intent. 5552 13:35:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —To pick up a couple of points there, clause 8 of the bill is actually on consultation. It does not give specifics, but it says: For the purpose of making decisions under this Act, the Minister may consult any persons or bodies that the Minister thinks it appropriate to consult. I think that is a standard situation, frankly, but it states the fact that consultation will be part of what occurs. The shadow minister referred to the issue around the ordinance and its operation with respect to consideration of memorials in the ACT. I guess the argument there is that the committee itself, if you like, is a consultative mechanism. The bottom line is that it is not required to consult with anyone either. The bottom line here is to have a bit of common sense, and frankly that is what we will be looking to try and do. I can assure you that that is the intention of the bill and the intention of the government in the future. I think we are really getting bogged down here a bit. I will go now to the other points made by the shadow minister. The shadow minister’s position is that it would have been preferable to have passed a bill on the Ballarat POW memorial as a single piece of legislation. If that was the only national memorial that we thought ought to be considered or if we thought that we ought be in a situation where we accept that, other than for a specific location, a national memorial cannot be located outside of the national capital then that would be an approach one could take. Frankly, I would not want to see a situation where, every time a memorial was mentioned as being worthy of consideration as a national memorial, we would have to deal with the situation by individual, specific pieces of legislation. I do not think that would be a sensible use of the parliament’s time with respect to considering these matters. There was a suggestion made in relation to the cookie reference that it is not a particularly appropriate comparator. This relates to the use of the term ‘Anzac’, which has particular significance in our society, which the shadow minister well knows. It is something which on occasions, and rightly so, is treated with tremendous reverence within the Australian community. That is why there are regulations which relate to its use. That is why it requires a ministerial decision around the question of when it can be used. It is because of many of the very criteria contained in this bill and the intention of this bill with respect to national memorials that in fact it is a very relevant comparator to use in the circumstances. It is about appropriate recognition for terms, or in this case for monuments, that are significant within the Australia community. On the question of whether regulations will be required in future in relation to this matter, it is quite possible. Do I have a timetable on actions with respect to that? At this stage, I do not. I am happy to get back to the shadow minister with respect to that. I now understand that the shadow minister’s intention is that this bill will go through the other place unamended. That is not something we were clear on until just now. We have a view about how something will operate but, while there is still a question mark over what in fact is being passed, it is best to wait to see what we end up with before we go to the question of what our next step will be beyond that. The fact of the matter, though, in respect of this particular issue is that this is legislation which provides a capacity missing within the Australian community to deal with national memorials outside the national capital and therefore it ought to be supported. 5553 13:39:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —This will be my last intervention on the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. It is to simply say that my intention was made clear all along—that the bill would receive the backing of the opposition because it is important for the bill to pass. However, it was important to make the point and hence the amendment, which is of course preceded by the words ‘while not declining to give the bill a second reading’. That is precisely why we did not vote against the bill on the second reading, why we did not divide and why it will go through the Senate unamended. We had to make the point that you cannot just call it a semantic argument and say that a national memorial and a military memorial of national importance are exactly the same. You cannot say that white is just pale black. They are not the same and the distinction had to be made between them. In listening to the debate it was really very moving to hear many members talk about the significance of memorials that they have in their own electorates. Clearly some of them intend to hopefully see them recognised under the new classification. We will be watching this with interest. I am pleased to hear you say, Minister, that you will be making regulations if you see that that is necessary, because the criteria and the parameters as set up are broad. To comment on your comments relating to the decision you have to make about the term ‘Anzac’, it is the most revered term we have in our lexicon in this area. You and I both agree on that, Minister. I think we both agree also on the significance of the Ballarat prisoner-of-war memorial. It is of enormous significance to the 36,000 who were taken as prisoners of war and to their families. 5553 13:41:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —Briefly, basically I agree with the comments made by the shadow minister in the last components of her contribution. There is no doubt about that. I think we are all as one in terms of the significance and importance of this and the fact that the POW memorial in Ballarat is a fantastic memorial that does justice to the tremendous courage and sacrifice of those it commemorates. I look forward to being in a situation where we can in a bipartisan fashion commemorate that in the future. I understand the tactical approach taken by the opposition to dealing with this bill. I do not agree with it, as you would expect. I would stress the point that, although I was clear on the circumstances with respect to what would occur in the lower house, as to the end result and the approach being taken I was not aware of what might occur in the Senate. I have seen plenty of occasions where an opposition—and I have been part of an opposition which has done this on occasion—has put up second reading amendments for various reasons in the lower house and then done its level best to seek amendments in the Senate of a substantive nature. That is not a new thing. Certainly it is something that for the next week the current opposition has the capacity to do, although it is a bit more problematic come September. Nonetheless I think we have covered these issues in a fair bit of detail now and I think the government’s intention is clear. I commend the bill to House. Bill agreed to. 5554 Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce —Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) 13:43:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5554 Bills R2964 5554 Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 5554 13:43:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —The Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008 amends the Judiciary Act 1903 to permit the states and territories to provide for time limitations and notice requirements in respect of actions for the recovery of constitutionally invalid taxes in the federal jurisdiction. It is a bill that the opposition regards as uncontroversial, and as a consequence the bill will be supported. The bill is in response to the High Court decision in British American Tobacco v Western Australia (2003), which involved proceedings in the federal jurisdiction for the recovery of invalid taxes paid under Western Australian law. The court held that provisions in Western Australian law containing a special notice requirement and limitation period for actions against the Crown in right of Western Australia were not applied by section 79 of the Judiciary Act. The matter of bringing remedial legislation was agreed between the former government and the states through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and a bill in the same terms as this bill was drafted. However, it was never presented, due to disagreements between the former government and the states in respect to other issues. This bill amends the act to allow the states and territories to apply time and notice limitations on actions to recover amounts paid under an invalid tax and to bar suits on the grounds that the person bringing the suit has charged someone else for the amount of the tax. Its objective is to protect the revenue of the states and, as I said before, it is an uncontroversial bill which the opposition supports. 5554 13:45:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008. It is a bill in response to the High Court decision known as British American Tobacco v Western Australia (2003), a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia on 2 September 2003. The decision caused a problem, and it caused a problem for our state governments. The case related to proceedings in federal jurisdiction for invalid tax recovery under the law of Western Australia. The decision was handed down, as I said, on 2 September 2003 and, contrary to what the member for Sturt said, the Howard government really made no clear legislative attempt to remedy this decision in the third and fourth terms of its government. Decisions of the High Court of Australia have often caused significant impact upon our polity, our economy and our society, and some of those constitutional cases have been welcomed and taken us forward. I think of decisions like the engineers’ case in the 1920s, where ‘plain and simple meaning’ of the Constitution with respect to the exercise of Commonwealth power was used and adopted, and thenceforth great changes were made to constitutional law in this country. Uniform taxation cases in the 1940s, of course, made a big impact and led to the nonimposition of state income tax in this country, and that is a good thing. All those of us who come from Queensland certainly think so. I would also argue that the Franklin Dam case in the 1980s also made a great impact: the Commonwealth government’s power to legislate with respect to foreign affairs power after treaty signature in areas of traditional state domain also advanced the law reform in this country and also the protection of the environment—certainly in Tasmania. The Franklin area is a great place and I would encourage all members to go and have a look at it. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr —The 25th anniversary comes up on 1 July. HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr NEUMANN —Terrific. I must think about going. I think the Mabo decision could also fall into that category, although some others may disagree. Sometimes, however, decisions of the High Court cause angst, confusion and frustration to both sides of politics. I would think that the Chifley Labor government would probably say that with respect to the bank nationalisation case, and those opposite would also think the same in terms of the Communist Party bills in the 1950s put forward by the Menzies coalition government—although some would argue that, in referenda, the Australian public also acted as its own court of appeal on that particular issue. Others might argue that the Chifley Labor government had the same experience in terms of its electoral demise in 1949. So sometimes High Court decisions cause us plain confusion and sometimes they are great, and both sides of politics support this. But this was a case where the High Court did cause confusion of a financial nature to our state governments and certainly to their revenue. The actual decision itself of the High Court concerned a claim made by a tobacco wholesaler, BAT, against the government of Western Australia to recover license fees paid under the Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act 1975—a Western Australian piece of legislation. The claim was brought under the Western Australian Crown Suits Act 1947 and it was done after that High Court decision of Ha v New South Wales in 1997, where the High Court of Australia found that fees imposed under a similar law in New South Wales were actually excise duties and contrary to section 90 of the Constitution. At the time of the BAT case, the Western Australian act said you could not bring up a right of action against the Western Australian government unless a party proposed to give action by giving written notice to the Crown solicitor, advising of certain information within three months of the action accruing or as soon as practicable—whichever was the longer. In fact, the action was brought within one year of the action accruing. In this particular case it was common ground that the action accrued on 5 August 1997, when the judgement was delivered by the High Court in the Ha v New South Wales case. However, written notice was not given under section 6(1) of the Western Australian act until some 10 months after the relevant payment was actually made. That caused a problem. The case also related to federal jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court of Western Australia by section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act. What did the High Court actually find? It found a number of things. It found that a law such as section 39 of the Judiciary Act was an exercise of power under section 78 of the Constitution. The majority of the High Court found that. It also concluded that the Supreme Court of Western Australia had federal jurisdiction because of section 39(2)—and that was supported by the Australian Constitution in section 77(iii). It also found that section 79 of the Judiciary Act did not make section 6(1) of the Western Australia act applicable to federal jurisdiction. What that meant in practical terms was that the limitation period and the notice, a provision in the section 6(1) of the Western Australian act, was not binding on the Supreme Court exercising federal jurisdiction. The High Court then said that the limitation period prescribed by the Western Australian act, which applied only to actions against the Western Australian government, was invalid because it was inconsistent with section 64 of the Judiciary Act. In effect the High Court allowed the company’s appeal with costs. I have to say, in defence of the High Court—although I have been critical of some of their decisions—that, in fact, the British American Tobacco company paid licence fees invalidly to the state of Western Australia, and it would seem pretty reasonable and fair in the circumstances that they were able to recover their money. All the states have limitation periods, as I said, and we have different limitation periods throughout Australia. What the High Court said was that the special limitation period here did not apply and, of course, the British American Tobacco company could actually get their money back. So this bill restores to the states and territories the position everyone thought they were in prior to the BAT case, and the amendments purport to ensure that the Judiciary Act does not prevent the states and territories recovering money in the circumstances. Absent this bill there is a real possibility that claims could be made many years after state and territory money has been paid. This would actually impact adversely on our states and territories and certainly on their financial positions. The states and territories could not be assured that their budgetary processes were certain and had integrity. There were consultations by the previous government with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General which preceded this bill. The states and territories want this bill, and their governments are certainly right to seek it. The Rudd government argues that once again this bill, like so many others, is a clear demonstration of the cooperative federalist approach of the Rudd government. Cooperation and consultation are important in the circumstances between state governments and the federal government, not criticism and condemnation, which were so much the hallmark of the previous administration of this country and so much the approach of the previous Howard government. It is interesting that the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, said in his press release on 22 May 2008 that this bill is a clear example of the Rudd government cooperating closely with the states and territories to achieve progress for the future. He described the bill as ‘an example of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to cooperative federalism’. He also said: This is a matter that has long languished on the books of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for over four years because of the previous government declining to act for political reasons completely unrelated to the substance of the proposed legislation. His statement is a bit esoteric, a bit obtuse, but the previous government certainly received considerable sums of money from tobacco companies. This bill has as its objective the restoration of the previous perception held by the states and territories. That perception will become a reality as a result of this bill. The revenues of states and territories will be protected from future claims. The states and territories will be pleased about this bill proceeding. The bill will result in the state and territory governments having more money and more certainty. Their budgetary processes will have more integrity, and that is good for the people of my electorate of Blair in Queensland. It is good because it means more schools and hospitals, better roads and greater certainty. That is good for my electorate and it is good for many others around the country. I commend the bill to the House. 5557 13:54:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —As other honourable members have indicated, the Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008 seeks to respond to the High Court decision in British American Tobacco v Western Australia. It is an indication, as the member for Blair indicated, of the cooperation which can occur between the various levels of government in Australia. This bill is designed to safeguard the states against claims for recovery of incorrectly collected taxes well beyond what is a reasonable time frame allowable for the recovery of such taxes. It is important that governments at all levels have an understanding of the dollars they have to deliver the social outcomes needed by their communities, and state governments need to be able to be aware of the revenues that they will have available to them so that they are able to meet their constitutional responsibilities. The member for Blair indicated that this bill would mean that the state and territory governments would have more money. I suspect that we are not really talking about a lot of money at all, but I suppose the principle is that if the state and territory governments do not have to pay out funds many years down the track they will be able to spend dollars on improving infrastructure, which of course is a very desirable outcome. The Queensland state government wants to fast-track development of land in south-east Queensland and as yet has not indicated that it is prepared to assist councils, such as the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, to provide the necessary infrastructure for the services that people require when they move to a new area. So, while the member for Blair might indicate that the Judiciary Amendment Bill does in fact give extra dollars to the state government, it really is important that the state government uses those dollars, however few, wisely. I would urge that the state government uses its windfall from the GST to provide the infrastructure so desperately needed by the state of Queensland, particularly south-east Queensland, which people move to from other parts of the country—in particular, the infrastructure needed by the Sunshine Coast, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. It is always a challenge to provide services and it is generally accepted that governments at any level ought not to be able to spend more money than they earn. The Judiciary Amendment Bill will enable the states to be able to plan with a greater degree of certainty so that they will not be hit with large claims from many years ago. It is only right, of course, that if people wrongly pay moneys to governments, whether they are state or federal, that they are able to recover those moneys, but the aim of the Judiciary Amendment Bill is to impose a reasonable time frame on any such refunds. The threat of potential claims for the recovery of taxes is not conducive to the sound economic management of any government at any level. The virtue of this particular bill, the genesis of which was during the term of the prior government, will mean that states will be able to plan their financial activities with a greater degree of certainty. It was originally planned that the former, Howard government would bring this legislation into the parliament, but, as was indicated by the honourable member for Blair, there were disagreements between the Australian government and the various state governments, resulting in the legislation not proceeding through the parliament prior to the election, which was held, as we all know, on 24 November last year. It is appropriate that we as a civilised society ought to impose appropriate time frames on people who want to seek refunds from various governments. The British American Tobacco company decided to attempt to recover taxes in the light of a decision of the High Court, which ruled that similar licence fees imposed by New South Wales were in fact excise fees and therefore unconstitutional. This decision opened the door for the British American Tobacco company to seek a refund but, when negotiations with Western Australia to obtain a refund of $7 million in taxes paid failed to reach a solution satisfactory to the company, legal action was implemented. So the legislation we currently have before the chamber is simply legislation to make changes to the act so as to place the states and territories in the legal position that they believed they were in prior to the British American Tobacco case. These changes were drafted by the former coalition government and it is good to see this legislation before the chamber at this time. It is somewhat later than we would have liked, but the reality is that it is better late than never. I am very pleased to be able to commend the Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008 to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Fisher will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 5558 Ministerial Arrangements 5558 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time this week as she is attending the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington. The Minister for Employment Participation will answer questions on her behalf in relation to employment and workplace relations and education and social inclusion. The Minister for Resources and Energy and Tourism will be absent from question time this week as he also is attending the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington with the Deputy Prime Minister and representing the government at the Jeddah energy conference in Saudi Arabia. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. Further, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts will be absent from question time this week as he is attending the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Santiago, Chile. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on his behalf in relation to water and the Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions in relation to environment and heritage. 5558 Miscellaneous 5558 14:01:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: it is with great sadness that the nation reflects on the passing of Jane McGrath yesterday. Jane McGrath, founder of the McGrath Foundation, passed away at her home with her husband, Glenn, and children, James and Holly, by her side, following a decade-long battle with cancer. When a person is diagnosed with breast cancer, their life is suddenly set on an entirely different course. For Jane McGrath, her diagnosis meant the start of a personal battle, but it also meant embarking on a course of action aimed at inspiring thousands of women who suffer from this terrible disease. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 85. More than 13,000 new cases are diagnosed every year. Jane moved to Australia from England three months after meeting Glenn in 1995. She was diagnosed with breast cancer two years later at the very young age of 31. Jane and Glenn married in 1999 and had two kids, James and Holly, and in 2002 she became an Australian citizen. In the same year, following her initial recovery, she established the McGrath Foundation with her husband. The McGrath Foundation is Jane’s legacy, providing hope and support to thousands of women across Australia who suffer from breast cancer. She knew the importance of women taking control of their own health and the value of early detection. Her personal experience informed the direction of the McGrath Foundation. While the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are older than 40, breast cancer can affect women at any age and, as I said before, Jane was only 31 when she was first diagnosed. She was passionate about raising breast cancer awareness among younger women. Another central aspect of Jane McGrath’s work through the foundation was the promotion and funding of McGrath Breast Care Nurses. Jane’s personal experience convinced her of the value of health professionals specially trained to manage the care of breast cancer patients and who provide care, friendship and emotional support for women during this very challenging time. The Australian government recently provided $12 million over four years to the McGrath Foundation to recruit, train and employ up to 30 cancer nurses. The government is prepared to do more work with the McGrath Foundation into the future. Jane McGrath was and will remain a source of inspiration and hope to all Australians, in particular those personally affected by cancer. It is fitting that, along with her husband, Glenn, she was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia this year in recognition of her services to community health and the establishment of the McGrath Foundation. I understand that the Australian cricket team players, in honour of Jane’s memory, will wear pink ribbons and will use pink grips during the one-day international match in the West Indies. That is a really good thing for them to do. It is a great way of honouring the memory of this truly remarkable Australian woman. In the face of incredible challenges, Jane’s extraordinary courage and passion for life, I believe, has touched the hearts of all Australians. I believe it has touched the hearts of all members of this place. She will be remembered with great fondness for her work to help women and their families, and that work will continue. The thoughts and prayers of the nation are with Glenn, James, Holly and all of Jane’s family and friends at this most difficult time. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 5559 14:04:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I join with the Prime Minister in strongly supporting these remarks of condolence for Jane McGrath. Occasionally, this nation loses somebody in whom we see something of the kind of people that we would like to be. Jane McGrath, at the age of 42, has now gone. Her husband has lost a wife, two children, James and Holly, have lost their mother, and Australia has lost a woman who burrowed very deeply into our hearts. She was, as the Prime Minister just reminded us, diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997. It turned her life upside down, as it does every woman ever diagnosed with breast cancer. Not only did she, with determination, set out to fight the disease and receive all of the support and treatment that this country could offer but also she went on to have her family and, along with Glenn, establish the McGrath Foundation which, amongst other things, has given this country breast care nurses. Both sides of this parliament have committed strongly to significantly increasing the funding for those breast care nurses. None of us, particularly we men, should ever forget that there are 12,000 women over the next year who will be diagnosed with breast cancer; 2,700 women, over the course of this next year, will die from breast cancer. It is interesting that in 1983 we had 5,000 new cases a year, and now we have 12,000 new cases a year. And, whilst survival rates have increased from 70 per cent five years ago to more than 86 per cent, we still have a long way to go. As a parent with two daughters, I also say that, in a world where we have paraded before our children—and our young daughters in particular—role models of varying ability and admiration very rarely meeting the standards that we as parents have, Jane McGrath reminds us, in her life and in her death, that the value of one’s life is determined not by the adversities that come to you but by how you choose to deal with them. The McGrath Foundation will continue this important work. She is a woman much admired and much loved, and she will be greatly missed. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 5560 14:07:00 Questions Without Notice 5560 14:07:00 5560 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what has become of the blowtorch that the government was going to apply to the oil-producing countries? Doesn’t this prove that the government, when it comes to petrol prices, is ‘all blow and no torch’? 5560 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —What distresses me about the question from the Leader of the Opposition is that there seems to be one party in Australian politics that is happy about the fact that there are constraints on global oil supply. There seems to be one party which celebrates the fact that there are difficulties in the overall supply situation—and that is the party opposite—because they see political advantage in it. What we have said consistently is that any responsible long-term approach to the challenge of global oil means dealing with global supply constraints. Furthermore, it means dealing with the demand-side challenges which exist internationally, dealing with alternative fuel strategy within Australia, dealing with greater investment in fuel-efficient vehicles, dealing with necessary long-term investment in public transport and dealing with those measures which assist the family budget to cope with the overall assault on that budget by rising petrol prices, rising food prices and rising rents and mortgages. This is the responsible long-term course of action, and it would be good if those opposite engaged in responsible debate about the long-term challenges for global oil rather than celebrating the fact that there are challenges when it comes to global supply. 5560 5560 14:09:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the outcomes of the international oil summit in Jeddah over the weekend? 5560 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The government is pleased to have participated in the international oil summit in Jeddah over the weekend. This is a government which wishes to be a part of the solution to global oil, not just a part of the problem. We believe in making a positive contribution to dealing with what is the third-greatest oil shock we have seen in modern history and certainly the greatest shock since the 1970s. Governments around the world are struggling with the same challenge, which is why the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, supported by the government of the United Kingdom and other participating states, met in Jeddah over the weekend to discuss a range of matters on both the global supply side and the global demand side. Opening the conference, King Abdullah confirmed that Saudi Arabia had increased its daily production from nine million barrels to 9.7 million barrels. This increase in supply is an important step to put downward pressure on oil prices, but this will be a long-term process. It was welcomed by many nations. Australia was represented at the summit by the Minister for Resources and Energy, who called for action on the supply side, including investment in additional capacity, more efficient production technology and liberalisation of investment restrictions. All these measures are necessary if we are going to deal with longer term constraints to supply. If you look at successive reports by the International Energy Agency and others, our problem lies in the absence of effective levels and intensity of foreign direct investment in many of the world’s oil-producing countries. As a result there is inefficiency of extraction and world’s second-, third- and fourth-best practice when it comes to getting oil out of the ground and to customers. That is why Minister Ferguson was taking these important contributions to the conference. These sentiments were supported by many other countries and reflected very much in the summit’s final communique. The communique recognised that ‘an appropriate increase in investment, both upstream and downstream, is necessary to ensure that the markets are supplied in a timely and adequate manner’. The communique also recognised that supply would benefit from enhanced cooperation ‘from oil-producing and consuming countries in investment technology and human resource development’. This is an important content of the communique, because of so much national political resistance on the part of OPEC states to liberalising their foreign investment regime. This does not solve all problems on that score, but it pushes the debate one step further in terms of getting greater access to those oil-producing states on the part of greater flows of foreign direct investment. The Jeddah summit also focused on demand-side initiatives to again assist in taking some of the pressure off global oil prices. The final communique called for ‘energy efficiency to be promoted in all sectors through passing on market price signals, technology transfer and the sharing of best practices in energy production and consumption’. Australia welcomes global cooperation—the demand-side initiatives as well—especially efforts aimed at increasing energy efficiency. The Jeddah summit also recognised the need for transparency and regulation of financial markets to assist in combating the problem of speculation. The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, addressed this matter in his speech to the summit. He said: While the price of oil is driven primarily by fundamental demand and supply factors, there has been a substantial growth in financial investor participation in the markets that may be exacerbating the underlying mismatch of supply and demand. The Australian government supports this view—that is why we support the recognition, in the summit’s final communique, that the ‘quality, completeness and timeliness of oil data should be enhanced with a view to improving market transparency and stability’. The Jeddah summit is one step forward in terms of greater global cooperation on the challenge of meeting what is a demonstrably global oil crisis. There is, however, much more work to be done. As I said in my answer to the earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition, it is critical that we act cooperatively globally with other states, particularly those responsible for the bulk of global oil production and supply. Working with developing countries such as China and India, which represent such a huge proportion of new global demand and therefore push up global prices for oil, is equally important. On the domestic front, it is important to invest appropriately in an alternative fuel strategy and a national energy security strategy for Australia—of a type we do not have and which the government did not inherit when it assumed office only six months ago. It is important that we invest in the future of fuel-efficient cars and public transport. It is also important that we deliver the measures contained in the budget to assist the family budget. A typical young family of mum, dad and two kids is, as a result of the budget measures, $52 a week better off, but, as a consequence of one of the four policies advocated by those opposite on the question of the price of petrol, that family would be $2.50 a week better off. The contrast, I think, is clear. 5562 Distinguished Visitors 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Indian Minister for External Affairs, the Hon. Pranab Mukherjee. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 5562 Questions Without Notice 5562 5562 14:15:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 Mrs GASH —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the government has a petrol commissioner, created Fuelwatch and talked about applying a blowtorch to oil-producing nations, yet petrol is now on average at least 25c a litre more expensive since the federal election last year. The Australian people want to know this, Mr Prime Minister: when will the government stop talking about petrol prices and start doing something about them? 5562 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —One of the interesting things about those opposite in their consistent campaign of negativity on fuel prices is that they do not have sustainable long-term policies on this question. On the one they have put forward we now have four variations of it. We have that one put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. We have another one put forward now by the campaign director for the member for Higgins. We now have a new one put forward by the Leader of the National Party. Then we have the member for Wentworth’s position, which is not (a) (b) or (c) above, and when the alternative leader of the Liberal Party assumes the leadership of the Liberal Party it will be ‘tick the box’ in terms of which of these particular measures might be embraced by those opposite. We have put forward a range of positive policies when it comes to dealing with families and individuals under financial pressure. We have also dealt in the policy domain on the question of fuel efficient cars. We have assisted where we can on the question of greater competition power for consumers. We have also established a petrol price commissioner to ensure that there is appropriate competition policy pressure applied to the oil producers. On the prices just mentioned by the honourable member in the framing of her question, I would simply draw her attention to remarks I made at the end of last week which referred to price variations in metro Sydney in one day of up to 20c a litre and of between 9c and 16c a litre in one suburb or in an area surrounding a suburb. The question I again put to those opposite is: should it not be the case that Australian motorists should have access through Fuelwatch to that information in a time-real way on the same day so that they can shop around for the best deal for petrol? That is what we offer. Those opposite choose to block that measure in the Senate because those opposite are standing on the same side as the big oil companies and against the interests of Australia’s average motorist. 5563 5563 14:17:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 Ms OWENS —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House what steps Australia is taking to add strength and depth to its relationship with India? 5563 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for her question. I join with the House in welcoming to the floor of the chamber the Indian Minister for External Affairs, Mr Mukherjee. Can I say how appreciative the government is that at this very busy time in Indian politics he has come to Australia for a stand-alone visit to have a formal Australia-India Foreign Ministers Framework Dialogue. This is the first such framework dialogue that Australia and India have had since 2005. The Australian government regards this framework dialogue with India as very, very important. In the first speech I made as foreign minister I made the point that Australia needs to take its relationship with India to a new level. We need to broaden and deepen our relationship with India. Not enough appreciation has been given to the rise of India. In this century, in my view, Australia needs a new relationship with India for a new century. Coming as I do from Western Australia, we tend to look west more often. Now, just as India is looking east with its ‘look east’ foreign policy approach, so Australia must also look west. This morning Minister Mukherjee and I have had a very, very productive framework dialogue, traversing the depth and breadth of the bilateral relationship, our engagement in regional forums and our approach internationally. When you look at our relationship with India it covers not just economic matters. It is the case that in the last half dozen or so years our economic engagement, led by minerals resources, our trade and our investment, has increased exponentially. This has set the scene for further developing our educational and scientific links, our biotechnology links, our people-to-people links. It has also set the scene for moving the relationship to a new level in the areas of security, strategic, defence and counterterrorism cooperation. One of the very good conversations we had today was about strengthening those links. So the potential is there for Australia to take its relationship with India to the front line of its international partnerships. This is something which has not occurred in the past. It is a matter of regret, I think, that over the last 30 or so years Australia has underappreciated its relationship with India. This is not something we can do for the future. We now need to take our relationship with India to the front line of our international partnerships. In addition to the six other ministerial visits to Australia this year, the External Affairs Minister Mr Mukherjee’s visit is the seventh by a minister to Australia, and we welcome this very much. One of the meetings was between the Minister for Trade and his Indian counterpart, Mr Nath, where we agreed that we would conclude the feasibility study for a free-trade agreement by the end of this year—another important aspect of our relationship with India. A wide-ranging communique has been published, but I just draw the attention of the House to some of the announcements effected today as part of that first framework dialogue since 2005. Firstly, the minister and I signed formal treaties so far as extradition and legal mutual assistance are concerned. Secondly, we agreed to step up our strategic and security dialogue by having regular annual talks between the chiefs of our defence forces. Thirdly, we have agreed to strengthen our intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation. Fourthly, we have established a working group on visas, passport and consular matters, with a particular eye for the very large number of Indian students in Australia. Fifthly, we have established a new Australia-India Roundtable. And finally, we have extended our dialogue on food security and industry security matters and on effecting public sector linkages on climate change and water dialogue. These are all significant aspects of our bilateral relationship. So far as regional or international aspects are concerned, I again confirmed to Minister Mukherjee the Australian government’s position that when the APEC moratorium ceases in 2010 India should become a member of APEC and I again repeated, both privately to Mr Mukherjee and publicly, Australia’s very strong view that the United Nations Security Council should be reformed to reflect the modern day, not the 1940s and 1950s, and that India should be a permanent member of any such reformed Security Council. It is absolutely essential in the course of this century that Australia takes its relationship with India to a new level, that we take our relationship with India to the front line of our international partnerships, and that is what this government, with a willing partner in the government of India, will do. 5564 5564 14:23:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with modelling by the CSIRO and the Climate Institute released today that concludes a carbon price beginning at $15 increasing to $100 per tonne will increase petrol prices initially by 10 per cent and eventually by up to 51 per cent? Will the Prime Minister rule out a new petrol tax of 10c, 20c or 30c a litre as a result of his emissions trading scheme? 5564 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The first thing I would say is that the member for Wentworth committed the then government in July last year to the inclusion of the transport sector within the emissions trading scheme. That is the first point. As the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in the Howard government he said that the transport sector should be included in the emissions trading scheme. That is point one. Is that still the position of those opposite? Is it? I take it by the particularly embarrassed silence of the member for Wentworth that there is a bit of ambiguity about this these days. Honourable members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —As the interjectors say, it takes a little more than that to embarrass the member for Wentworth. On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change. We, the government of Australia, are committed to acting responsibly on this matter into the long term; those opposite fiddled for 12 years and said that they had to act on this, to act responsibly, to move themselves into the appropriate international negotiations and to advance the domestic debate on the question of an emissions trading scheme. It was only at five minutes to midnight when their market research demonstrated that they had a problem with their score that we had this flurry of activity. We suddenly had a commitment to do something on an emissions trading scheme. They committed to that. Secondly, as a government they committed to the inclusion of the transport sector. Thirdly, the party of flip, flop, flap do not know where they stand on the emissions trading scheme. We have a clear-cut course of action which is as follows: having assumed government only six months ago—those opposite had 12 years to act—we have indicated that we will be developing a government green paper in response to the initial report delivered by Professor Garnaut. Towards the end of the year we will deliver a white paper in response to that. But I say to those opposite: they have now signalled quite plainly that they are committed to running a scare campaign on climate change. They have committed to running a scare campaign on the emissions trading scheme. They have committed to running a scare campaign because they do not have policies for the future. 5565 5565 14:26:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 Mr DREYFUS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recent developments in Zimbabwe and the government’s response? 5565 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. Before I turn to the question of Zimbabwe, I add my words of welcome to those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Indian Minister for External Affairs, the Hon. Pranab Mukherjee, who is present in our chamber. You, Sir, are a welcome guest in our country and we look to the further expansion of our relationship with the world’s largest democracy. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of Zimbabwe, honourable members will be aware that the President of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, announced that he and his party would not be contesting the presidential run-off election in Zimbabwe due on 27 June. In a statement Mr Tsvangirai said that his party could not ask the people of Zimbabwe to cast their votes on 27 June ‘when that vote could cost them their lives’. This is how desperate and dangerous the situation has become in Zimbabwe, where the leader of the alternative government in Zimbabwe is saying to his supporters that they should not go out and vote because, effectively, there has been a gun put to their head. That is how disgraceful the situation in Zimbabwe has become under Robert Mugabe. We recognise that Mr Tsvangirai made his decision because a free and fair election in Zimbabwe would not have been possible. The Mugabe regime has recently decided to restrict the monitoring of the 27 June election to a level that would have removed any possibility of effective international scrutiny of this poll, and the regime has been escalating its campaign of violence against the MDC and its supporters. MDC members and supporters have been murdered, detained and tortured. Most recently, President Mugabe said that the MDC would never rule Zimbabwe and he was prepared to go to war to prevent them from doing so. That is of itself an extraordinary statement from a man who pretends to be running a parliamentary democracy. He is not; he has become a dictator. Let us not forget that Morgan Tsvangirai received the most votes in the first round of the presidential elections held on 29 March, and the MDC won the majority of parliamentary seats that were contested at those same elections. There can be no legitimacy to an election stolen by the Mugabe regime through violence and terror. The Australian government condemns the violence and brutal intimidation by the regime. We call on President Mugabe to stop this violence. The people of Zimbabwe must be given the chance to express their free will. The people of Zimbabwe deserve the free expression of that will so that they can give their great country a chance for the future. They must be given a chance to do so free from fear. The international community must continue to pressure the Mugabe regime to stop violence. We welcome the UN Security Council debate on Zimbabwe in New York today. We strongly support a full debate on the situation now in Zimbabwe. Regionally, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union have also made statements on this matter. We welcome the statements made by a number of African leaders in recent days expressing their deep concern about recent events in Zimbabwe. Australia will continue to support their efforts. We will also maintain whatever we can by way of bilateral pressure on the regime in Harare. Since 2002 Australia has had a range of restrictions on contact with Zimbabwe: restrictions on visas for travel to Australia by Zimbabwean ministers and certain Zimbabwean officials; freezes on financial assets; suspension of non-humanitarian aid; prohibition of defence links; suspension of bilateral ministerial contact; the downgrading of cultural links; and a ban on adult students of sanctioned individuals from studying in Australia. We encourage other countries to extend similar levels of sanctions. We are actively considering what further measures may be taken to pressure the Mugabe regime, including revising our list of regime members to whom restrictions apply to ensure that new figures in the regime are covered by that schedule as well. At the same time we continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe. It is not their fault that they have the regime that has been imposed on them. In 2007-08 we will provide more than $13 million to Zimbabwe, most of which is for essential food to be delivered through the World Food Program. I believe all members of this House are united in their condemnation of the regime in Zimbabwe. The situation in Zimbabwe is grave and it is becoming worse. The Australian government along with the international community condemns the regime’s actions and commits to providing ongoing assistance to the people of Zimbabwe, the victim of their own government’s brutality. 5566 14:31:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I join with the Prime Minister also in welcoming Minister Mukherjee here to the Australian parliament, and the expansion of the relationship with the state of India, which we welcome. I would also strongly endorse on behalf of this side of the parliament the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to Zimbabwe, the discussion of the plans that are being developed in international multinational fora and, further to that, we would also support further action. 5566 5566 14:31:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to export jobs from our energy intensive communities by introducing an emissions trading scheme ahead of our trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region? 5566 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am surprised that the Leader of the National Party when he was a minister in the previous cabinet did not put that question to the minister for the environment who then (a) supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme and (b) said that the transport sector should be included. What policy are we now debating against those opposite—the one last year or the one this year? This government intends to proceed responsibly to ensure that we maintain Australia’s global economic competitiveness to ensure that Australian working families and individuals are supported through any transition which occurs in the economy. They were our principles in the past and will continue to be our principles in the future—unlike those opposite. I say to each one of them as they embark now on day one of their orchestrated fear campaign on the emissions trading system: a fear campaign is what it is and those opposite know it. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The member for Flinders stands in this place as the alternative minister for the environment. On the question of climate change, the world at present is debating how we deal with global warming: how we bring down carbon emissions into the future; how we do that in concert with other nation states around the world; how we do so as a full participant in the global negotiations on this question; how we do so responsibly in terms of the interests of working Australians as well as Australia’s businesses; and how we do that in an appropriate, considered and deliberative fashion. In six months this government has made more progress on these matters than those opposite did in 12 years. They should hang their heads in shame as they embark upon the next fear campaign by the Liberal Party. 5567 5567 14:34:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House how Australian households are going to be assisted from 1 July with their cost-of-living pressures. 5567 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question, because next Tuesday week is a very big day for working families in this country. It is the day we begin tipping the scales in their favour. In coming weeks households can look forward to significant financial relief with cost-of-living pressures. A typical young family will be $51.54 per week better off as a result of budget initiatives which will kick in next financial year. Aged pensioners and seniors are receiving their $500 bonus over the next week, and the next instalment in the new $500 utilities allowance is due to be paid in the next fortnight. On this side of the House we do understand that all of those people—seniors and working families—are under price pressures, are under cost-of-living pressures, unlike those opposite who are just playing petty political games. When they were in government they had their opportunity to do something about these cost-of-living pressures, and they did nothing. In fact they said that working Australian families had ‘never been better off’. That is what they said. This side of the House is determined to push ahead with tax reforms outlined in the budget, which will provide $46.7 billion of personal income tax cuts over the next four years. For a taxpayer earning $50,000 a year, the tax cuts will deliver an additional $19.23 per week from 1 July 2008. This will increase to $25 a week from 1 July 2009 and $33.65 from 1 July 2010. When they are fully implemented they will amount to a 20 per cent reduction in their tax bill. In addition to that, they will receive some relief because we have increased the Medicare surcharge threshold, something opposed by those on that side of the House. They have the hide to come in here and say that they are in favour of relief and oppose this measure in the budget; so they have no credibility here at all. For a single taxpayer earning just over $50,000 a year, the Medicare levy surcharge will result in a further saving of around $500 on their tax bill. In addition to that, we have the education tax refund. Was that supported by that side of the House? Government members—No! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —No. In addition to that, we also have $1.3 billion for the 50 per cent childcare tax rebate. Was that supported by that side of the House? Government members—No! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Of course it was not. These will deliver very significant benefits to working Australian families. Help is on the way. We understand cost-of-living pressures. Those opposite do not. 5568 5568 14:37:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given the central importance of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in ensuring the stability of the Australian financial system, why is it that one week before the expiry of the terms of office of its chairman, John Laker, and member Ross Jones, the government has not announced whether these members will have their terms renewed or be replaced by others? Are these among the many vital appointments being held up for last-minute decision in the chaos of the Prime Minister’s office? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer is not obliged to answer the last part of the question. 5568 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The answer is no—they have been reappointed. 5568 5568 14:38:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 Mr BIDGOOD —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on any responses to government support for pensioners and progress with payments? 5568 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Dawson for his question and his very strong support for pensioners in his local area. Like the member for Dawson, the government certainly does understand that pensioners are doing it tough and are facing very significant cost of living pressures. While we certainly know that there is more to be done, we have made a start. Last week I did inform the House that 2.7 million senior Australians are now beginning to receive $1.8 billion in bonuses from the Australian government so that, by the end of this month, pensioners should have received a $500 bonus—in most cases, directly into their bank accounts. They are also receiving a $125 June quarterly utilities allowance, which of course this government has increased from $107 a year to $500 a year. As I said, the government certainly knows that it is important to be acting to support the needs of pensioners and other Australians, but we also know that more needs to be done. We will be looking very carefully at how to do that through our tax and welfare review. As far as responses are concerned, we in our office have certainly been pleased to have been receiving the calls and cards from pensioners and carers who have received their payment so far. One caller, I am very pleased to inform the House, actually rang to say that the bonus payment had arrived on his 66th birthday and it was the best present ever. Another was off to buy some new clothes. Opposition members interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —Last week I updated the House on the opposition’s ever-evolving response, and I am pleased to hear the opposition. They might have some further ideas from the ones that we have heard so far. Last week I indicated a number of positions we had already heard from the opposition about this very important issue of pension levels. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say about this in his budget reply, even though at the same time we had the opposition spokesperson on ageing out there saying that she did support an increase in the level of the pension. The shadow Treasurer, of course, made it absolutely plain—absolutely crystal clear—on the radio that the opposition had no such policy. This is the shadow Treasurer’s view: We have not got a policy to raise the base rate of the pension. Of course, that did not stop the Gippsland Nationals candidate from misleading pensioners and pretending that the coalition would in fact raise pension levels, in a heartless attempt to mislead voters in that by-election. You would think that the Nationals leader might have got out there, like the shadow Treasurer, and tried to correct the record. But, no, the Nationals leader did not do anything of the kind. At least the shadow Treasurer had the courage to get out there and say what the true policy is. But not the Nationals leader; he was out there yesterday on ABC television fuelling the misrepresentation. This is what he had to say on ABC television yesterday: Now we expect our candidates and our members to be proposing new ideas and he’s made it clear that he will be bringing that idea to Canberra. Jim Middleton from the ABC asked: But is it an idea, or a policy? Mr Truss answered: Well he’s indicated that’s a priority for him in Gippsland ... The Nationals leader does not have the bottle to actually front up and tell the people of Gippsland that the coalition policy—the Nationals policy and the Liberal policy—is in fact to not increase the pension. So what the people of Gippsland want to know is the truth. What the people of Gippsland want to know is whether this is coalition policy or not. What we know from the shadow Treasurer is that it is not their policy. It is not the policy, and the Nationals leader should have the courage, should have the bottle, to get out there and tell the truth. Unlike the opposition, this government is paying the bonuses, is increasing the utilities allowance and is making sure that pensioners and carers actually get the increased support that they need. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —You’ve been on the bottle all day! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will withdraw that statement. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —I withdraw that statement about being on the bottle, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, the member for Canning will withdraw without any further reflection! PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are specific standing orders that go to the behaviour of the member for Canning, which he just breached, and I ask that they be enforced. That is highly disorderly conduct. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. 5569 5569 14:44:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 Mr BILLSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. The Telstra CEO has stated that a national broadband network serving 98 per cent of Australians could cost up to $15 billion, while your government as late as last week claimed that it would cost between $8 billion and $10 billion. Is Telstra wrong or has the government grossly underestimated the cost of rolling out fibre to 98 per cent of our population? 5569 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I begin by saying this: 12 years. The previous government had 12 years to act on a national broadband network, and after this government has been in office for six months, it is all our fault. When I last looked at the OECD data toward the end of last year I seem to recall that in terms of available bandwidth measures and band speed measures, we were languishing somewhere between the Slovak and Slovenian republics. That is where those opposite, after being in government for 12 years, landed Australia and the Australian economy at the time of the change in government. We have committed to establishing a national broadband network. We regard this as the information highway of the economy of the 21st century. We believe in investing in the future. That is why the government has in fact created three significant funds—the Building Australia Fund of $20 billion; we have established the Education Investment Fund of $11 billion; and we have established a health investment fund of $10 billion—because we believe in investing for Australia’s long-term future. Broadband is a part of it. It leaves those of us on this side of the House absolutely speechless that those opposite, who have so demonstrably left our broadband network in such disrepair, could now stand up and weep crocodile tears over it. They stand condemned. 5570 5570 14:47:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the reasons why plans to delay in the Senate the introduction of key budget measures, which will threaten the inflation-fighting surplus, are irresponsible? 5570 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —This government has built a very strong budget surplus—$22 billion—to fight inflation and put downward pressure on interest rates; it is called responsible economic management. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney is warned. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —It is a responsible surplus that will put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. It is the sort of responsibility we have not seen from those on the other side. We now have a delay in the Senate and that is going blow something like a $284 million hole in that surplus. They are completely irresponsible. We had an announcement from the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply that he was going to cut some money from the fuel excise. And of course last week we had the member for Aston—the prime supporter on the backbench of the member for Higgins—deciding that he wanted to double it. Then on Sunday we had the leader of the National Party saying that he was going to quadruple it. But of course we know that the member for Wentworth has never supported it at all. On one day they want to cost the budget $1.8 billion, on the next day it is $3.6 billion, and on the following day it is $7.2 billion. All we are getting from those opposite is uncosted proposals. They have worked out how to announce a policy, but they have not worked out how to cost a policy. They have not costed any of their policies. On this side of the House we have a government that is responsible. It has built a strong surplus to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. On the other side of the House we have a body of people who have put forward uncosted, unfunded proposals that put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. 5570 5570 14:49:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the current strike action by Qantas maintenance workers, which affects tens of thousands of Australians and international visitors, and to the fact that the maintenance workers’ agreement expired 18 months ago, in December 2006, but no strike action was taken until shortly after last year’s election. What is it about the Rudd government policies that has encouraged this and other unions to wait until after the election before taking strike action under this government? 5571 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —There they are, the party of the Iraq war and of Work Choices. They have not changed their stripes one bit. They have also indicated by their votes in this place that, should they win the next election, guess what will be back? Work Choices. And if they win the next election what will be back? AWAs. They have not changed their stripes on any of this. It has been clear-cut in the government’s position on industrial relations that we will establish a fair and flexible industrial relations system for the future of this nation. We believe in tipping the scales in favour of working Australians, which is why we have done what we have through the budget measures. A typical young family will be some $52 a week better off, against the $2.50 a week that those opposite offer in part, depending on who you believe on their excise policy. Secondly, and critically, to help working Australians under financial pressure we have changed the industrial relations laws of Australia so that everyone—not just some people—will have their rights protected. This government stands by the industrial relations changes that we have made. They are in the interest of working Australians and working families, and the last time I looked they were fully endorsed by the Australian people at the last election. Of course we will monitor closely what happens in relation to the Qantas dispute. There has of course been a range of disputes with Qantas over the years and a lot of difficult negotiations. We will watch this closely. We understand fully the impact on the airline and the services it provides to Australians and to Australia’s tourism industry, which has been doing it very tough recently. That is why the government in part has decided to back the Queensland government in the measures it has adopted in support of the tourism industry in Queensland. On that question, I thank the member for Leichhardt for his strong representations for the tourism interests of North Queensland in particular. 5571 5571 14:52:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 Mr CHEESEMAN —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What fiscal policy settings has the government put in place to put downward pressure on interest rates? Is the minister aware of any threats to these settings? 5571 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. The government has put in place a tough budget with a strong surplus of nearly $22 billion with the primary purpose of putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is the critical focus of the government’s fiscal policy. It is true to say that there are threats to the government’s fiscal policy, primarily coming from the opposition, especially manifested through their control of the Senate for the remainder of this month. The immediate response from the opposition to the government’s budget was to announce a range of positions and commitments that, had they been implemented, would have blown a $22 billion hole in the government’s budget surplus over four years. The opposition’s position has been changing on almost a daily basis. Almost every time the Leader of the Opposition hops up to speak there is another announcement, another statement and another indication of more free money for anybody who wants it. It is getting so bad that it is pretty hard to keep up. Just when I thought it could not get any worse, lo and behold—you can always rely on them!—up pops the National Party. We know that the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he intends to cut the fuel excise—a promise he will never be able to deliver—then last week we had the member for Aston indicate that he wanted to double the cut in fuel excise that the Leader of the Opposition was promising. Not to be outdone, though, on the weekend, the Leader of the National Party indicated he wanted to quadruple the amount. Needless to say he gave no indication of where the money might come from, no indication of how many billions of dollars a year or how big a hole would be blown through the surplus, and no indication of what savings initiatives or indeed tax increases would be put in place to pay for it. After all, this is the man who indicated in February that the solution to Australia’s inflation problem was for the government to spend more money; this is the leader of the party that gave us Regional Partnerships. So perhaps we should not be that surprised. I have something of a soft spot for the National Party. Government members interjecting— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I know that is a bit embarrassing to admit, but I do. I actually once handed out how-to-vote cards for the National Party. I would hasten to add that I was 10 years old at the time and they were a fair dinkum outfit called the Country Party in those days, whereas now, what have we got? The bedraggled, dishevelled, disgruntled little crew up there in what used to be ‘cockies corner’ is now ‘farmer’s phone booth’. There are hardly any of them left. They cannot even get the Liberal Party to take them over! An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The gallery will come to order. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I have a word of advice for the Leader of the Opposition. He has problems taking advice from his shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, who clearly has other matters on his mind. The last thing he should do is take financial and fiscal advice from the National Party. The phrase ‘sound fiscal management’ and the words ‘National Party’ are rarely found in the same sentence. We are committed on this side of the House to delivering a strong budget with a very substantial surplus that is designed to get inflation under control, to get prices under control and to put strong downward pressure on interest rates. The opposition, including the National Party, are spending all of their time wandering around Australia promising things left, right and centre that they have no hope of ever being able to implement or ever being able to afford. 5572 5572 14:56:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to weekend media reports of the chaotic confusion in the Prime Minister’s office. Prime Minister, for how many hours did you keep the Chief of the Australian Defence Force outside your office for no good reason and doesn’t this demonstrate a lack of respect for the Australian defence forces? 5572 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —It is because we have such respect for the CDF that we reappointed him as the Chief of the Defence Force. He is a fine man and he is doing a fine job as head of the Defence Force. It is one of the reasons why we have also continued, of course, the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael L’Estrange, in his position. It is one of the reasons why we have not conducted a Night of the Long Knives against Public Service heads, like those opposite did when they assumed office in 1996. We actually believe in the Westminster system. I am reliably informed by officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that when cabinet met in a previous age—that is, six months ago—from time to time cabinet might have run a bit late and sometimes officials were kept waiting. It is part and parcel of the process of a busy cabinet schedule. Nothing has changed as far as these arrangements in the government are concerned. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the core principle here. Do we respect the independence of the Public Service? Have we maintained the heads of the Commonwealth agencies? When those opposite assumed office, they took out the revolver and shot them one by one by one, creating a climate of fear in the Public Service. That is not the way in which this government proposes to govern. 5573 5573 14:58:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the steps taken by the Australian government to secure a successful conclusion to the Doha Round? Why is this important to Australia and to the global economy? 5573 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I thank the honourable member for his question and note that he takes a very keen interest in the opportunities for Australia to advance its economic security through trade, which is in contrast to the other side that have not in this new parliament asked one question on trade, let alone on the Doha Round. Doha is important to conclude. It is doable but it is a very difficult process. It is something that eluded the previous government for seven years. I remind the House that the last time we achieved an outcome in the WTO was under a Labor government, and we are desperately determined to ensure that we achieve an outcome under this government. Why is that important? HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr Simpkins interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cowan is warned. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —It is important because trade actually matters. Over the last 50 years world trade has grown three times faster than world output. Each new round in the WTO, or previously the GATT, has produced a new impetus. This is why the previous government was so neglectful in using its position as chair of the Cairns Group to advance this interest. It has achieved nothing on this front for the past seven years. When you think of it, if world trade is growing at three times the rate of world output, it translates to jobs, it translates to a better current account and it translates to a circumstance in which this nation secures its economic future beyond the resources boom. The other side was content to ride the resources boom rather than secure a future beyond it. As for the steps that have been taken over recent weeks to secure this outcome, I participated in an APEC meeting in Peru followed by an informal meeting of trade ministers in Paris a couple of weeks ago. Importantly, the outcome of both of those meetings gave new impetus, new authority and a new direction to the negotiators in Geneva to move to conclude the round. And over the last fortnight there have been intensive discussions over the phone with many of my ministerial counterparts to achieve that objective. The truth is we are at a crunch point in these negotiations. If we do not conclude the round this year, my fear is that the Doha Round will go into a long-term drift—and that is not in anyone’s interest. So every effort must be made to ensure that we take advantage of the political will and the momentum that is there, and, in using the G8 meeting that the Prime Minister will be attending, to drive home the importance of this point of concluding the round. The truth is, with world food prices where they are, this is the best time that we have ever had to get agricultural subsidies down. If we cannot get them down at a time in which growers are receiving the best prices— An incident having occurred in the gallery— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —I notice the comment in the gallery. Let me say— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will ignore comments from the gallery. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —that the opportunity that will present itself if we can get the subsidies dropped— An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The galleries will come to order! DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —If we can reduce the subsidies in the United States that compete with the grain growers— An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The attendants will deal with disorder in the galleries! DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —this will be a great outcome. This is the best opportunity ever to achieve that end. I might say in conclusion that, as important as concluding the Doha Round is, it will not be the end of where we need to take the trade agenda. It will provide the new basis, a new platform, on which we can engage the regional architecture as well as the bilateral relationships. The commitment of this government is to do everything necessary to conclude this round because it is in the interests of securing the economic future of this nation and doing it in a way that secures it beyond simple reliance on a resources boom. 5574 5574 15:02:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister now informed himself about what advice his office provided to the member for Robertson or her office after the incident at the Iguana bar on 6 June? If not, why not, and, if so, what advice was provided? An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those in the gallery will come to order! They will sit in silence. 5574 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —On the matter of the single desk, I think the Liberal Party voted with us—is that right? Yes. Let that be placed on the record. An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The attendants will deal with disorder in the galleries! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In response to the honourable member’s question, no member of the Prime Minister’s office approved, wrote, instructed, participated in or was involved in dissemination of the statutory declarations concerning this matter; nor was I. 5574 5574 15:03:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House of the latest developments on the removal of discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships and their children from Commonwealth superannuation laws? 5574 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member for her question. She has been long respected for her role in promoting human rights both within Australia and internationally. Some four weeks ago I introduced the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. As members are aware, that bill has been delayed as a result of reference to a Senate committee looking at in particular, among other issues but paramount, the issue as to whether it should be extended to people in a close personal relationship. That is despite the fact that, as reported in an article written by Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 June: In August last year, cabinet— of which the opposition leader was, of course, a member— ... decided against including interdependent couples because it was too hard to quantify how many there were. It was estimated that including interdependents would add between $1.8billion and $10billion to the unfunded superannuation liability. As Mr Coorey indicates, from the other side of the coin: Some people would also be worse off. Two elderly sisters each on a single pension would earn less if classified as a couple. It appears that, indeed, the shadow Treasurer, according to a report in the Australian on 6 June by Patricia Karvelas, also confirmed that decision. He is reported to have told the Convener of the ComSuper Action Committee, John Challis: ... it was impossible to calculate the costs and that the Coalition would not include interdependent couples in reforms. It seems that the opposition’s position on this matter, and in particular the reference to a Senate committee, has more to do with political procrastination to avoid an issue of some internal political embarrassment. But, fundamentally, what we are talking about here is a matter of principle. It is no more and no less, as I have indicated, than removing discrimination against a group of fellow Australians who have been discriminated against for far too long. We are aware that many opposite support that principle of removing the fundamental issue of discrimination. We encourage them and we urge them to stand up for the expeditious passage of this legislation. 5575 5575 15:06:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous impact of the increasing cost of fuel on the farm sector and, in particular, the quadrupling of prices for chemicals and fertilisers? What action is the government proposing to take to reduce these fundamental input costs for the producers of food and fibre in this country? 5575 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The farm sector in Australia is doing it particularly tough because of the impact of oil prices and petrol prices. I again draw the attention of those from the farm sector who are listening to the broadcast to one important fact which is of direct relevance to the farm sector—that is, the future of Australia’s wheat industry. The Liberal Party of Australia voted with the Australian Labor Party, this government, to pass the new arrangements for the export of Australian wheat, and the National Party opposed. It is very important that some of those opposite do not wish to debate or discuss this—they are split right down the middle on the future of this critical $4 billion export crop. It should be placed on the record that the Liberals voted with Labor against the Nationals on this reform for the future. The second point is this— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question was specific. It was about the impact of the rising cost of fuel and, particularly, fertiliser on Australian farmers. The Prime Minister is not answering the question he was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will listen closely to the Prime Minister’s response. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In our discussions with farm organisations, not only have they been concerned about the future of the wheat export industry; they are concerned also about their farm input costs. They are concerned about the cost of fuel. They are concerned about the cost of fertilisers. I have some news for those opposite. These concerns did not mysteriously materialise on 3 December last year. In my own discussions with representatives of the farm sector in recent years— 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member for Riverina will know this full well—the representations that all of us have received is that the cost of fertiliser has been ballooning for not just many weeks, for not just many months but for many years. It is a huge impact on the overall cost structure of farmers out there who are doing it tough, trying to earn a living off the land at a time of enormous change. In particular, the change is affecting rural Australia coming off the worst drought in the century and the rolling impact of water. My colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is in close consultation with farm organisations— An incident having occurred in the gallery— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —together with his Liberal Party colleague, particularly on the wheat sector. That may be disconcerting to those opposite, to all those Liberal Party members in regional areas who voted with the Labor government to change the single desk—I know it is painful for that to be said—but my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been in active consultation with rural organisations about their cost structures and, furthermore, about the future of the farm sector. An incident having occurred in the gallery— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —We intend to work with the rural sector through their peak industry organisations. I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to the response by the National Farmers Federation and others to the government’s budget as it relates to the rural sector and in particular to the farm sector. We intend to cooperate with that sector into the future. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the gallery that, no matter how aggrieved they might feel, that is not a reason for them to interrupt the proceedings of the parliament. The only other action open to me would be to clear the galleries, which I am absolutely reluctant to do. I would also call upon members who think it is good sport to encourage the galleries, as some have— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I am not pointing to anybody, Member for Groom. WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It is not very helpful at all. 5576 5576 15:11:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with respect— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah does not have the call. The member for Warringah. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, an aspersion has been cast on members of this House. With respect to you, Mr Speaker, the only people who have been encouraging the gallery are ministers who have responded to interjections. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah will resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —What’s the point of order? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There were a number of people on— DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Tangney will leave the chamber. The member for Tangney then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am pleased that the member for Warringah, with eyes in the back of his head, can see all around the chamber! In fairness, I was making a general point. I accept the specific point of the member for Groom, but there were a number of members. I am sorry that that then casts aspersions on the majority of the members of the House, but there were members all around the chamber. It just does not assist the proceedings of the chamber. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Prime Minister. 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr Schultz —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the member for Tangney was asked to leave the chamber but there was no reference to which standing order and for how long. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Tangney was asked to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a) for one hour, as the member for Hume well knows. The member for Leichhardt, now having our attention— HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the government is using COAG to build a seamless national economy? 5577 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I appreciate the fact that the Council of Australian Governments invokes such mirth on the part of those opposite, but it actually is the best vehicle available to the national government to prosecute real, lasting, microeconomic reform. This government is committed to a program of economic reform. Those opposite shake their heads because they do not believe that economic reform is important. This government is committed to building a stronger, fairer Australia capable of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. When it comes to the economic challenge it is this: first, a policy of responsible economic management, and that is why we are committed to a $22 billion surplus as opposed to a $22 billion raid on the surplus by those opposite, because we know what happens then—it puts upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates, upward pressure which working families and businesses across the country, including in the farm sector, cannot cope with. That is responsible economic management. The second principle is a program of economic reform. Economic reform died under the previous government. Economic reform was not prosecuted through the councils of the Federation. When it comes to economic reform, ensuring that we are creating the platform for long-term productivity growth is one of the hallmark considerations of what any national government of Australia should be about. We know that productivity growth has been in some strife in recent years, and as a consequence it is important for us to look at the long-term platforms for rebuilding long-term productivity growth. How do we go about doing that? Firstly, we invest in an education revolution: we invest in education, skills and training to make sure that the next generation of Australians and this generation of Australians have the skills necessary to globally compete and to ensure that our firms remain at the cutting edge of the global economy. Beyond the education revolution, we also need in this country a radical new national investment in infrastructure. That is why this government has established not only the Education Investment Fund of $11 billion for the future but also, for the first time in the nation’s history, an infrastructure fund of $20 billion—the Building Australia Fund—because we believe in ensuring that this country’s long-term infrastructure has the national government investing in it as well. We are not playing a blame game as those opposite, including the member for Paterson, simply choose to do—blame the states and territories while nothing happened. That is the second element of an economic reform program. The third element is how we deal with a complex set of regulations which currently stands in the way of businesses across this nation in the challenge of building their businesses from small businesses to medium businesses and to large businesses operating across the nation. That comes to the whole challenge of how we build a seamless national economy. How do we create a seamless national market? For 12 years in office those opposite sat back and could not reflect on the enormous cost impost on business of having this plethora of regulations affecting businesses, and it leaves those of us on the side of the House speechless. Calls by the Business Council of Australia and by the peak industry bodies over such a long period of time to act in this regard were clarion clear. Those opposite did nothing about it. This government, through the Council of Australian Governments, has embarked on a program of regulatory reform through the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, which is chaired by the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Currently we have on the agenda 27 areas of regulatory reform—27 areas of reform which should have been done and dusted by those opposite at least in the first five years that they were in office. Certainly in their 12 years of office, you would have thought that some progress would have been made. On the question of what reforms are being demanded by business across the country, occupational health and safety laws, business name registration and trades licensing are all important to reduce the inconsistencies which are unnecessary between state and territory jurisdictions and to make it easier for the free movement of capital and the free movement of labour across this national economy. The Productivity Commission has already calculated what a great yield to overall gross domestic product and economic growth would come about as a consequence of this. That is why this government recognises that the Council of Australian Governments is the vehicle for handling these challenges for the future. It was ignored by our predecessors and is embraced by us because we want to see reform of specific purpose payments. We also want to see a reform of the way in which the Commonwealth makes payments to the states more generally. We want to see reform which encourages the states to embrace fully the national reform projects which we have allocated for them, including in the critical area of regulatory reform, to boost long-term productivity growth and produce long-term economic growth. Opposition member interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Someone derisively says, ‘What about the summit?’ The call for a 2020 seamless national economy was the clarion clear call by business across the summit. Why is it that after 12 years those opposite made no progress in this space? We convened a group of Australia’s business leaders from right across the nation. Their demand of us was to work on tax and on the question of a seamless national economy. They want that established as a clear-cut national objective for us all. That is why this government has decided to act on this. The big challenges are getting the tax system right in the long term—fundamental tax reform not even broached by those opposite; getting the microeconomic reform agenda right, including through COAG, including through what we do in the overall regulatory reform space; and, thirdly, how we embrace the overarching reform which is necessary in emissions trading to deal with climate change, the great economic challenge of our generation as well as the great environmental challenge of our generation. That is where this government’s energies are concentrated—getting these things right for the future: big challenges like tax, big challenges like economic reform, big challenges like using COAG to reduce the regulatory burden on business and big challenges like developing an emissions trading scheme. This government has embarked upon this course of action because Australia needs long-term planning. COAG, a forum which brings together every government in the country—six states, two territories and the Commonwealth—is the vehicle for advancing so much of this economic reform agenda. We are putting our shoulder to the wheel; those opposite for 12 years were asleep at the wheel. I would encourage those opposite to get behind the COAG reform process necessary for the economy, necessary for business and necessary for national labour market mobility. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 5579 Personal Explanations 5579 15:21:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr BALDWIN —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr BALDWIN —On 4 June 2008, I moved a second reading amendment to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008. In the Port Stephens Examiner on 19 June 2008, the Minister for Defence was quoted as saying: This amendment was rejected by the parliamentary clerks because it did not comply with Parliament House rules. I ask for the minister to retract this comment. The amendment did go to the House, and the defence minister did vote on the amendment. I also have written confirmation from the Clerk Assistant (Table), Department of the House of Representatives, which clearly states that the amendment was in order. I ask the Minister for Defence to apologise for misleading the newspaper readers on what actually happened. An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Defence. 5579 15:23:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —On indulgence, Mr Speaker: it is true that the member for Paterson moved an amendment to that bill, which the government deemed to be discriminatory against some defence families. I was further advised that, at least initially, it was rejected by the clerks as not being in conformity with the standing orders. If there is advice to the contrary, I will be happy to retract. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I call the member for Paterson only if he has that advice to pass to the minister. 5579 15:23:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I seek leave to table advice from Robyn McClelland stating that the amendment was in order. Leave granted. 5580 Miscellaneous 5580 15:24:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —On indulgence, Mr Speaker: I am pleased to inform the House that six Australians, late on Friday night London time, were honoured with a prestigious international commendation for their involvement in the rescue of 22 crew members from the Pasha Bulker, which was stranded off Newcastle’s Nobbys Beach in June 2007. Following nomination by the Australian government, over the weekend the International Maritime Organisation awarded these six fine Australians certificates citing acts of bravery. I had the honour of ringing the recipients on Friday night, and these humble men said that they were just doing their job. But, of course, they were doing much more than that. I know that the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, is particularly proud of these fine men, as she should be, as the other members from the Hunter are and as all Australians will be. The six recipients are Captain Ian McFadden and Captain Ian Osborne, pilots; Graham Nickison, crew chief; Peter Praniess, aircrewman; and Glen Ramplin and Nathan Langham, rescue crewmen. During the rescue, the hoisting cable was blowing up to 30 feet rearward of the aircraft, making hoisting extremely difficult. On two occasions, aircrewman Nickison was thrown from the doorway of the helicopter, relying on his safety lanyard as he hovered 50 feet above the deck and dropped 20 feet due to strong winds. During hoisting, waves often broke at the base of the ship, sending sea spray up to 60 feet high, covering the aircraft and crew. According to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the national search and rescue coordinator, it was the biggest airlift from a bulk carrier in recent Australian maritime history. The courage and commitment of rescue workers often goes unnoticed; I am very pleased that on this occasion it has not. I am sure that, along with the shadow minister, all members of the House would like to pass on their congratulations and thanks to these fine men for putting their own lives at risk so that others might be saved. 5580 15:26:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —On indulgence, Mr Speaker: I am happy to associate the opposition with the words of congratulation from the Leader of the House. This was a very public event, telecast into the homes of Australians every night for quite some period of time. We do indeed take our hats off to those who were visibly and actively involved in this rescue mission. It was in very dangerous circumstances, with cyclonic conditions and high winds. Of course, any helicopter rescue of this nature is dangerous, but this one had extra hazards associated with it because of the dangerous conditions. It reminds us all of how important our volunteer and professional rescue authorities are and how much we depend upon them in times of crisis. These six Australians have been specifically honoured, and we congratulate them, but we also pay tribute to the many other Australians who are prepared to give their time voluntarily and to risk their own lives in times of danger for their fellow countrymen. 5580 Miscellaneous 5580 5580 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:27:00 —I move: That further statements by indulgence relating to the death of Mrs Jane McGrath be referred to the Main Committee. Question agreed to. 5581 Ministerial Statements 5581 5581 15:28:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —by leave—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I recently had the opportunity to discuss security sector issues in East Timor with the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Dr Atul Khare. We discussed the importance of security and stability to international development efforts in East Timor. We agreed that the ongoing strong role of the UN police will be vital to ensure that the East Timorese police have sufficient support to carry out their duties and increasingly assume the mantle of law and order in their own country. Dr Khare and I also shared the view that any future drawdown of the UN mission in East Timor needs to be based on the achievement of performance benchmarks by the East Timorese police. When these benchmarks are met, any drawdown would then be managed modestly, cautiously and in consultation with Australia. East Timor is an enduring security interest for Australia. As one of our nearest neighbours, we have a strategic and humanitarian interest in assisting East Timor to develop and grow as a secure, stable and democratic nation. Like so many new nations, East Timor has faced struggles and challenges as it has emerged in the world. As a country with evolving state structures and political conventions and facing many challenges relating to poverty, unemployment and a lack of infrastructure, East Timor has grappled with instability and violence for much of its brief independent life. Dealing with such instability and creating the conditions for growth, security and development are long-term tasks. The Australian government is committed to a whole-of-government approach to East Timor’s development. Defence is committed to working with other Australian government agencies and the international community to provide the conditions and institutions necessary to create the stability and security that development activities need in order to take hold. My view of East Timor is one of optimism. This optimism is not merely borne from hope but rather it is the optimism borne from the knowledge that the Australian Defence Force is working hard and working smart to build a stable East Timor through effective operations and targeted assistance. Defence has been approaching this in two ways. Firstly in response to specific security incidents in April 2006 Australia has deployed and leads the International Stabilisation Force known as the ISF. The ISF is a joint force of around 750 Australians and 170 New Zealanders who are there to provide meaningful backup to the United Nations and East Timorese police. This force has been remarkably successful in calming the situation and giving the police the support they need to enforce and promote the rule of law. The attacks on President Horta and Prime Minister Gusmao by disaffected former East Timorese soldiers earlier this year were a setback for the country but a setback I now believe we have overcome. Australia’s rapid response to these attacks and the prevention of follow-up violence is a testament to the professionalism of the ADF and their knowledge and expertise in East Timor. Since these attacks, outbreaks of violence have been avoided and significant progress has been made by the East Timorese government in addressing and resolving the issues of the disaffected former soldiers. The Australian Defence Force’s contribution to the International Stabilisation Force will continue to work with the East Timorese authorities and the United Nations to provide the assurance they need to do their work. The second way that Defence is assisting to create stability is by building the East Timorese security institutions, in particular the East Timorese Defence Force, known as the F-FDTL. Through the Defence Cooperation Program, Australia is working hard to build the core skills necessary for a modern and effective defence force. Under the Defence Cooperation Program, Australia has embedded advisers in key areas to assist in the capability development of the F-FDTL and the ministry of defence. There are currently 18 Australian Defence advisers, both military and civilian, in East Timor. These advisers include specialists in communications, medical, logistics, engineering, finance and strategic policy. We will also be deploying an additional 14 advisers to further build the capacity of the F-FDTL. The Defence Cooperation Program is also funding projects including a specialist training wing to develop soldiers with engineering, communications and medical skills as well as improving the communications fit-out of F-FDTL bases. In addition East Timorese soldiers receive English language training and general education courses so that they can undertake complex military instruction in Australia at places like the Royal Military College at Duntroon. Recently the Australian government has approved an enhanced package of defence cooperation for East Timor that will build local capacity to undertake nation-building engineering tasks, improve maritime security capabilities and develop a peace-keeping role. We are also undertaking the building of armouries to ensure that the East Timorese weapons are held securely and reduce the risk of weapons falling into the wrong hands as has occurred in the past. Building the capability of the defence force is only part of improving the security sector in East Timor. Defence maintains extensive links with the United Nations and the Australian Federal Police to ensure that programs such as the Police Development Program and the other security sector reform initiatives marry up with the work we are doing on the military front. All of this effort can only happen in an environment of cooperation. Australia works closely with New Zealand, the United Nations and the government of East Timor to ensure that the assistance we are providing is targeted, welcomed and appropriate to the broader development goals for the country. In turn my department works hard to make sure that the defence component of Australia’s assistance complements the efforts of the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and other Australian government agencies. This effective application of civil-military cooperation underscores the important work that will be undertaken by the Asia Pacific Centre for Civil-Military Cooperation that is being established in Queanbeyan under the guidance of my parliamentary secretary, the member for Eden-Monaro. As I discussed with my East Timorese colleague Dr Julio Tomas Pinto at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore late last month, Australia stands ready to assist East Timor to develop in any way we can. Helping to build a solid, well-trained and apolitical defence force for East Timor is one way that my department can create the conditions necessary for stability to take hold and for democracy and prosperity to flourish. Let me close by taking the opportunity to pay tribute to three men who have played an important role in our success in East Timor and operations elsewhere. On 3 July Vice Admiral Russ Shalders, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy and Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd will retire as chiefs of their respective services. On behalf of the government, the parliament and the Australian people I pay tribute to these three service chiefs for their professionalism, their dedication and their very strong leadership. I thank them for their service and I wish them all the very best for the future. I thank the House. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The Minister for Defence may like to move a motion to allow the member for Paterson to speak. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —by leave—I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Baldwin speaking for a period not exceeding 8 minutes. Question agreed to. 5583 15:36:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —The opposition strongly welcomes the federal government’s continuing commitment to restoring security and stability to East Timor. Both sides of politics believe that Australia has a strategic and humanitarian interest in assisting this young six-year-old nation-state develop and prosper as a stable democracy. Since the independence of East Timor in 1999, the Australian Defence Force has maintained a constant commitment to the East Timorese government and people. Through the leadership of the International Stabilisation Force and by providing support to the ongoing United Nations’ mission, Australia remains committed to the stability and prosperity of East Timor. In the long term, this stability can only be guaranteed by East Timorese security forces and it is the aim of the Australian authorities that these forces be adequately trained, equipped and prepared for this task. There are, as the Minister for Defence points out, 18 Australian Defence military and civilian advisers in East Timor. We support the government’s decision to deploy an additional 14 advisers to further build the capacity of the East Timorese defence force. But a stronger East Timorese military is one thing; East Timor also needs a large, well-trained police force able to ensure domestic security. Despite the large UN police presence in East Timor, more attention needs to be paid to training the police. Security is essential if refugees are to be returned home and for the creation of the conditions that encourage investment and economic growth. In this light, it is encouraging to hear last week’s news that East Timor’s leaders met to discuss the strengthening of the agreement between the government of East Timor and the UN Integrated Mission in East Timor to reform the security sector. Of course, we share the federal government’s concern that, as the Minister for Defence puts it: ... any future drawdown of the UN Police mission in East Timor needs to be based on the achievement of performance benchmarks by the East Timorese Police. He continued: When these benchmarks are met any drawdown would be managed modestly, cautiously and in consultation with Australia. The assassination attempts against East Timor President, Jose Ramos Horta, and Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmao, in February of this year provided a stark reminder of just how volatile the security situation in East Timor remains. These two men are the best qualified candidates to bridge East Timor’s fractured political landscape. Since those assassination attempts, the army, police and civil authorities have helped prevent violence in the volatile camps, suburbs and towns and so avoided further bloodshed which would have only prolonged East Timor’s agony. Today it is also worth mentioning the previous government’s noble role in securing East Timor’s independence in 1999. At the time, the decision on whether to intervene in the former Portuguese colony seemed like a no-win situation for Australia. On the one hand, relations with Jakarta hung in the balance, and, on the other hand, the normally pacifist Left—especially including several members opposite such as the then Labor foreign affairs spokesman, Laurie Brereton—were baying for blood with our closest neighbour. But let history record that the then Prime Minister, John Howard, the then Minister for Defence, John Moore, and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, now the member for Mayo, defused the crisis with a prudent use of force, resulting in remarkably few casualties, minimal damage to relations with Indonesia and giving East Timor the best chance of stability and development. Critics—such as the current Prime Minister’s close friend and special envoy Richard Woolcott—condemned the Howard government for encouraging Jakarta to host a ballot for East Timorese independence. That ballot on 30 August 1999 was carried by a 78.5 per cent majority of Indonesians. Former diplomat Tony Kevin, again another close friend and former adviser of our now Prime Minister, even called on John Howard and the current member for Mayo to ‘apologise’ to Jakarta for Australia’s ‘provocative’ behaviour in leading other Asian democracies to protect the helpless people from brutal attack by the Indonesian military. We can never forget the Dili massacre on 12 November 1991, resulting in over 250 young Timorese being killed. We can never forget the then Labor government’s refusal to acknowledge the severity of the situation, when the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, played down the killings, describing them as ‘an aberration, not an act of state policy.’ But by not shying away from the moral issues, Australia, under Prime Minister John Howard, showed true leadership in the Asia-Pacific region for the first time and proved itself a strong and supportive neighbour. Since East Timor’s independence in 1999, Australia, with the support of both sides of politics, has continued to make a significant contribution to nation building in the former Portuguese colony. Our military and police personnel have made successive UN missions. We have invested more than $641 million in development assistance. We have played a major role in managing public finance and revenue collection systems, supporting rural development and the delivery of water sanitation and environmental health services. We have also invested $26 million over five years to help establish an East Timor defence force. In May 2006, in response to rising unrest in East Timor, Australia committed a company of 130 soldiers to Dili. Within a fortnight, approximately 2,000 ADF personnel had been deployed to East Timor including a 1,300 strong battalion group, 23 armoured personnel carriers, 10 helicopters and five Navy ships. By the end of May, the ADF had secured key infrastructure, successfully repatriated hundreds of Australians, facilitated the return to barracks of the East Timorese defence and police forces, confiscated hundreds of weapons and assisted in the provision of humanitarian aid. The East Timorese operation has been widely regarded by the international community as a success. But the events of earlier this year highlight that there are still many challenges to overcome and Australia must stand side by side with East Timor in addressing such challenges. The federal opposition supports the federal government’s moves to provide extra assistance to East Timor at this time in addition to maintaining the levels of Australian Defence Force and Federal Police numbers in the country. The stability and safety of East Timor and its residents is of major importance to the federal opposition and we will consider all requests for further assistance in a positive manner. And we stand with our East Timorese friends to assist them in any way and we will react sympathetically to their requests for further assistance. Finally, the opposition would also like to echo the Minister for Defence’s tribute to the three men who have led the efforts in East Timor and other theatres. Vice Admiral Russ Shalders, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy and Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd are retiring next week as Chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Force. All are fine men who have upheld the best traditions of our military. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend all good wishes to their successors and in particular to Brigadier James Baker, who takes over from Brigadier John Hutcheson as commander of the Australian led International Stabilisation Force in East Timor. 5585 5585 15:44:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —by leave—Members may be aware that one of the government’s election commitments in health was to establish the position of Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer. I am delighted to congratulate Ms Rosemary Bryant on the announcement today of her appointment to this role within the Department of Health and Ageing. Nurses are a critically important part of Australia’s health workforce. There are some 150,000 nurses working in our hospitals, both public and private, and around 245,000 nurses working in the health system more generally. Yet until today nurses have not had a proper voice within policy making at the Commonwealth level. With Ms Bryant’s appointment to the role of Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, from now on nurses will have a strong voice within the Commonwealth government, not just on nursing workforce issues but on the issues facing the health system more generally in which nurses play such a vital part. In her role as Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, Ms Bryant will undertake a range of important roles: As the government’s most senior adviser on nursing workforce issues, she will help shape policies which will strengthen the nursing profession as a career of choice. She will play a key role in developing a strategic and collaborative approach to nursing policy across both the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. She will also advise the government on implementation of existing commitments, including our plan to bring thousands of extra nurses back into the hospital workforce. She will help lead the maternity services review. She will play a key role in the health reform debates and new policy formation that are so central to the Rudd government’s long-term view of the need to reshape our health system, from prevention right through to hospitals—at every step of the way, nurses of one form or other play a central role. Rosemary Bryant comes to the role of Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer with a wealth of knowledge and experience. She is currently Executive Director of the Royal College of Nursing and has worked in a wide range of hospitals and community settings. She was previously the director of nursing policy and planning in the Victorian government and the director of nursing at Royal Adelaide Hospital. Ms Bryant was elected as a member of the board of the International Council of Nurses, the ICN, in 2001 and was elected as its second vice-president in 2005. She has also provided advice to the World Health Organisation on nursing in Nepal. One of the first tasks I will be asking Ms Bryant as Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer to undertake is to lead the government’s maternity services review. This review, which was another of the government’s election commitments that are being delivered upon, is a first step towards developing a comprehensive plan for maternity services into the future. This piece of work will canvass a wide range of issues relevant to maternity services, including pregnancy, birthing and postnatal care, as well as care for parents who have lost babies. The government want to ensure we have the best system possible in place to provide high-quality care for mothers and newborns because we recognise that early care is the key to giving children the best start in life. I will be asking Ms Bryant as Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer to lead this review because one of the things the government would like to see come out of the review is the potential for a greater role for midwives in the provision of maternity services. Midwives are highly skilled, highly qualified health professionals, and we believe there is scope for them to be playing a greater role in the provision of maternity services around the country. The government has also announced recently a number of other very important policy initiatives, in which the Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer will play a leading role, which are part of the government’s agenda to shape a health system designed to tackle the challenges of the future. Key among these is the development of a National Primary Care Strategy. The strategy will look at how to deliver better coordinated, more efficient, more accessible frontline care to families across Australia. Practice nurses, community nurses, district nurses, diabetic educators—the list could go on and on—are already part of that front line, but we want to consider if all health professionals’ skills are being properly utilised and supported to provide access to top quality care at all times. In particular the development of the Primary Care Strategy will focus on: better rewarding prevention in primary care; promoting evidence based management of chronic disease; better supporting patients with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and asthma to manage their conditions; supporting the role GPs play in the health care team; addressing the growing need for access to other health professionals, including practice nurses and allied health professionals like physiotherapists and dieticians; and encouraging a greater focus on multidisciplinary, team based care in primary care settings. Dr Tony Hobbs, a rural GP from Cootamundra in New South Wales and the current Chair of the Australian General Practice Network, is leading an external reference group to advise the Department of Health and Ageing on the development of the Primary Care Strategy. I will be asking the Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer to be involved in the development of the Primary Care Strategy, given the important role that practice nurses play in primary care settings and the scope, amongst other things, for looking at how the roles of practice nurses as well as nurse practitioners might be expanded. The development of the Primary Care Strategy will of course also examine critical questions of workforce more generally. Alongside this work is a review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule primary care items with a focus on reducing red tape for doctors, simplifying the Medicare schedule and giving more support to prevention. Just as importantly, we are undergoing extensive reform in the hospital sector as well, investing more heavily than the past government did in public hospitals and working through COAG and the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to see how we can mould our health system and workforce to meet the needs of the Australian community into the next decades. The voice of doctors and specialists in this debate is critical, but so too is the expertise of others, notably the large nursing workforce in our hospitals and the increasingly specialised role they play in everything from aged care to child and maternal health, to dialysis and critical care. The position of Chief Medical Officer has existed since 1985 to provide clinical medical advice to the Commonwealth government, and I might note that prior to that the secretary of the department of health was always a medical doctor. The Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer will play a complementary role on nursing issues. We will continue to work with and engage with professional and stakeholder organisations across the spectrum, especially in allied health, but we welcome the source of ready advice to government from a dedicated nursing adviser during this busy reform era. These policy initiatives, including the announcement of the appointment of the Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, are about planning for a health system which is designed to tackle the challenges of the future. This government wants to take a strategic approach to health workforce issues, in particular as they relate to nurses, the largest single group in the health workforce, and to take a strategic, long-term approach to the provision of services, including maternity services and primary health care, the latter being of fundamental importance if we are to keep Australians healthy and out of hospital. I am delighted once again to congratulate Ms Rosemary Bryant on her appointment to the position of Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer. She is the first person to hold that position, it having just been created by the government. I look forward to working with her, on behalf of all nurses and the broader community, and welcome the important role she will play in the government’s health reform agenda into the future. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for North Sydney to speak for eight minutes Leave granted. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking for a period not exceeding 8 minutes. Question agreed to. 5587 15:52:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —I join with the Minister for Health and Ageing in congratulating Ms Rosemary Bryant on her appointment as the first Commonwealth Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer, and recognise that Rosemary Bryant is very well qualified to hold this position. She is currently Executive Director of the Royal College of Nursing, a position which she has held since 2000. She is also currently the second Vice-President of the Board of the International Council of Nurses, the international body for nursing, comprising 129 member nations and representing 13 million nurses. I note that Ms Bryant was previously director of nursing policy and planning in the Victorian government and had hands-on experience at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. She has also been involved in policy development with the World Health Organisation. Obviously, Ms Bryant is very well qualified. I welcome the creation of this position. Nursing has not received the recognition that some would say it has most properly deserved, over many years, including under previous Labor governments. But the matter is being addressed and I congratulate the minister for that. I recognise that we do have workforce challenges not just in nursing but right across the health spectrum. The health workforce understandably demands more flexible work hours primarily as a result of the pressures on families with both parents working but also as a result of the fact that there are more and more women in the overall workforce, particularly in relation to doctors. They naturally enough bring common sense to the workplace in one way above that of men and that is to bring greater flexibility in the workplace. The challenge you face in relation to doctors flows through to the provision of primary health care. The challenge you find in relation to nursing is that it is an extremely challenging job and nurses more generally have had overall rather poor remuneration in relation to the tasks they have been asked to perform. That is probably one of the reasons that, for example, in New South Wales there are far more nurses not practising as nurses than there are actual nurses working in the profession. I think these workforce challenges are significant not just in the public hospital system run by the states but also as a general issue. There are significant challenges that need to be met head-on by all governments. One of the reasons the previous Liberal-National government under John Howard introduced 25 Australian hospital nursing schools, costing $170 million, was to provide hospital based training rather than exclusively university based training for nurses. We wanted them to have real experience. The new government came in and abolished those training schools—they have abolished 25 Australian hospital nursing schools. The chief nurse might have said to the minister, ‘This is a bad idea’, as everybody else did, but the minister proceeded with it and is instead giving $39 million to nurses who return to the workforce and an extra $99 million to extra nursing places in the university and TAFE system. The net impact is that those nurses who have done all the hard yards, who have stayed in the system doing the difficult tasks, are in no way rewarded for their efforts. I think the government’s policy is heading in the wrong direction, and Ms Bryant has a considerable job ahead of her in trying to convince the government to get back on track and reinstate Australian hospital nursing schools and focus on retention of nurses rather than just bringing back nurses who were previously in the profession but who are no longer in it. There are also basic workforce issues like how to get greater flexibility into the workplace in relation to nursing. I also particularly welcome the appointment of a midwifery officer. Midwifery is a hugely important job and it has been around for many years. In fact, my grandmother, who is now deceased but I am sure she is listening to me at this very moment, was a midwife in Jerusalem. In those days of course doctors were very hard to find, particularly in the 1930s. My father recounts to me how he used to carry my grandmother’s bag around to the various births. That was a hard thing for a seven- or eight-year-old to do at the time, I am sure. But in those days the midwife picked up the challenges of birth. In those days, through no fault of the midwives, there was a much higher infant mortality rate than there is today. Thank God for the advent of better health care. The infant mortality rate generally has improved, although it is still horrendous in Third World countries and still way too high in Indigenous communities. We should never underestimate the significance of the role of midwives and how they often provide the services that cannot be provided by doctors. I imagine that over 95 per cent—I do not know the exact figure—of midwives are women and therefore provide a very important role at key moments during the birthing process when it might be best to have not only a woman there but also someone who has experienced childbirth—which no man will obviously go through, at least not in our lifetime. In terms of the maternity services review, I also welcome this. I think that it is an important initiative. Providing the best system for pregnancy, birthing and postnatal care is vitally important. It is also important for families who lose a child. Again, we underestimate sometimes the psychological impact of that. I note that the coalition promised $800,000 for Bonnie Babes for counselling services for families who have lost a child pre or post birth. I am very disappointed that the government failed to put that in their budget. It was a commitment we made at the last election, the important point being that it is a phone service. From my own ministerial experience I know that phone services are often used particularly at distressing moments, rather than face-to-face services, which are not always available particularly for people who are in remote and regional areas. The ministerial statement does refer to other health reforms. I want to very generously congratulate the minister on having a policy in health that is generated by the health department or by her, and not by the Department of Treasury. The alcopops tax came out of Treasury, as we found out during estimates, and the Medicare levy surcharge, which is taking a baseball bat to private health insurance, came out of Treasury as well. So it is a welcome change and all Australians should applaud when we get health policy from the health minister and not from Treasury, and I join in supporting this wonderful new initiative. 5589 5589 16:02:00 , Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr DEBUS —by leave—On 17 and 18 June, Australia presented a comprehensive report on our anti-bribery framework to the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, in Paris. Australia is a member of the working group, which was founded in 1994 to monitor the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Corruption has a negative effect on economies and seriously undermines trust in civil institutions as well as severely damaging the international trading reputation of all nations. Australia is therefore committed to playing an active role in combating bribery of public officials around the globe. Australia was responding in Paris to the working group report on Australia’s implementation of the convention, published in January 2006. The report is generally positive about Australia’s implementation with recommendations for improvement focusing on three areas: (i)   improving public and private awareness of Australia’s foreign bribery offence; (ii)  improving investigation and detection of foreign bribery; and (iii) specific measures for preventing and detecting foreign bribery. Australia’s response to these recommendations has been a government-wide project, with participation from more than 20 agencies of the government. To ensure our anticorruption systems accord with the convention and world’s best practice, Australia has brought together: federal, state and territory law enforcement bodies; agencies responsible for domestic and international criminal and tax policy; our international trade and development agencies; and those agencies who work domestically to promote the high standards of the Australian government. Last week the OECD expressed its view that Australia’s implementation of the convention was above average for OECD nations. Obviously there is still work to be done and the government remains committed to combating foreign bribery. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Sturt to speak for two minutes. Leave granted. 8IS Debus, Bob, MP Mr DEBUS —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Pyne speaking for a period not exceeding 2 minutes. Question agreed to. 5590 16:05:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I notice that the member for Denison comes in for all my best speeches in the House. The opposition welcomes the statement today from the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to Australia’s report on our antibribery framework to the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, in Paris. I note the work done by former ministers Johnson and Ellison from another place in the initial stages of this report’s preparation, and it is pleasing to hear that the OECD continues to commend Australia for its ‘above average’ implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The OECD working group published its report on Australia’s performance when it came to this convention in January 2006. In 2006 the OECD also commended Australia for demonstrating a ‘strong commitment to combating foreign bribery’. In response to recommendations in that report the former government had a targeted awareness campaign on the foreign bribery offence, and the Attorney-General’s Department worked to assist government and non-government organisations in raising awareness about the offence in addition to beginning the work on the report delivered in Paris last week. The occurrence of bribery and corruption of public officials is a taint on any country’s reputation. Even the appearance of bribery or corruption lowers international confidence in a country’s trading reputation and undermines domestic confidence in that country’s key institutions. It is of vital importance that Australian governments of any political persuasion continue to maintain vigilance against any such occurrence. The opposition will remain committed to supporting the government in a bipartisan fashion in this parliament’s endeavours to stop any emergence of bribery or corruption of public officials in any of our institutions. We welcome this report. 5590 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: 10000 The SPEAKER 96 5590 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petitioners and citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House that In 2004, the Commonwealth Parliament amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. This reinforced the Biblical norm of heterosexual marriage, which has been the cornerstone of every civilization since the beginning of humanity. The word ‘marriage’ is thus appropriate only for legally united heterosexual couples, who are able to model dual-parenting that is balanced (providing both father and mother role models), natural (as to male-female physical union), and morally acceptable to God (bringing up children within the marriage bond).* The establishing of Relationship Registers in the States and Territories will inevitably expand the above definition of marriage (para.1) into meaninglessness, and so compromise the purpose of the Marriage Act. Your petitioners therefore pray that, with the powers vested exclusively in the Federal Parliament under Section 51 (xxi and xxii) of the Australian Constitution, you amend the Marriage Act 1961 to invalidate any present or future States’ or Territories’ Relationship Registers. * Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4-6; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-27 96 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 96 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 11994 5591 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of members of the State of Western Australia, and certain electors of the Division of Swan draws to the attention of the House, the excessive waiting times (up to 1 hour) experienced by customers visiting the Booragoon branch of Medicare. Your petitioners signed hereunder, therefore pray that the House give consideration to the establishment of another Medicare branch located in the growing suburb of Belmont Western Australia, at Belmont Forum Shopping Centre. 11994 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 11,994 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 4900 5591 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We, as informed and concerned Australian citizens, request that the House of Representatives takes a position on the Palestine/Israel conflict which will promote the implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 181 and 194 and Security Council Resolution 242. We urge the House of Representatives to adopt a more balanced perspective than in its 12th March 2008 motion in which Australia wholeheartedly and uncritically endorsed the Israeli Day of Independence. We urge the House of Representatives to also acknowledge that Israel’s day of Independence marks the day of the dispossession of Palestinian people from their homeland. We also urge House of Representatives to acknowledge the Palestinians’ continual struggle to return to their homeland. We implore the House of Representatives to condemn Israel’s continued expansion of its illegal Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and the daily ritual humiliation and deaths of Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories. 4900 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 4,900 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 41 5591 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 Commonwealth legislation (Ministerial Determination of Educational Institutions and Courses of the Student Assistance Act 1973) which determines eligibility of candidates in certain university courses for Youth Allowance and Austudy support through Centrelink. Centrelink states that for a course to be eligible it needs to be necessary for the person to be able to practice in the profession. The Doctor of Physiotherapy at Bond University is an entry level postgraduate degree, it is not a degree for someone who has already completed a Masters and it is not a PHD. It is required for participants to be able to become a qualified Physiotherapist. The Masters in Physiotherapy at Sydney Uni and Griffith University are also entry level, post graduate degrees and this year candidates in those courses are able to receive Austudy and Youth allowance. The Doctor of Physiotherapy at Bond University is a full time, 2 year course with 81 teaching weeks (out of a possible 104); far exceeding normal courses, with approximately 60 teaching weeks. Of these 81 weeks, 42 require the candidate to undertake full-time, unpaid clinical placement. The remaining 39 weeks are on campus for a minimum of 4 days per week, plus time required for study and assignments. We therefore ask the House to amend relevant legislation to allow the Doctor of Physiotherapy course at Bond University to be included in the eligibility for youth allowance and Austudy support from Centrelink. 41 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 41 citizens) 10000 The SPEAKER 1513 5592 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of: The Moreland Senior Citizens Action Group draws to the attention of the House: As pensioners we simply cannot survive on the present pension rate of 25% of the Male Average Weekly Wage earning as it cannot be applied to the current increased prices and cost of living because we have completely lost the spending power. We therefore ask the House to: Take into consideration our situation and ask that the Federal Government raise the pension level to a new basis adjustment of 30% of the Male Average Weekly Wage earning in order that we pensioner may not be below the poverty line. 1513 10000 The SPEAKER The SPEAKER (from 1,513 citizens) Petitions received. 5592 10000 The CLERK The Clerk —A ministerial response to a petition previously presented to the House has been received as follows: 5592 Dear MrsJulia Irwin Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2008 regarding a petition from the NSW Branch of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation about the Northern Territory Emergency Response, that was considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions. I note that under Standing Order 209(b), there is an expectation that Ministers will respond to the referred petition within 90 days. Please find below a response to each of the concerns set out in the petition. Petition The Government’s strategy has been implemented with no consultation with Indigenous community leaders. Response The Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) was introduced by the former Government on 21 June 2007. The present Government is working to develop a relationship with Indigenous Australians based on mutual respect. To this end, the Australian Government is consulting with a broad range of Indigenous stakeholders on a variety of issues. Immediately after the election, the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, and I met with a group of Indigenous leaders in Darwin to discuss the future of the NTER. I am committed to meeting regularly with this group. A second meeting was held in February 2008 and another is scheduled for June 2008. The Government is currently considering longer term consultative arrangements that will include a national representative body for Indigenous people. The Government will consult with Indigenous people on the form that this body should take prior to making any decisions. Petition The bulk of the $587 million allocated is to he spent on administration and bureaucrats rather than directly assisting Indigenous Communities. Response During the stabilisation phase of the intervention there have been a number of concrete improvements to services and amenities in remote communities. Among these improvements are: 8,559 Child Health Checks have been undertaken in 74 communities and referrals have been made, where appropriate, to specialist services for follow up treatment; over 50 additional police have been deployed in remote communities, which has increased perceptions of community safety. Night Patrols have also commenced in all 73 prescribed communities; 44 community stores have been licensed. Community stores are reporting increased sales of food, including fresh food, which, over the longer term should support healthier families and communities; students in 35 communities and five Town Camp regions are being provided with meals through the School Nutrition Program, improving levels of concentration and classroom learning; the Community Clean-Up program has commenced in 52 communities resulting in improvements to the communities’ surroundings and houses to make them cleaner and safer; 52 Government Business Managers have been appointed serving 72 communities, providing a central point of contact for the coordination of important Government services and programs. Petition Quarantining of welfare payments will result in many families, who are already struggling, being worse off. Response Income management recognises that parents who receive income support and family payments have an obligation to use those payments to ensure their children are adequately housed, fed, clothed and educated. Income management assists parents who are not meeting these obligations by re-directing a portion of their welfare payments to priority expenses. Financial education and counselling is offered in preparation for the introduction of income management. Early indications are that, through income management, families are purchasing more of the goods and services essential to improving their children’s health and wellbeing. An initial survey of ten community stores in remote Northern Territory communities found that six stores recorded an increase in sales of food, including fresh food, since November 2007. Income management arrangements will be evaluated as part of the planned review of the NTER which is expected to commence in July 2008. Petition Removal of the entry permit system exposes communities and children to further risk. Response The Government is committed to restoring the permit system on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The Government believes that Aboriginal people should be able to decide who can visit their land. A Bill that seeks to reinstate the permit system has been introduced into Parliament. In the meantime, the Government is urging people to continue the current practice of seeking permission to visit Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. The Government will be taking steps to allow journalists to enter Aboriginal communities without a permit under certain conditions to report on events in the communities. Petition We call on the Federal Government to revisit the Northern Territory strategy. Response As mentioned above, the Government is committed to a comprehensive review of the first 12 months of activity under the NTER. The review will be examining all measures and available evidence to assess what is working, the extent of each measure’s effectiveness, and the impact to date. I envisage that the review will be highly consultative with face to face meetings with a variety of Indigenous people and communities in the Northern Territory and submissions called from interested groups. I expect the findings to be delivered to Government before the end of 2008. from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, to a petition presented on 17 March by The Speaker (from 90 citizens). 5594 Bills R2960 5594 Bills R2963 5594 Bills R3015 5594 Bills R2987 5594 Bills R2976 5594 Bills R2977 5594 Bills R3022 5594 Bills R3024 5594 Bills R3023 5594 Bills R3025 5594 Bills R3009 5594 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 5594 Bills R2964 5594 Debate resumed. 5594 16:08:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise in support of the Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008, which is an amendment to the Judiciary Act 1903, a very important act of this parliament which regulates aspects of the judicial system of the Commonwealth and, among other things, regulates the manner in which state courts exercise federal jurisdiction. In simple terms, these amendments alter section 79 of the Judiciary Act and restore to the states the protection of limitation periods in state laws which put a time limit on suing state governments to recover taxes paid under a law later found to be invalid. These limitation periods are generally quite tight. In Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia, there is a 12-month limitation period from the date of payment of the tax, and South Australia imposes a six-month restriction, as do the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory governments. The case which gave rise to this bill is a 2003 decision of the High Court of Australia in British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Western Australia, and I might say something about that case, because it explains why these amendments are now needed. The case focused on section 79 of the Judiciary Act, which is what this bill amends, and it is worth setting out the exact terms of the section: The laws of each State or Territory, including the laws relating to procedure, evidence, and the competency of witnesses, shall, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth, be binding on all Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in that State or Territory in all cases to which they are applicable. What the bill does is rename that provision, section 79(1), and insert sections 79(2) to 79(4), which deal specifically with limitations on actions as I have indicated. The Attorney-General said, in introducing this bill, that it: ... assists in restoring the states and territories to the position they were in ... before the decision of the High Court in British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Western Australia. In that case the High Court found that state laws imposing conditions on the right to sue the state government did not apply where the state court was exercising federal jurisdiction because the provisions were inconsistent with Commonwealth law, particularly sections 39 and 64 of the Judiciary Act. The proposed amendments to section 79 of the Judiciary Act contained in this bill will establish that state and territory laws which apply to the recovery of invalidly imposed state or territory taxes, including the imposition of conditions on the right to bring an action, are binding where the proceedings are in federal jurisdiction. The decision of the High Court—and it is worth bearing in mind that it is a decision made as long ago as 2003—concerned a claim by a tobacco wholesaler against the government of Western Australia to recover licence fees paid under the Western Australian Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act 1975. The claim was brought by British American Tobacco after an earlier decision of the High Court in Ha v New South Wales, a 1997 decision where the court found that fees imposed under a very similar law in New South Wales amounted to excise duties and thus had been imposed in contravention of section 90 of the Commonwealth Constitution and were therefore unconstitutional and invalid. At the time there were provisions in the Western Australian legislation, the Crown Suits Act, which stated that no right of action lay against the Crown unless, first, the party proposing to take action gave written notice to the Crown solicitor within three months of the action accruing or as soon as practicable and, secondly, the action was commenced within a year of the action accruing. In the case, it was common ground that the action had accrued on 5 August 1997, which was when judgement was delivered in the case of Ha v New South Wales. So the issue that came up to the High Court in British American Tobacco v Western Australia was whether or not the single judge in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had been correct in striking out the action brought by British American Tobacco on the ground that the time limits in the state legislation had not been complied with. In the British American Tobacco case, the High Court found that the question was one that was not to be determined by looking at the Crown Suits Act of Western Australia because as the High Court found—and as had not been considered fully in the two levels below, namely, before the single judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and in the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia—it was the exercise of federal jurisdiction. As such, in the British American Tobacco case the High Court found that a law such as section 39 of the Judiciary Act, being an exercise of power under section 78 of the Constitution, was sufficient to confer on British American Tobacco the right to proceed in attempting to recover the taxes that it had paid under the invalid law. The High Court further found that, because of section 39(2) of the Judiciary Act, there was a federal law providing otherwise than the state law, and as a consequence the state limitation periods and the notice provision in the state act were not binding on the Supreme Court of Western Australia exercising federal jurisdiction. The High Court also held that the limitation period found in the Western Australian Crown Suits Act was invalid for another reason, namely, that it was inconsistent with section 64 of the Judiciary Act, that being a very well-known provision that provides as follows: In any suit to which the Commonwealth or a State is a party, the rights of parties shall as nearly as possible be the same, and judgment may be given and costs awarded on either side, as in a suit between subject and subject. As Justice Kirby commented in his judgement in the British American Tobacco case, there are possibly issues about whether state acts such as the Crown Suits Act of Western Australia should be seen as regulating litigation involving the state and indeed whether the state should be equated for any purpose as the Crown. But putting those questions entirely to one side, Western Australia and other states of the Commonwealth have proceeded for many decades on the basis that legislation like the Crown Suits Act is effective and, consequently, the states have ordered their affairs on the basis that provisions like the limitation periods that are found in the Crown Suits Act of Western Australia are effective. The bill demonstrates inaction by the former government. The decision made by the High Court was made in 2003 during the third term of the former Howard government. The whole of the balance of that third term of government and the whole of the fourth term of the Howard government passed by without any action to remedy the problem that had been disclosed by this decision of the High Court. The inactivity is made worse and is more marked by the fact that this matter was hardly secret. It was given rise to by a decision of the High Court of Australia and was actively discussed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on several occasions. It gave rise to recommendations by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that federal legislation, and specifically an amendment to the Judiciary Act, was required in order to put the states back in the position that they had been in. Yet the former government did nothing. In introducing this bill, the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland, said that this bill: ... is an example of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to cooperative federalism. He went on to say: This is a matter that has long languished on the books of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for over four years because of the previous government declining to act for political reasons completely unrelated to the substance of the proposed legislation. It is very clearly desirable legislation. Not only does it implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, being recommendations which, to again quote the Attorney-General: ... have as their objective the protection of state and territory revenue ... but at a policy level the amendments to the Judiciary Act are clearly desirable. They are desirable for reasons stated by the Attorney-General. He said: It is desirable that there be a special, short limitation period applicable to proceedings to recover invalid state and territory taxes. Otherwise, claims could be made many years after a tax has been paid, with potentially far-reaching consequences for government budgeting. It is regrettable that this kind of inaction was typical of the attitude of the former government to the states. It is noteworthy that neither of the speakers from the other side of the House who have spoken on this bill have offered or even attempted to offer any explanation for the inactivity of the former government in respect of this obvious problem. It is indeed typical of an attitude of the former government that has been described by some with considerable justification as ‘a war on the states’. It involved criticising the states wherever possible, reducing payments to the states where possible and certainly not ever genuinely cooperating with the states. For the new government, ending the blame game is a real objective, and it is not a new objective. Some have suggested that on our side of politics there historically has been opposition to the states in some respects, but anyone who suggest that that is a theme of the present government is someone who has clearly not been listening to statements that the Prime Minister has been making for several years. It is worth noting something that the Prime Minister said as long ago as July 2005 in a speech that he gave to the Don Dunstan Foundation. He said: There is no secret to the fact that for many decades, there has been a strong tradition in Labor political thought that when political circumstances permitted, the States should be abolished. Personally, I’ve never shared that tradition as I have long been a committed Federalist – albeit a Federalist with a difference, one committed to using the Federal compact on a co-operative basis to deliver national outcomes that are politically sustainable well beyond a change in the political complexion of the government of the day. I’ve never been attracted to a doctrine of Federalism based on chanting the mindless mantra of States’ rights. …            …            … The challenge for a future Labor government will be to rebuild the Federation. And it is my argument that the Federation can be rebuilt based on the principles of co-operative (rather the coercive) Federalism. It is ironic that in recent years the federal based Liberal Party has made greater moves towards centralisation of authority than were ever achieved by the Labor Party. The Rudd government’s aim is to rebuild the federation. To use the Prime Minister’s words from 2005, it will be a rebuilding ‘based on principles of cooperative rather than coercive federalism’. This is not a theoretical or an academic proposition. The Business Council of Australia said very clearly last year in its report entitled Reshaping Australia’s Federation: The extent of the problems and dysfunctions of the current system of federal–state relations – marked by a lack of consensus on national goals and consistent forward planning – is such that it has become a major barrier to future prosperity. The challenge of reforming federalism has now become an economic imperative. This government is going to work on making federalism work better, on making the Federation work better and on ending the blame game. This is not mere rhetoric. It means working towards a seamless national economy to harmonise regulation and to assist the states to manage their budgets. What we have seen from the Rudd Labor government since the election last year is successive meetings of the Council of Australian Governments in December 2007 and in March 2008, and successive meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which have demonstrated that the government is committed to cooperating with the states. For example, as promised at the December 2007 COAG meeting, the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group at the March meeting delivered an implementation plan which identified a first tranche of new regulatory reform. Notably, priority is to be given to harmonising occupational health and safety laws. The working group also made recommendations for early action on payroll tax administration, trade licences, rail safety regulation, national trade measurement, the consumer policy framework and the mortgage credit as well as advice in other areas. Some areas that COAG has now prioritised for reform are areas which were already on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, including standard business reporting and business name regulation. These COAG meetings have recognised the importance of the existing ministerial councils and the continuing need for close cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. This amendment to the Judiciary Act is in the spirit of the cooperation with the states which is required. On its face it is a simple amendment which restores the states to the position that they thought they were in before the High Court’s decision in 2003. It is a simple amendment which ensures that limitation periods applying to attempts to recover taxes paid under legislation which has been found to be invalid have to be brought within particular specified periods of time. The importance of having such limitation periods is obvious because it provides certainty of financial management to the states. They will know where they stand in respect of all revenue collected after a certain time, notwithstanding that it might be found to be the case that, at some considerably later time, the legislation under which that revenue was collected was invalid. Making more certain and more secure the revenue of the states is something which, as I have said, is entirely in the spirit of increasing cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. This is legislation which in creating certainty of revenue is going, in the long term, to improve the quality of services, which the states are then able to deliver to the people of Australia. It is improving the quality of services—in the end, the purpose of cooperative federalism—and improving the quality of services to the people of all the states will of course include improving the quality of services to the people of my electorate of Isaacs. 5598 16:28:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008 and also to support the well-informed comments of my colleague the member for Isaacs. The bill seeks to amend section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to provide that a state or territory law which limits the recovery of invalidly imposed state or territory taxes, which would otherwise apply to a suit if it did not involve federal jurisdiction, is binding on a court exercising federal jurisdiction in the relevant state or territory. Section 79 of the Judiciary Act currently provides that, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or Commonwealth laws, the laws of a state or territory are binding on all courts exercising federal jurisdiction in that state or territory. The exact terms of section 79 are as follows: The laws of each State or Territory, including the laws relating to procedure, evidence, and the competency of witnesses, shall, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth, be binding on all Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in that State or Territory in all cases to which they are applicable. This bill seeks to rename that provision as section 79(1). It then seeks to insert proposed sections 79(2) to (4), which deal specifically with limitations on actions brought in a state or territory court exercising federal jurisdiction to recover taxes raised invalidly under a state or territory law. The bill is intended to restore the states and territories to the position they were in before the decision of the High Court of Australia in British American Tobacco v Western Australia. That decision was made in 2003. The High Court found that state laws imposing conditions on the right to sue the state government did not apply where the state court was exercising federal jurisdiction because the provisions were inconsistent with Commonwealth law and particularly sections 39 and 64 of the Judiciary Act. The proposed amendments to section 79 of the Judiciary Act contained in the bill make clear that state and territory laws which apply to the recovery of invalidly imposed state or territory taxes, including the imposition of conditions on the right to bring an action, are binding where the proceedings are in federal jurisdiction. The decision of the High Court in British American Tobacco v Western Australia concerned a claim made by a tobacco wholesaler against the government of Western Australia to recover licence fees paid under the Business Franchise (Tobacco) Act 1975, a Western Australian act. The claim was brought under the Crown Suits Act 1947—also a Western Australian act—after the decision of the High Court in Ha v New South Wales, where the court found that fees imposed under a similar law in New South Wales were excise duties and thus that they had been imposed in contravention of section 90 of the Commonwealth Constitution. At the time, section 6 of the Western Australian act stated that no right of action lay against the Crown unless (a) the party proposing to take action had given written notice to the Crown Solicitor advising of certain information within three months of the action accruing or ‘as soon as practicable’, whichever period was longer, and (b) the action was commenced within one year of the action accruing. In British American Tobacco, the High Court found that a law such as section 39 of the Judiciary Act is an exercise of power under section 78 of the Constitution. The court also held that the limitation period in paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Western Australian act, which applied only to actions against the Crown, was invalid because it was inconsistent with section 64 of the Judiciary Act. In the event, the High Court allowed the company’s appeal with costs. In doing so it set aside certain orders made by the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had given summary judgement in favour of the Crown on the basis that the company had not complied with subsection 6(1) of the Crown Suits Act 1947. It had also dismissed the company’s appeal to the full court of the Supreme Court with costs. In May this year the Attorney-General in a press release advised that this bill would be brought forward and described it as a clear example of: ... the Rudd government cooperating closely with the states and territories to achieve progress for the nation. Similarly, the Attorney-General described the bill as an example of the Labor government’s commitment to cooperative federalism, and he said: This is a matter that has long languished on the books of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for over four years because of the previous government declining to act for political reasons completely unrelated to the substance of the proposed legislation. It has been pointed out to me that the Howard government received substantial campaign funds in 2006-07 from British American Tobacco. This is referred to by Katharine Murphy in her article ‘Tough talk on political donations’, where she cites records held by the Australian Electoral Commission that show that British American Tobacco donated $166,000 to the coalition in 2006-07. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate this, I do not personally think that this is the reason, although I think that there is an unhealthy pattern of corporate influence on the Liberal Party. We see it in relation to their current handling of the tax on alcopops and we also see it in relation to the action they are taking on the issue of disclosure of electoral donations, which can only fuel public suspicion about their motives in these matters. Nevertheless, I think that the more likely explanation is that it was simply a piece of meanness or trickiness from the former federal government, which disliked the states and invariably sought to make their lives more difficult and was guilty of inflicting gratuitous violence on them. This was something which had made life more difficult and less certain for the states. All of the states and territories have special limitation periods with respect to the recovery of taxes paid under a mistake of fact or law, including constitutionally invalid taxes. For example, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia impose a 12-month limitation period from the date of the payment of the tax. South Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory impose a six-month restriction. These limitation periods are different from the general limitation period of six years which applies in ordinary proceedings between subject and subject—for example, in cases of contract and tort. The amendments which have been brought forward do not extinguish the right to bring actions for the recovery of invalid state and territory taxes; they simply apply as far as possible the state and territory special short limitation periods for the recovery of invalid taxes, which places the states and territories in the position that they thought they were in prior to the British American Tobacco case. Without these amendments, there is a much greater likelihood that claims could be made many years after a state or territory tax has been paid with potentially far-reaching consequences for state and territory government budgeting. I do not think it takes much thought for people to appreciate how chaotic the situation could be if a court was to find a state tax to be invalid many years after its introduction. It would be simply impossible to practically repay it to those who had been paying it in the first instance. These amendments have been developed in consultation with the states and territories through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. They are amendments which are prospective in operation. The proposed subsection 79(3) states that the types of state or territory law that would apply to a suit if it did not involve federal jurisdiction include a law that limits the period for bringing the suit to recover the amount, requires notice to be given and bars the suit on the ground that the person bringing the suit has charged someone else for the amount. Proposed subsection 79(4) provides some examples of an amount paid in connection with a tax including an amount paid as the tax, an amount of penalty for failure to pay the tax on time, an amount of penalty for failure to pay enough of the tax and an amount that is paid to a taxpayer by a customer of the taxpayer and is directly referable to the taxpayer’s liability to the tax in connection with his dealings with the customer. It is clear that the provisions are intended to cover taxes not only paid but invalidly imposed, also penalties for the late payment of those taxes. Provisions also cover the situation where the taxpayer has already recovered the amount from a third party such as a consumer of the taxpayer’s goods or services. These amendments will not have a retrospective operation. They apply in relation to the recovery of amounts paid after the commencement of this schedule and the act, commencing the day after royal assent. I make no criticism of the High Court concerning their decision. I know the former government was in the habit of bullying the High Court. You had Tim Fischer talking about the need for a capital ‘c’ Conservative, you had the former Attorney-General regularly bemoaning judicial activism and another former Liberal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, saying it was not his job to defend the High Court or other courts from political attacks. I do not think the previous government displayed the kind of commitment to judicial independence that is in the best interests of this nation. I am pleased to see the current Attorney-General taking a more responsible path. The decision in British American Tobacco v Western Australia was handed down on 2 September 2003. The Howard government made no attempt to counteract the effect of the decision in its third or fourth terms of government. This bill, introduced by the Labor government, has the support of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and it implements recommendations of that standing committee designed to protect state and territory revenue. The amendments overcome much of the uncertainty that resounds in the individual judgements of members of the High Court, especially in relation to the operation in federal jurisdiction of state or territory provisions dealing with limitation requirements and the contemporaneous operation of relevant Commonwealth law, particularly the Judiciary Act. The amendments make clear the types of state or territory law that will apply to suits heard in state or territory courts exercising federal jurisdiction, while leaving open the possibility that other state laws may operate in federal jurisdiction as well. This scenario gives certainty. This is an overdue reform. It is cooperative federalism at work. It shows the Commonwealth and the states working together, not the blame game, not the buck-passing which characterised federal-state relations under the previous Howard government. I commend the bill to the House. 5601 16:04:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I would like to thank the members for their contributions to the debate. I welcome the opposition’s support for this uncontroversial but nonetheless important bill. The Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008 is the government’s response to the issues raised by the 2003 decision of the High Court of Australia in British American Tobacco v Western Australia, and many of those who contributed to the debate commented on that decision. It is an example of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to cooperative federalism. The previous government had not acted on this in the four years since the British American Tobacco decision, as was pointed out a little while ago by the member for Wills. Yet it was a decision with the potential for a grave impact on state and territory government finances. The bill amends section 79 of the Judiciary Act to make clear that nothing in the Judiciary Act precludes special state and territory laws applicable to the recovery of invalid state and territory taxes from applying where the relevant proceedings are in a federal jurisdiction. This was thought to be the situation prior to the High Court’s decision. It is highly desirable that there be a special short limitation period applicable to proceedings to recover invalid state and territory taxes. Otherwise, claims could be made many years after a tax has been paid, with potentially far-reaching consequences for state and territory government budgeting. The amendments resolve this important issue for the state and territory governments. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5601 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 16:42:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5601 Bills R3021 5601 Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Debus: That this bill be now read a second time. 5602 16:43:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I am pleased to be speaking on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. The bill proposes to make three minor amendments: in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, in the Crimes Act 1914 and in the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. None of the three amendments are controversial; rather they are updating outdated legislation or fixing minor administrative oversights in the act as they stand. The bill seeks to reinsert the maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for the secrecy offence in subsection 60A(2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The penalty was inadvertently repealed by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006. The re-enactment of the penalty is retrospective to when it was repealed so as to ensure that any convictions related to offences of this nature in the past two years do not escape punishment. The opposition supports that change in the bill. Secondly, the bill seeks to alter the timing of the second review into part ID of the Crimes Act 1914 with regard to the collection and use of DNA material by Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. There was a review of this matter in March 2003, and the legislation required that a second review take place two years later—in other words, in March 2005. This did not take place, as interjurisdictional DNA matching between most states and territories and the Commonwealth has only been effectively in place since mid-2007. It is argued that for a review to be fully effective it is desirable that a body of cases progress from matching to investigation to trial so that there can been a meaningful test of the powers and safeguards in the legislation. The bill therefore requires that the second review commence no later than 1 November 2009. Again, the opposition supports the change. Thirdly, the bill seeks to ensure that the ACT Criminal Code is applied to flights originating or finishing in Australia or flights on Australian aircraft. Currently the ACT Crimes Act 1900 and the ACT Prostitution Act 1992 apply to criminal behaviour on board flights. However, many offences which were formerly in the ACT Crimes Act now appear in the ACT Criminal Code. This amendment will also allow regulations to be made to specify particular ACT laws that apply on relevant flights. This will provide flexibility in the event of future changes to the ACT criminal law. As I said, the bill is not controversial. It is a follow-on from work that the previous government originated. As a consequence, the opposition has no difficulty with the bill and will be supporting it. 5602 16:46:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. As the member for Sturt said, this bill contains three minor but necessary amendments to ensure that Commonwealth criminal law legislation is accurately kept up to date. While the provisions in this bill are really quite practical in nature, they seek to remedy defects and anomalies that presently exist in Commonwealth criminal law. The bill addresses these matters to make it easier to administer the criminal justice system. The bill is in response to the Rudd government’s position that criminal law should be responsive to the needs of the Australian community. As the Minister for Home Affairs stated in his second reading speech, the Rudd government looks forward to bringing many more criminal law bills before the parliament, particularly in relation to introducing a victims’ rights package and federal sentencing reforms. The Rudd government believes that these amendments, though minor, require attention as a matter of priority. The object of this omnibus bill is to make a number of miscellaneous amendments in relation to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. While the amendments are important, it is not appropriate that they be dealt with in individual amending bills; it is appropriate that they be dealt with together. The three amendments in the bill retrospectively reinsert the penalty for the secrecy offence in section 60A(2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, defer the second review of part ID of the Crimes Act 1914 until November 2009 and amend the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 to ensure that standard criminal offences apply on relevant flights. The first amendment in this bill is in relation to reinserting the penalty for the secrecy offence. Essentially, the bill seeks to amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to reinsert the two-year maximum penalty for the secrecy offence. It is pertinent to note that the amendment does not alter the elements of the offence; it simply reinserts the penalty that was previously stipulated in the provision. This penalty was mistakenly repealed in 2006 by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006. Under the proposed amendment, the re-enactment of this penalty is backdated to the date when the penalty was inadvertently repealed. It is appropriate that the commencement of this amendment is retrospectively dated. If the government did not take this action, we would be in a position whereby individuals who committed offences in the period after the penalty was repealed in 2006 and were found guilty would otherwise be able to escape punishment. The purpose of this amendment is to guarantee that, if someone is found guilty of an offence under the secrecy provisions, they will be subject to an appropriate penalty under the law. I believe that the idea that someone can commit an offence and then escape penalty is simply wrong. It is at odds with what the public would find acceptable. Consequently, I believe that there will be strong support for an amendment of this nature to correct this error and improve our criminal justice and legal systems. I think that the community would expect no less. The community wants us to be tough not just on the causes of crime but also on crime itself, and I agree with the sentiment of the community. The second amendment in this bill relates to deferring the review of part ID of the Crimes Act 1914. This part of the Crimes Act deals with the collection and use of DNA material by Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. It also sets up a national crime investigation DNA database as a platform to facilitate the matching of DNA profiles across Australian jurisdictions. The bill seeks to amend section 23YV of the Crimes Act to remove the requirement that the second review of part ID be held within two years of the completion of the first review. The review was due in March 2005 but, at that time, the database was only partially operational. The March 2005 review was scheduled to focus on the operation of the national criminal investigation DNA database and the implementation of the recommendations from the first report. It is the view of the Rudd government that, under the circumstances, it is only appropriate that the review be deferred. This is principally because of the operation of the database, which was supposed to be the major focus of the review. There was really not enough relevant information and experience, and it would have resulted in a waste of taxpayers’ resources if there had not been a deferment. The amendment will require the review to commence no later than 1 November 2009. By this stage, there will be a body of experience with investigations and prosecutions drawn on matches in the database. This will allow the government to convene a multi-agency team with relevant information and experience to conduct the review. The third area of amendment in the bill relates to the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. It governs crimes and other acts committed on aircrafts and in airports and related facilities. Currently under section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 there are standard criminal offences which still apply to flights commencing or finishing in Australia and to Australian aircraft in flight outside Australia. For example, if a murder, sexual assault, theft or anything of that nature occurred on a plane in flight, the crime would still be recognised as an offence under the law and the offender would be charged. In the past this was recognised by applying the ACT Crimes Act 1900. The trouble is that criminal offences under that act have in the main been moved to the ACT Criminal Code 2002. Only offences contained in the ACT Crimes Act 1900 apply to flights; those in the ACT Criminal Code 2002 do not. The amendments will ensure that the offences that were moved from the ACT Crimes Act to the ACT Criminal Code will now apply to those flights. The amendments will further allow future changes in criminal law to be applied to flights through the use of regulation-making powers to update the cross-reference to ACT law. The amendment introducing a regulation-making power into section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act is an important reform because it will ensure that the law remains contemporaneous and accurate. It will provide flexibility in the event of future changes to the ACT Criminal Code. This is quite an omnibus bill, but when I look at it it strikes me that Australian criminal law really refers to criminal law of several jurisdictions. When I was a practising lawyer I did a lot of criminal law when I first started. Australian criminal law originated from English common law and continued to evolve over many years. Because of the oddities and eccentricities of Australian federalism, we have common-law jurisdictions and code jurisdictions. Effectively, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria are common-law jurisdictions. A litany of legislation and judicial decisions effectively make up the body of law in those states. I believe that I come from the best state in the country and I believe that I come from the best state when it comes to criminal law because we have a criminal code. That criminal code has been in operation for a long time—since 1899. That has been the primary instrument of criminal law in Queensland. That was largely based on the English draft bill of 1880 and the penal code of New York in 1881 and it borrowed from the Italian penal code as well. It is a great body of law. We have had a wonderful jurist in Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland and a former Premier. He was really the author and architect of that legislation. I am not saying that Queensland has been fossilised in the past. Queensland criminal law has moved over time and it has grown. It has been subject to further legislative revision, judicial interpretation and precedent, as anyone who practises criminal law in Queensland knows. It strikes me that we should offer our wonderful criminal code in Queensland to the other states. It is about time that the other states had the benefit of a wonderful criminal code like Queensland has. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has looked at the idea of a national model criminal code for a long time. It has been on the agenda for both sides of politics, but really it has not advanced very far. On 28 June 1990 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General placed the development of a national model criminal code for Australian jurisdictions on its agenda. It established a committee comprising an officer from every jurisdiction with expertise in criminal law and criminal justice matters to look into the issue. The committee was originally known as the Criminal Law Officers Committee but in November 1993, which seems such a long time ago, it was renamed the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee—I am not sure who comes up with these wonderful names; someone must sit around thinking up these names. The first formal meeting of that committee took place in May 1991. In July 1992 the committee released a draft discussion of the general principles of criminal responsibility. It delivered its final report in December 1992. With the exception of the general principles relating to intoxicated defendants, the recommendations in that final report formed the basis for the Commonwealth Criminal Code Bill 1994, which was passed by the Commonwealth parliament in 1995. It is about time we adopted a national approach so we do not have myriad omnibus bills coming through this legislature. I think it is time we really looked at this. In 1994 we had both the Commonwealth government and the state and territory premiers leaders forum endorse a model criminal code, but that was in 1994 and it is now 2008. I know there have been discussion papers and various reports released, but I urge the Minister for Home Affairs to really look at this and take this forward. I think we could enjoy the benefit of uniformity. We have achieved uniformity in a number of areas—defamation law, Corporations Law and family law. The dingo fence does not exist between New South Wales and Queensland anymore. We really need to look at a more national approach when it comes to criminal law. I have taken this opportunity to speak to this aspect and I encourage the minister to have a look at this, look at the Model Criminal Code, take the best of the Queensland system—because we believe we have the best—and really advance this area. In conclusion, these three amendments are quite minor but necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth criminal law legislation is contemporaneous. Prima facie, the provisions are quite practical in nature but I think they are critical to ensure that our criminal law system can be administered properly. We can always undertake reform—and this is a reformist government—and I urge further reform on the minister. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—The member for Blair should not tempt the chair to make pro-Queensland comments, especially at State of Origin time. 5605 16:59:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, I must say that I am not at all concerned over the fact that the honourable member for Blair is tempting you to make pro-Queensland comments, particularly at State of Origin time. I think it would be one of those rare occasions, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the member for Blair, you and I would agree absolutely on the desirable outcome of a certain coming event. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member for Paterson, I think, would really like to live in Queensland, because there are really only two types of people: those who live there and those who would like to live there. It is pleasing to be able to join the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. It is often considered in the Australian community that those who are in the government and in the opposition basically agree on nothing. But the reality is, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the overwhelming majority of bills that come into this place do in fact enjoy bipartisan support because, frankly, they are common sense. Often when we debate these bills we wonder why we did not make these decisions earlier. This bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008, seeks to make a number of relatively minor adjustments and inclusions in some of the legislation that assists and supports our crime-fighting agencies to be better able to do their jobs. It is a matter of general concern in the community that the level of lawlessness seems to be much higher than it may have been in the past. Previously people had often been able to go about their daily lives unconcerned at the level of crime, but everyone in our society is worried over the level of crime that we have, and the legislation we have that enables our law enforcement agencies to do what they need to do should enjoy everyone’s support. Our crime-fighting agencies have highly professional officers. They make the decision to serve their communities through the police service and I think all of us would commend those officers for their decision to follow a vocational path that has at its heart that dedication to the community. Often their families suffer as a result of the service of these officers in the interests of the community. They carry out an incredibly challenging role and one that is often the target of public criticism. Sometimes people have individual complaints about law enforcement officers, whereas most law enforcement officers endeavour to carry out their duties to the best of their ability. That is not to say that we ought not to have mechanisms in place for when people do have genuine complaints about law enforcement agencies. That, I believe, is also a matter of bipartisan attitude. However, anyone who legitimately serves in a law enforcement agency from the Australian Federal Police through to the police services in our states and territories really should be praised for their hard work, their dedication and their commitment to their fellow Australians. So to our men and women in uniform and those who are not in uniform I say: well done and thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the changes set out in this bill will assist law enforcement officers and better ensure the safety of Australians. The bill will reinsert the maximum penalty of two years in prison for the secrecy offences as outlined in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. As a drafting error, this penalty was inadvertently removed from the act a couple of years ago through changes to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006. The reintroduction of the two-year penalty will be made retrospective to the date when it was removed to ensure any offenders who are or have been charged and convicted under the laws are not able to, shall we say, defeat the intention of the law. I am someone who has a major concern, generally speaking, in relation to retrospectivity. It is my personal belief that a citizen ought to be able to operate within the law as it currently exists without having the parliament come along at a later date, change the law and then apply that changed law to the earlier date when the action was carried out. I suppose a very bad example of that would be where someone was driving down Kingsford Smith Drive at Hamilton observing what was then the speed limit to find the parliament then retrospectively reduced the speed limit and imposed penalties on someone who, at the time he or she was driving down Kingsford Smith Drive, was observing the law. The situation of this bill, however, is not like that. What we are doing is simply fixing up an unintended consequence, I suppose, of bad drafting of the amending legislation in 2006. Secondly, the bill changes the review date for sections of the Crimes Act 1914 that deal with the collection and use of DNA evidence. The Crimes Act 1914 as amended had included a date for a second review of the provisions of the act that established the national criminal investigation DNA database. That date was to have been March 2005, which I suppose with hindsight was an inappropriate date. It was too early a date by which to have a thorough review. It is preferable, as has become obvious, that any newly established body be given an adequate and reasonable time frame to execute all of its tasks so that, for example, the national DNA database has at least been tried and tested on more than one occasion so that the reviewers actually have something to review. To ensure that the planned review will be meaningful, the bill sets a new date of 1 November next year. This new date will allow for the compilation of a body of cases which will include initial matching of DNA samples using the NCIDNAD through to investigation of cases and finally trial. Undoubtedly, every reasonable person would say that this is a very sensible amendment to the act. Thirdly, the bill ensures that crimes committed on an aircraft during a flight will be dealt with under appropriate laws and through relevant channels and that offenders will face the appropriate deterrents and penalties. This change to the law impacts on any aircraft involved in a flight within Australia or to or from another country. The offences outlined in the Australian Capital Territory Crimes Act 1900 and Prostitution Act 1992 that are referred to are under section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. However, some of the crimes previously in the Crimes Act are now contained in the relatively new Criminal Code 2002. This bill ensures that the new Criminal Code now also applies on flights and provides legislative integrity in the event of further changes to the ACT Criminal Code in future years. These major changes will enhance the fighting of crime in Australia. These are changes which should enjoy the support of everyone. Before I resume my place, I want to comment briefly on a point made by the honourable member for Blair. In his contribution he referred to how, with respect to family law, we had been able to harmonise the law in Australia. I think all of us would like to see the laws in our states as close as possible to the laws in other parts of the country so that we have a system of harmonised law. There are of course some matters where the Australian government is able to engineer that uniformity but, given the federal nature of our Constitution, there are other matters where this desirable outcome is more difficult. I am happy to commend the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008 to the House. 5607 17:08:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —By and large the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008 could probably be classified as one of those bills which are reasonably technical in nature. It really makes three essential changes. It varies the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to reinstate a penalty provision for breach of secrecy. It amends the Crimes Act 1914 to alter the timing for a second independent review of part ID of that act, which deals with the application of review of the national DNA database. Thirdly, it amends the Crimes Aviation Act 1991 to install the terms of the common Criminal Code as it applies in the ACT and in the Jervis Bay territory for all purposes of transportation in and out of the country, including on airlines. I will go to each of these in turn. Firstly, I will deal with the AFP Act and the provisions of secrecy. Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, I know you had a very clear interest in this matter when the former government decided to establish the Australian Commission of Law Enforcement Integrity. As you would recall, this commission was established to look at integrity regimes as they applied through the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. I understand that the minister may be considering extending that to other areas of federal law enforcement, but that was the way the act was originally initiated. It was to carry out the same sort of activity as one would find, for instance, in the Police Integrity Commission in my home state of New South Wales and ensure that the integrity of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission did allow for the conducting of operations by the law enforcement integrity commission. It has coercive jurisdiction. It can compel people to answer its questions. It is a body to ensure that appropriate standards are being met by our senior law enforcement agencies. I know some would say that that was all just a matter of fact, but these were very significant changes at the time because since 9-11 we have given significant powers to our federal law enforcement agencies and what goes with those powers is responsibility. As we have seen in a recent exercise, unfortunately in New South Wales, involving their crime commission shows how important it is that we do everything that we physically can as legislators to ensure the integrity of those officers working within those bodies. In establishing the Australian Commission of Law Enforcement Integrity, variations were made to the act and principally variations were made also to the Australian Federal Police Act, in particular provision 60A of that act. Section 60A made it an offence for officers engaged under that act to divulge certain information, to make a record or to distribute information. Those provisions were quite significant. The secrecy provisions had a provision of up to a two-year period of imprisonment for breaching that legislation. With the advent of ACLEI and its own act, for some reason—inadvertently, as I understand it—the AFP Act was varied to remove that part of 60A(2) which dealt with the secrecy provisions and in particular the terms of breach of the secrecy provisions. This bill before us purports to reinstate the provisions of retrospectivity without impacting on the general scheme of arrangement in terms of the law enforcement integrity commission and its act but to ensure that officers and personnel employed under the AFP Act are still bound by the secrecy provisions of the AFP itself. So that is what that provision attempts to do through this relatively minor amendment which in terms of law enforcement integrity, certainly the integrity and discipline of the Australian Federal Police, would be regarded as a significant rectification of a deficiency in the legislation. The second aspect deals with the Crimes Act and seeks to amend section 23YV(5)(a). This deals with the second scheduled review of the national DNA database. I recall only too well the time I spent before coming to this place in lobbying federal members of parliament and the government of the day for the establishment of the national DNA database. More particularly, I recall lobbying many state and territory jurisdictions to ensure that we had mirror legislation established. It was a matter not just of agreeing to have a national DNA database but also of agreeing to standards and procedures under which, by law of the various jurisdictions, samples could be taken and held for the purpose of further comparison. The national DNA database is one of the most significant tools of contemporary policing. Most state and territory governments certainly agreed with the establishment of the database and, although it may have gone beyond most aspects of the Constitution in terms of law enforcement, the federal government at that time committed something like $50 million for its establishment. To put it in colloquial terms, it might have been the Commonwealth’s buy-in to that arrangement, but it has certainly had a significant impact on policing across the board. Whilst all of the state and territory ministers seemed to be able to come together and agree that this was a good piece of kit for modern-day policing, by the time they all returned to the various parliaments from whence they came the odd variation got into this common piece of model legislation that was to be developed. It came to a head with the Peter Falconio case in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Police were very keen to ascertain a possible match from DNA taken from a suspect. The suspect was in South Australia. They had the sample taken, only to find that the manner in which the sample was taken was not admissible in a court in the Northern Territory because, whilst government was going to enact mirror legislation, as it transpired there were significant differences between the enabling legislations, such that the sample was not admissible in that court. I have represented police officers for many years, and one of the things that has constantly been put to me is that crime and criminals do not exactly observe geographic boundaries. That being the case, it would seem a little erroneous on our part to have legislation that was not compatible in each of our respective criminal jurisdictions. That is how the DNA data profiling and the establishment of the DNA database came about. In its time it was a laudable event. It certainly was one of the biggest impacts on modern-day policing, but there are still things that need to be examined. One of those things is to protect the liberties of men and women who have, for some reason, had their DNA collected. It is important to ensure that their rights are not being abused and that the procedures established in this legislation are followed. This aspect of the bill defers that second investigation, the second review period. Having been engaged in the past to represent police from just about every state and territory jurisdiction, I am aware that the establishment of the national DNA database not only has increased the number of arrests but also has had the effect of eliminating a number of people as suspects in various crimes. That in itself is also a significant development. This database has been operational for some time and we are doing much to ensure that each of our forensic laboratories in every state and territory jurisdiction fully complies. We are also improving the degree of matching investigation and the way the information is discarded. That will all be addressed in this second review. The national criminal investigation database was the result of genuine collaboration and cooperation of state, territory and Commonwealth police services and their forensic units. It provides police access to a national DNA database and the capability to conduct rapid automated interjurisdictional and ultrajurisdictional DNA profile matching. This is provided under very strict guidelines laid down by this legislation. There are also disclosure safeguards in accordance with the privacy legislation and other relevant legislation. Procedural compliance will also be examined in this second review. The database itself is operated by CrimTrac. One of the things about CrimTrac is that they do not source their own information; information is only actually put on the database by state and territory police jurisdictions and is then capable of being accessed. To that extent, CrimTrac do operate as a major search engine—or at least a sort of matching engine, if you like—when it comes to DNA profiling. At the moment all states and territories, with the exception of New South Wales and Victoria, have signed on to having a common application. In terms of New South Wales and Victoria, whilst they are still waiting for some legislative aspects to come into play before they can legally commit, nevertheless they are following the identical pattern now of how they go about collecting information and what information is to be stored on the national database. So a common standard is actually being applied. I did indicate that I know, having worked for the police in the past, that the national DNA database is considered to be probably the most significant advance in contemporary policing. Having said that, I would like to talk about a person whom I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis, know well—Peter Alexander, who was the president of the Police Federation of Australia for the last 10 years. Quite frankly, he spearheaded the approach of the development of what could be seen as the police profession itself. He is one of those individuals who was absolutely convinced of the merit of establishing a national DNA database as a tool for contemporary policing. I should advise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, after serving as head of the PFA for 10 years and as head of his own association in South Australia for 17 years, Peter has only just retired. I had the opportunity to spend some time with him last weekend. As a person who has spent so much time on criminal investigations as a senior sergeant of a major crime squad in South Australia, it was very interesting to hear his thoughts on what has changed in policing—apart from the criminals—in terms of the ability of the police to do their work efficiently and effectively and to serve the community. Without putting too fine a point on it, one of the biggest things that he suggested has changed is technology, and the DNA database itself is what has established a significant amount of that change—a change not just because of what it did in relation to being able to data-match DNA samples across the nation but also because this, together with the national fingerprint register, actually brought criminal investigation intelligence into some form of central repository. It gets back to what I said a little earlier—that is, criminals do not necessarily respect geographic boundaries; therefore, it stands to reason that we should not simply have states and territories with stand-alone technology which works against the ability for crimes to be detected. People say that that should have been dealt with years ago. It probably should have. There was something that came up only recently in an inquiry held by the committee oversighting the Australian Crime Commission. In that inquiry Mark Burgess, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Police Federation of Australia, referred to the shooting of a police officer which took place in Karratha. The shooting was actually committed by a person who was suspected of murdering two people only a couple of days earlier in Victoria. Talking about offender William Watkins, Mr Burgess said: Watkins had three days earlier murdered sisters Colleen and Laura Irwin in Melbourne. He had then driven 5½ thousand kilometres in those three days to Western Australia, where he came under the notice of Senior Constable Shane Gray at Karratha for failing to pay for petrol. So he did a runner from a petrol station. Mr Burgess continued: When Gray did a check on Watkins via the Western Australian police computer system he was not shown as wanted or a suspect on the system. Unfortunately for the constable involved, when he went to actually stop this bloke for what he thought was just not paying his petrol bill, the constable was shot. What Mike Burgess draws from that is that one of the things we could do more effectively is to take a leaf out of what we did in establishing the national fingerprint registry and also the national database and look at having a single national case management system where all intelligence could be captured and whereby police from each state would be able to know what they were likely to be confronting on a case-by-case basis. (Time expired) 5611 17:28:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. Being a former member of the Australian Federal Police, I very much take an interest in any legislation that affects the organisation that I was part of. I joined the AFP in 1986. That was not very long after the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 came into effect. With regard to this bill—I will get straight into it—when you read section 60A(2), unfortunately a recent amendment inadvertently removed the penalty. In other words, members of the AFP could have divulged prescribed information and then not attracted any penalty. That has been rectified in this bill and now a two-year penalty of imprisonment will be available once again. I recall the time that I was in the AFP as a sworn constable. I knew the security arrangements at Perth and Sydney airports very well from serving there, and that is pretty useful information. In theory, if I divulged anything that I knew then—and it would be true still if I were to divulge anything now that I can recall from those days—I could spend two years in jail, so I am very keen not to go down that track. But as a constable in the Australian Federal Police, I served, following training in Canberra, in Sydney and in Perth. Although I particularly enjoyed my time in plain clothes at Sydney airport, I also had a very good period with the fraud squad in Sydney. It was at that time, early in 1987, that I recall undertaking surveillance around Sydney as part of the fraud squad. I can say that it was the only period in my life where I have actually gone though garbage bins on a professional basis—or, in fact, on any basis whatsoever! It was not for sustenance but, obviously, for documents. We conducted surveillance across the city in that squad and at one point I recall we were following a suspect. I emphasise that we were a fraud squad; we were not a professional surveillance squad. But we needed to conduct that surveillance on a person suspected of defrauding the Commonwealth. The squad had a choice of five vehicles to use in those days. They were all Ford Falcons and all had a metal sun visor over the windscreen. On that day, three of the cars were of a bone colour. So we had a greatly limited capacity in those days. Everyone had a Ford Falcon, three of them were the same colour and there were only five cars. So it was not a great job, but that is what it was like in those days. It was pretty similar with the rest of the equipment that we had. Radios, computers, computer programs and other equipment were very far behind the high standard of kit that the AFP has these days. A similar situation existed in regard to accommodation. When I was in the Federal Police, we were in one of the TNT towers in Redfern, covering just a few floors of that building. In fact, one night one of our Federal Police sworn officers actually got beaten up after parking a car just down the street in the official car park. I understand now that the AFP has a building in the CBD itself. Over in Perth there was a similar situation. The AFP was on Adelaide Terrace, on two floors. Now there is a building on Murray Street in West Perth, housing the AFP, Protective Services and other organisations of the Commonwealth. My point is that in 1987 the AFP was a poorly resourced and badly equipped organisation. It had fewer people, it had technology problems and it had far less support than it has had in recent years under the previous government. So I refer to the late 1980s as the ‘dark ages’ of the AFP. The evidence is all around us. The AFP is seen as a world-class organisation in law enforcement these days. They were there in East Timor for victim identification. They have been there to implement the Howard government initiatives in preventing, countering and investigating terrorism; to oppose illicit drug trafficking, transnational and multi-jurisdictional crime; to oppose organised people-smuggling; to oppose serious fraud against the Commonwealth; to combat high-tech crime involving information technology and communications; for regional peacekeeping and capacity building; and also to work against money laundering. These are the modern battlefields for law enforcement in Australia and they affect Australia in the global environment. The AFP is well armed now with the capacity to fight these battles, and there is a stark difference between what the AFP can achieve now and what it was like back in the 1980s. The second part of this bill seeks to alter the timing of the second review of the collection and use of DNA material by the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. An initial review took place in March 2003, with a second review to occur two years later but, because interjurisdictional matching between most states and territories has only been in place since mid 2007, I understand that the 2005 review was not undertaken—for obvious reasons. As with all such reviews, case law is derived from a body of cases that have progressed to trial. Without such a body of cases there will not be a meaningful test of the powers and safeguards. The bill thus requires the second review to commence no later than 1 November 2009, and that should be good timing to properly assess the progress of DNA in this country. There is little doubt that DNA represents one of the most important breakthroughs in modern law enforcement practice, and for many years now the police in Australia have been applying DNA technology with great effect. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work the WA Police do to protect the people of my electorate in Western Australia—in particular Superintendent Andy Garkaklis and Inspector Gary Lewis of the north-west metropolitan district, and station OICs Craig Wanstall of Warwick, Ian North of Ballajura and Matt Ray of Wanneroo. Together with their teams over in Perth, they do a great job in clearing up a lot of the burglaries that take place and the other crimes that unfortunately afflict the suburbs of Cowan and elsewhere around the country. The third part of the bill serves to ensure that the ACT Criminal Code can be applied to Australian aircraft as well as to flights originating or finishing in Australia. The code came into effect in 2007, which as I understand it resulted in some new offences that had not been in the ACT Crimes Act. The bill will enable all the offences in the code to be able to be applied on those aircraft, and this will allow flexibility in the event of future changes to ACT criminal law. This is a non-controversial bill and we support the changes that this bill provides. 5612 17:36:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —I am pleased to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. As the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Bob Debus, said in his second reading speech, this is the first criminal law bill that he has brought before the federal parliament. I could not let it go through, therefore, without speaking on it and saying something about him as well. He said in his second reading speech that he looked forward to bringing many more bills forward, including a victims’ rights package and some federal sentencing reforms, and each of the large packages will be the subject of extensive public consultation. In relation to the minister, I would say that he did have a distinguished career in the New South Wales parliament. As Attorney General, his reputation was one of someone who did consult extensively with all sections of the community—with the bar, with the solicitors and with the general community—and that of someone who always considered the position before he brought forward legislation. My concern is that we are seeing less and less of the likes of the minister these days and that too often we are seeing politicians in senior and responsible positions reacting to the lynch mob in the community and reacting to the hounds in the press gallery. Basically what concerns me is that we are now having trial by media, and in effect we also have a situation where there is no longer a presumption of innocence; it is a presumption of guilt. This is not a recent phenomenon. I have made the point in other places that we had a High Court judge, Lionel Murphy, who could not even get a fair trial. At his first trial there were six points of law on which a properly constituted court of criminal appeal and a court of appeal unanimously agreed. They did not need to decide on another 18 points in granting him a second trial in which he was ultimately acquitted of what he was charged with. What that means is that we as legislators need to be very responsible and careful in how we frame laws. We must not throw out those principles of justice that have been with us for a very long time; we must learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. I am not saying there should not be new laws. What I am saying is that we as legislators need to be careful not to go to the lowest common denominator. The legislation before us does not do that. This is a situation where, frankly, there are some miscellaneous but important amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. The explanatory memorandum says that the first amendment retrospectively re-inserts the penalty for the secrecy offence in subsection 60A(2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. There is a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for the secrecy offence and this was inadvertently repealed by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006. So this amendment does not alter the elements of the offence but it does re-enact the penalty retrospectively to when the penalty was repealed. Retrospectivity is something that happens regularly in civil matters and it can happen in criminal matters. The High Court considered this in the case of Polyukhovich v The Queen. You are able to have retrospective legislation in relation to criminal sanctions that are framed in a general way but not in a particular way. For instance, if there were an attempt to retrospectively deal with criminal matters in relation to me in particular and capture conduct directed at me in particular, there is an argument under Polyukhovich that that might not survive legal challenge. So the retrospective nature, particularly of this piece of legislation, is something that no-one should be alarmed about; it is just that it was inadvertently left out in 2006. I think that is a proper clause for the parliament to support. The second matter deals with deferring the second review of part ID of the Crimes Act 1914 until November 2009. In relation to that, the explanatory memorandum says: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure NCIDD— that is, the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database— has been fully operational for some time when the review takes place. Interjurisdictional matching between most jurisdictions only commenced in mid-2007. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say: For a review to be fully effective, it is desirable that a body of cases to have progressed from matching, to investigation, to trial, so that there has been a real test of the powers and safeguards in the legislation. That is where the recommendation is that the second review will need to commence by 1 November 2009. Again, in my view that is a proper matter for us to legislate on. There is no point in having a review if it is not really going to achieve anything by commencing the review no later than 1 November 2009. I think we can have a substantial review that is meaningful. So, in relation to the second matter that this legislation is addressing, it is not controversial. The third matter relates to amending the Crimes Aviation Act 1991 to ensure standard criminal offences apply on relevant flights. The explanatory memorandum says: The Crimes (Aviation) Act governs crimes and other acts committed on aircrafts or in airports or related facilities. Section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act is intended to ensure that standard criminal offences (eg theft and assault) apply on flights commencing or finishing in Australia and to Australian aircrafts in flight outside Australia. These include: any aircraft engaged in a commercial flight with other countries or among the States and Territories any aircraft engaged in a flight that started in Australia an Australian aircraft engaged in a flight wholly outside Australia, and a Commonwealth aircraft or defence aircraft. It goes on to say: To ensure that relevant criminal laws apply on board these flights, section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act applies the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (ACT Crimes Act) and the Prostitution Act 1992 (ACT) to relevant flights. However, many offences which were formerly in the ACT Crimes Act now appear in the ACT Criminal Code. The amendment will ensure that the ACT Criminal Code as well as the ACT Crimes Act applies to conduct on relevant flights. The amendment will also allow regulations to be made to specify particular ACT laws that apply on relevant flights. This will provide flexibility in the event of future changes to ACT criminal law. Again, I think those are provisions that a reasonable person could not object to. What we are doing is putting beyond doubt the fact that this sort of conduct is criminal in relation to relevant flights—and we have the jurisdiction to do that; there is no doubt. There has been legislation in relation to Australian citizens and indeed others, and I do not want to go into the constitutional niceties of that. I do not have any problem with these sorts of tidying-up matters when they are not really expanding beyond the existing principles of the criminal law; I have a problem when there is an attempt to expand and go beyond existing principles. That is why, when we were in opposition, I had some problems with the first drafts of the antiterrorism laws and the ASIO Act. As it turned out, the then government and the then opposition sat down and talked it through and we agreed on a set of amendments that brought those pieces of legislation within the parameters of the criminal law as it was understood. We had the government and the alternative government agreeing on what I think were very serious offences but offences that filled in gaps that were in the existing criminal law. I think as legislators we cannot have a situation where we say ‘no more laws’; if there is a gap, and it can be demonstrated that there is a gap, we have a duty to protect our citizens. So I think it is appropriate to bring in those laws to clarify what happens in relation to this third matter of aircrafts. People should not be concerned that there is a big overreach here by the Commonwealth. To me it seems there has got to be some consistency; there have got to be some consistent principles. That is why I am very supportive of what the Minister for Home Affairs is doing in amending this act. Because of the amount of legislation that goes through this place, at times we are going to have the situation where something goes through and it subsequently needs to be remedied. That happens to both sides of politics; it is not unknown. We have had instances in the past, in the time that I have been here, where we have had to make slight amendments to legislation because it is not properly numbered or whatever. So there is no great conspiracy about it. As for the principles we are talking about this evening, particularly the retrospectivity in relation to criminal matters, they were matters at the time, in 2006, that were criminal and attracted a penalty, but they have fallen through the cracks as a result of omissions. It is not as if we are creating something new that people were not aware of. The truth is that it is important. Why I say I have no problems with its legality is that the High Court in Polyukhovich v the Commonwealth allowed such provisions. That is why we were able at one stage to pass laws in relation to war criminals and acts committed 30 and 40 years before the legislation went through the parliament—because it was directed not at particular individuals but in a generic sense at conduct that was deemed to be heinous and worthy of legislating so it could be put on the criminal statute books. I want to finish this contribution in a similar way to how I commenced it. I am very happy that the Minister for Home Affairs came to this parliament from the state parliament, because he brings with him a wealth of knowledge that will enrich the ministry of the present government and a steadiness that we can all be comfortable with because he has got a track record. I think too often we do not acknowledge that, and I wanted to do that on the occasion of the first piece of legislation he has introduced. He is very affectionately regarded in New South Wales. His electoral record speaks for itself: having lost his seat, he subsequently regained it and, in effect, assisted the re-election of a Labor government in a seat and in an area that is not an easy one for the Labor Party. Although I do not want to bring you into the political process, Deputy Speaker Schultz, you yourself are one of the few members that previously—I do not necessarily know about now—when you were a bit younger and fitter and more active, could have got themselves elected to this place as an Independent, without the badge of a political party, and that is on the basis of the affection in which your community held you and the work that you did for your community. In relation to the Minister for Home Affairs, I do look forward to his considered views on a whole range of legislation that will come before this House in this term of parliament and in the life of this parliament, and I am very ‘relaxed and comfortable’, to use someone else’s phrase, that he is here and that he has carriage of what are sensitive matters, because I know he will bring a balanced view. He is not a hanger and flogger; he does not take an extreme position on one side or the other. He brings in thoughtful legislation that is needed within our community. So I do commend the bill before us to the House. 5615 17:51:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr DEBUS —in reply—Mr Deputy Speaker, I can do no less than begin by thanking the member for Banks for his kind remarks—and perhaps I should thank him for his kind remarks about you as well. To be fair, there have been several occasions during this debate when it seemed as if we were taking a position more akin to State of Origin than the normal division between the several sides of this House! I thank the member for Banks also for his thoughtful contribution, which demonstrated his own experience and deep understanding of the criminal law. I mention other matters that were raised during the debate. I do not think it is necessary for me to again rehearse the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008—they have been sufficiently described—but during the debate the member for Werriwa mentioned the proposal for a single national case management system for police in which each jurisdiction could share. This is certainly an important idea. More effective information sharing between policing agencies is inherently desirable, and the government will indeed be looking at this issue of case management at the national level, taking into account the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission in its 2007 report Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society. A matter which was raised during the debate by the member for Blair concerned the Model Criminal Code and his support for the further development of that code through all jurisdictions. There has actually been some not insignificant implementation of many chapters of the Model Criminal Code by a number of states and territories, including in New South Wales during my time as Attorney General there. We have passed model laws concerning antislavery measures, computer offences and bushfire offences. My recollection is that New South Wales actually implemented the model law for forensic procedures. However, there are some significant gaps in implementation. I should mention, reverting to ‘State of Origin’ mode, that although Queensland has a criminal code it does not in fact take part in the project for a model code. That would be necessary if we were indeed to introduce the model code across the nation. In that context, I mention also that at the meeting of the state and Commonwealth attorneys-general in March, which I attended with our Attorney-General, we secured agreement to review the implementation of the model code and to develop proposals to progress its further implementation. We will be talking about that again at our next meeting, which I think takes place next month. I think I have been able to respond to some important ideas put up by members during the debate on what everyone has conceded is a technical, if necessary, bill. Before I conclude, I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum for this bill to correct a minor error. The correction clarifies that item 2 of schedule 1 of the bill, dealing with the deferral of the DNA review, commences on the day of royal assent rather than the day after royal assent. That is a technical correction to a technical bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5616 Mr DEBUS (Macquarie —Minister for Home Affairs) 17:56:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5616 Business 5616 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) 17:57:00 —I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 5617 Bills R3037 5617 Debate resumed from 18 June, on motion by Mr Byrne: That this bill be now read a second time. 5617 17:57:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I rise to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. In doing so, I start by congratulating the Governor-General designate, Ms Quentin Bryce, on her appointment. I certainly wish her all the best in a challenging but incredibly important role. I note that this bill is non-controversial and that it has the support of this side of the House. The bill follows the conventions of previous governments to set the salary of the Governor-General just above that of the Chief Justice of the High Court and raises the salary of the next Governor-General from $365,000 to $394,000. The current salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court is $415,690, and the Governor-General’s salary has been reduced to take account of Ms Bryce’s entitlement to a Commonwealth funded pension from prior employment, as the act requires. Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during their continuance in office. As such, increases are usually made before their appointment. The bill also removes references in the Governor-General Act 1974 to the superannuation surcharge, which was discontinued in 2005. Debates of this kind are always difficult when families who are struggling to pay bills and senior Australians who are struggling to make ends meet are hearing about salaries of the order I have just spoken of. But the reality is that this is an office of the highest standing in our nation and one which deliberately attracts people of high quality who have the capacity to guide the nation in an appropriate direction. Ms Bryce certainly is one of those people who, were she in the private sector—at the bar, for argument’s sake, or in some other profession—would in all likelihood be demanding a salary much in excess of $394,000. It is a significant sum of money and it goes, as I say, with the weight of the office. This also raises the issue of the pay for the Prime Minister of this country. I hope at some stage in the future we are able to have a mature debate in this country about the level of pay for the Prime Minister. At the moment I think it is at an inappropriately low level for a person who is charged with the direction of this nation of 20 million people and a $1.1 trillion economy. The fact that we are not able to have a mature debate about what level of pay the Prime Minister should receive is something that I hope we are able soon to put in the past. As I said, many people are struggling to get by on just a fraction of that pay, but we need to recognise the reality, whether people like it or not, that people in the private sector would be earning many times that amount. Although the Prime Minister is obviously a man of significant wealth, as others before him have been while others have not, I think this is an office that deserves a higher level of pay. That may not be a populist line to run in the general community but I think it is an honest one and I hope that as a mature nation we are able to facilitate a debate about it in the time ahead. The bill now before the House, in relation to the Governor-General’s salary and superannuation, is supported by us on this side of the House and I commend it to the House. 5617 18:02:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I congratulate the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, for his contribution to this debate. Since my arrival in this House I have watched the member for Dickson and he is indeed an eloquent speaker. I rise to support the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. The background to the bill is that section 3 of the Constitution precludes any change to the salary of a Governor-General during the term of office. Whenever a Governor-General is to be appointed, changes to the salary of the office must be made by way of amendment to the Governor-General Act 1974 prior to the appointment. The bill in question amends section 3 of that act to set a salary of $394,000 per annum. The bill also amends sections 2A and 4 of the act to remove references to the superannuation surcharge, which was discontinued in 2005. While the bill amends the act to remove the superannuation surcharge for future governors-general it does not affect the continued application of the surcharge to those former governors-general to whom the surcharge applies. According to the Queensland Government House website, the soon to be appointed Governor-General, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce—a Queenslander like me—has enjoyed a rich and dynamic career as a talented lawyer, academic and senior public officer and is a prolific and dedicated contributor to a range of community organisations. She has made choices throughout her professional and community life that reflect her strong sense of responsibility to the community, a commitment to advancing human rights and equality, the rights of women and children and the welfare of the family, and her willingness to share her skills and experiences to improve the lives of many. As a mother and grandmother, these things rest close and dear to her heart. Her Excellency’s achievements and participation in professional and community service are immense and outstanding and have been recognised in her appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia. Her former roles are many and include: inaugural director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service and the Office of the Status of Women; Queensland director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner; founding chair and chief executive of the National Childcare Accreditation Council; principal and chief executive officer of the Women’s College, University of Sydney; member of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and lecturer in law, University of Queensland. In her role as Governor of Queensland, Her Excellency takes great pleasure in the honour of passing on to Queenslanders the benefits of her many years of wisdom and passion. There are many, many reasons to celebrate the appointment of Her Excellency Quentin Bryce as the next Governor-General. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was reported as saying on the ABC that his fellow Queenslander will be a Governor-General for all Australians. He was also reported as saying: It’s obvious that we needed to have a governor-general for Australia who captures the spirit of modern Australia. He went on to say: And the spirit of modern Australia is many things: giving proper voice to people from the bush and the regions; giving proper voice to the rights of women; giving proper voice to the proper place of women in modern Australia; and proper place to someone committed to improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. These are all considerations in shaping my recommendation to her majesty the Queen. As the member for Flynn, I was thrilled at Her Excellency’s appointment. But the appointment also thrilled some of the country’s most influential women. Apparently, Liberal Senator Helen Coonan was a member of the Women’s Electoral Lobby with Her Excellency back when they were among the nation’s few women lawyers. She is reported as saying to the ABC: The country is ready for women to step up to the plate in these positions. And perhaps it’s the people doing the appointing that have not kept up with public sentiment. I think people would be very well pleased with the fact that there is such an accomplished woman who is available to take on the job of governor-general. The Chairman of the Women’s Electoral Lobby, Eva Cox, agreed and is reported as saying that there is no question the appointment is based on merit, not gender. She is reported as saying: The fact that she is actually comes from Queensland, she comes obviously from a rural background, she’s had parcel of kids, she’s been a lawyer, she’s been an academic, she’s worked in so many different situations that this one should be a bit of a doddle for her, but I think she might be one of the best governor-generals we’ve had. Of course, the historic appointment left the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, herself a woman and a great Premier, with the task of finding a successor to the popular Ms Bryce. Premier Anna Bligh, according to all reports, is still celebrating. She is reported as saying: It really does say ... something important about how far this country has come. For Queensland to deliver Australia’s first woman governor-general is a great moment for us but I think it’s important for the whole country. I said before that as the member for the new seat of Flynn I was thrilled and overjoyed at Her Excellency’s appointment. There is another great reason why I was thrilled. The new electorate of Flynn covers some 314,000 square kilometres and within its boundaries is a little town called Ilfracombe, full of great country people. This town lies between Longreach to the west and Barcaldine to the east. Longreach is full of wonderful people too, as is Barcaldine, birthplace of that great Australian political party the Australian Labor Party, which governs for all Australians. Ilfracombe once boasted that it was part of the largest sheep station in the world. Now it has another claim to fame: Her Excellency lived and grew up in this tiny little bush town of Ilfracombe, in the electorate of Flynn, and she is reported as saying: I grew up in little bush town in Queensland of 200 people and what this day says to Australian women and to Australian girls is that you can do anything, you can be anything, and it makes my heart sing to see women in so many diverse roles across ... Australia. What a great ambassador for Australia and for Australian women. And the people of Flynn are proud to call her one of their own. Her Excellency, Ms Bryce, will be sworn in on 5 September 2008. As I said before, section 3 of the Constitution precludes any change to the salary of a Governor-General during the term of office. Whenever a Governor-General is to be appointed, changes to the salary of the office must be made by way of an amendment to section three of the Governor-General Act 1974. It is important to bear in mind that the salary proposed in the bill is very much consistent with the convention applying since as early as 1974 under which the salary of the Governor-General has been set with regard to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. In setting an appropriate salary, regard was also given to the pension received. This is in line with the precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995, who asked that his salary as Governor-General be set to take into account the non-contributory pension he received under the Judges Pension Act 1968 after retiring from the High Court of Australia. Major General Jeffery, the current Governor-General of Australia, in 2003 took the gracious decision to donate his military pension to charity during his term of office as Governor-General. I congratulate His Excellency for a job well done as a magnificent ambassador for Australia. As a person who is a substantial contributor to charity, I thank him for taking the decision to donate his military pension to charity during his term of office as Governor-General. I also thank him for the compassion and understanding he showed to flood affected victims in the seat of Flynn, namely in Emerald, earlier this year. Emerald is a town of great people and I am proud that my government announced millions of dollars in the budget for flood relief for flood affected victims in Emerald. I had the opportunity to accompany the Governor-General during his duties and tour of Emerald, and I was very proud to be associated with a man of much compassion and understanding of the people who were so badly affected by that flood. As I have said before, he has been a great ambassador for Australia, and I wish him well in his retirement and in his future endeavours. In relation to the future Governor-General of Australia, may I say by way of commentary that I have been able to download her biography from the Queensland parliament and report to this parliament that the next Governor-General of Australia, Quentin Bryce, was educated at Moreton Bay College, Brisbane, and later at the University of Queensland, where she graduated with the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws. In 1965 she was one of the first Queensland women to be admitted to the Queensland Bar. From 1968 to 1983 Ms Bryce taught in the Faculty of Law at the University of Queensland. In 1984 Quentin Bryce was appointed inaugural Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service, Office of the Status of Women, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. In 1987 she became Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. From 1988 to 1993 Ms Bryce served as federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner and in the period 1993 to 1996 she was founding chair and chief executive officer of the National Childcare Accreditation Council. From 1997 to her appointment as Governor of Queensland in 2003, Quentin Bryce was principal and chief executive officer of the Women’s College within the University of Sydney, New South Wales. In recognition of her service to the community, particularly women and children, Ms Bryce was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988 and elevated to the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2003. She was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Laws by Macquarie University, New South Wales, in 1998 and an honorary Doctorate of Letters by Charles Sturt University, New South Wales, in 2002. Quentin Bryce and her husband, Michael, were married in 1964. Ms Bryce’s interests include the visual arts, literature, opera, and women’s history. I wholeheartedly and unequivocally commend this bill to the House and I congratulate Her Excellency on her impending appointment. 5620 18:17:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to support the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. I am cognisant of section 3 of the Constitution which specifies a salary of ₤10,000 pounds payable to the Governor-General until ‘Parliament otherwise provides’. Clearly, ₤10,000 would not be appropriate today, nor the currency easy to come by, so it is appropriate that parliament otherwise does provide. Parliament did not legislate on the salary of governors-general until the Governor-General Act 1974. Salaries are now set for each incoming Governor-General by an amendment to the act. By way of history, the sum ₤10,000 first appeared in financial estimates produced at the 1897 Constitutional Convention. These estimates were circulated during consideration of the draft Constitution and a salary of ₤10,000 was ultimately included in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. This amount was paid as salary to Australia’s first Governor-General, Lord Hopetoun. In Sir Edmund Barton’s view, both the 1897 Convention and the framers of the Constitution always intended to provide allowances additional to salary. In May 1902, Sir Edmund Barton introduced a bill providing ₤8,000 per annum ‘to assist in defraying the Governor-General’s establishment’. Lack of support, unfortunately, ensured the bill was never brought to the vote in its original form. Instead, parliament enacted an amendment that provided Lord Hopetoun with a one-off payment of ₤10,000 to defray personal expenses incurred during the 1901 royal visit. At parliament’s apparent refusal to grant an ongoing increase in allowances, Lord Hopetoun resigned his commission, writing, ‘I have already strained my private resources beyond all justification.’ This was communicated via telegraph from Lord Hopetoun to Chamberlain, Secretary of State for Colonies, on 5 May 1902. The salary of governors-general and allowances, therefore, is quite topical in the history of our governors-general, as the first Governor-General, Lord Hopetoun, was to ensure. There were two consequences of the furore, it would seem: firstly, that estimates of establishment expenditure were consolidated so that parliamentarians could more easily grasp proposed expenditure and, secondly, successive governments seemed reluctant to approach the issue of vice-regal salary. Despite adjustments to establishment costs after 1902, many early governors-general still found it necessary to meet certain requirements of the office from their own personal wealth and purse. With the introduction of the Governor-General Bill 1974 the government acknowledged that appointment to the office of Governor-General should not depend on a candidate’s ‘personal wealth or the availability of other income’. The government also put forward two principles that are still applied when governments consider salaries: firstly, salary should be dealt with in a non-partisan fashion; secondly, salaries should recognise the importance and place of this high office. The 1974 bill proposed an increase to $30,000 for the incoming Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. By this time, while the salary had not increased, expenditure on the Governor-General’s office and establishment had increased markedly since the mid-1950s, rising to over $708,000 in 1972-73. Successive governors-general have received increasing salary increases. The Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen received $37,000; the Rt Hon. Sir Ninian Stephen, $70,000; the Hon. William Hayden, $95,000; the Hon. Sir William Deane, $58,000, cognisant of his pension; the Hon. the Right Reverend Dr Peter Hollingworth, $310,000; and Major General Michael Jeffery, the current Governor-General, excluding post-nominals, $365,000. Parliament, therefore, has agreed to the salary arrangements for incoming governors-general since 1974. The Constitution also provides that this salary cannot be altered during a governor-general’s term of office, usually five years. It is also interesting to note that the Governor-General’s salary is conventionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Although the link was not mentioned in debate on the 1974 bill or 1977 amendments, this convention has been outlined in parliament by the responsible ministers since 1982. Prior to 2001, salary was set by calculating the after-tax equivalent of the Chief Justice’s salary at the time of appointment. The average after-tax salary of the Chief Justice over a notional five-year term was estimated, taking into account future possible increases. The vice-regal salary was then set to ‘moderately exceed’ this average. The salary is now set to moderately exceed the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice over a notional three-year term of office. Thus this bill increases the Governor-General’s salary to $394,000, effective 5 September 2008, for the new Governor-General, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, the current Governor of Queensland. Considering the history of governors-general in this nation, it is appropriate to acknowledge at this stage the extraordinary career of the current Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Jeffery, and his substantial contribution to this nation. I do so as both a parliamentarian and as a fellow Army officer, and one who was in the same RMC Duntroon class as His Excellency’s son David Jeffery and His Excellency’s son-in-law John Dutchy Van der Kluster. His Excellency also commenced his military career by attending the Royal Military College, Duntroon, graduating in 1958. His Excellency served in a number of junior regimental appointments with 17 National Service Training Company and the Special Air Service Regiment in Perth. He was posted to Malaya in 1962 for operational service with the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment. In 1965 he was seconded to the British Special Air Service Regiment for an operational tour of duty in Borneo. He returned to Australia as Adjutant of the Special Air Service Regiment. From 1966-69 he served in Papua New Guinea with the 1st Battalion, the Pacific Islands Regiment, and was married during this posting to his wife, Marlena. This was followed by a tour of Vietnam as an infantry company commander with the 8th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment. It was during this tour that His Excellency was awarded the Military Cross and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry for bravery in battle and under fire. In 1972 he was selected to attend the British Army Staff College at Camberley, and was then promoted to Lieutenant Colonel to command the 2nd Battalion, the Pacific Islands Regiment in Wewak, Papua New Guinea. His Excellency was the last Australian to command a Pacific Islands regiment. In 1976, he assumed command of the Special Air Service Regiment in Perth and was then promoted to Colonel as the first Director of the Army’s Special Action Forces, for services to which he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia. From 1981-83 His Excellency headed Australia’s national counter-terrorist coordination authority in the rank of Brigadier, after which he was posted as Commander of the 1st Mechanised and Airborne Brigade in Holsworthy, Sydney. He was selected to attend the Royal College of Defence Studies in London in 1985. He was then promoted to Major General, and from 1986 commanded the Army’s 15,000-person 1st Division. In June 1988, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for his services to the Army and in 1989 as the Assistant Chief of the General Staff, Logistics. In January 1990 he became Deputy Chief of the General Staff, responsible for the day-to-day running of a 65,000-person Army. In February 1991 he was appointed Assistant Chief of the General Staff for Materiel, which involved the development and management of all Army equipment procurement and building construction projects. On 1 November 1993, His Excellency was sworn in as the 27th Governor of Western Australia, and became a Companion of the Order of Australia, a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and a Citizen of Western Australia for his services to the state. He was Governor until 2000. Major General Jeffery was sworn in as Australia’s 24th Governor-General on 11 August 2003 at Parliament House. Upon being sworn in, he became the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia. The Queen, as Sovereign Head of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, also appointed Major General Jeffery Prior for the Priory in Australia and a Knight of Justice of the Order. Major General Jeffery and his wife, Marlena, have three sons, a daughter and seven grandchildren. They have both admirably served this nation, and it is interesting to reflect that together they take part in a breathtaking number of commitments. They are patrons to more than 180 organisations, each of which they try and either visit or receive at Government House at least once each year. They host visiting royalty and international heads of state and, where once these visits averaged two a year, previous years have seen the number rise to 14 a year. The Jefferys also attend hundreds of events and present literally hundreds of speeches each year. They open the grounds for charity days, and invite more than 90 schools and a range of other special interest groups to tour the house and its 53 hectares of manicured grounds each year. The 25th Governor-General, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce—a prominent lawyer, academic, women’s activist and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner—will commence on 5 September. She will be the first woman to hold the position in its 107-year history. Not only is she a great Queenslander of prominence; she is also a lady of great compassion. I know this first hand, as the first time my 2½-year-old son, Caleb, met Her Excellency was at the airport two weeks ago, when my son was trying desperately to get a muffin using a set of tongs. A set of tongs surely are a challenge for any poor little boy. Her Excellency quietly reached down and helped him out, explained quietly to him how to use the tongs and then assisted him to reach the muffin and put it on the plate. She was rewarded by a big grin and an equally cheery ‘Ta’. If this is the measure of the grace and humanity of our next Governor-General then this nation is truly well served. I support the bill. I wish the 24th Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Jeffery and his family all the best, and I welcome the appointment of the 25th Governor-General, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce. 5623 18:29:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a great pleasure for me to stand here tonight and speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. I want to start by thanking all the other speakers who have spoken before me and those who will speak later. I know everyone speaking on this bill tonight takes great pride in what this bill represents. It is a great honour to support this bill because in doing so I am also speaking in support of the incoming Governor-General from Queensland, Ms Quentin Bryce AC, who will be the 25th Governor-General of Australia. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, the great job, the dedication and the thoroughness of the job that was done by the current Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery. I pass on my most sincere thoughts and congratulations to both him and his wife for the work they have done for all of us collectively, for this parliament and for this great nation of ours. It may seem a little odd to people who know my background for me to be standing here supporting this bill. They would probably ask themselves the question: why is the member for Oxley speaking in support of a bill in reference to the Governor-General when he was such an advocate and campaigner for the republic back in 2000-01, and even prior to that? There is a good explanation for all of those things. My speaking on this bill tonight does not change in any particular way my support or belief that Australia will at some point in time have an Australian citizen as its head of state, but it no less diminishes the respect that I have for the current head of state, the Queen of England and of Australia, and the wonderful work she does, and nor does it diminish the respect that I have for the position of the Governor-General and all those who have served in that role. In some way I think that reflects—through me—my electorate and the great respect we have for that position and for the people who have filled that position, even if you are a republican and believe that at the end of the day our head of state should be an Australian, which I most firmly do believe. At some point in time, when the Republican movement itself finds a solution to its own division over the form that the head of state should take in Australia, I think we will then quickly move as a nation to be at the point where we can decide for ourselves who should be our representative. So I remain at heart, and in nature, a republican, but I state very clearly my respect for the position of Governor-General in this country. One of the distinguishing features that I want to put on the record tonight about that period in time and about where we are at tonight with this particular bill is the respect that we all have as Australians and as members of parliament for the rule of law and for the decisions and the will of the Australian people. Something I recall saying in all my speeches and campaigning during that time was that, regardless of the outcome of where we would be the day after the referendum, Australia would not be significantly changed. What I meant by that was that it would not change in any violent way and there would not be any uprising. People would accept the decision made by the majority and we would all respect the rule of law and respect the outcome. That certainly was the case, regardless of what that outcome was in the end. I think that the continuance through to today of the respect for the rule of law, for the will of the people and for that authority carries us all very well and proudly as Australians and it certainly makes me very proud. Hence I feel I can speak on such a bill tonight as passionately as any other person who may see themselves as a monarchist or otherwise. Today, with due respect to the position of Governor-General, is not really about my views on a republic, which of course I do believe in. It is more about what this bill will actually do. This bill, as has been noted, does a number of things, but before I get into the technical side of it I want to mention also that I believe that this bill attracts supporters on both sides of the House regardless of their politics or inclination. Perhaps the only voices of dissent may be those from the southern states who believe that there just may be a ‘pineapple revolution’, with the Prime Minster, the Treasurer and the soon to be Governor-General all hailing from the great state of Queensland. But they should not fear. They should remain comfortable and sleep well at night because there are many other high posts that are not filled by Queenslanders, just yet. There is time! This bill deals with a number of technical matters. In particular, because the position of Governor-General is held for a five-year term, the amount of the remuneration—the salary, the superannuation and a number of other entitlements that revolve around the position—can only be changed once every five years. It cannot be changed during the time that a person is in office. It is therefore essential that we today pass this bill so that we can act for the next five years so that the remuneration keeps pace with Australian expectations. Under the Constitution, the Governor-General’s salary cannot be altered during a term of office. There has been a linkage between the salaries of the Governor-General and the Chief Justice since the original 1901 salary figure of just £10,000, which was first updated in 1974. Many things have changed since then and, quite interestingly, while the salaries have changed and perhaps the emphasis on the role and the expectations of the person within that role and the things that they would do have grown substantially, the Constitution itself probably has not changed much at all in those 100 years. The linkage between the Governor-General and the Chief Justice is obviously a long-standing one. The salary of the Chief Justice, which is currently set at around $415,000, is reviewed each year—unlike the Governor-General’s salary—by the Remuneration Tribunal. In setting the appropriate remuneration for the Governor-General designate, regard was given to likely increases in the salary of the Chief Justice over the next five years, which explains the position we find ourselves in tonight. In terms of superannuation and the amendment of the act to increase the salary, the government is also seeking to amend the act to remove references to the superannuation surcharge, which was discontinued in 2005, so that it properly reflects the amendments needed to ensure that we have covered on the other acts. The surcharge has been applied to only two governors-general in the past: the Right Reverend Dr Peter Hollingworth AC, OBE and His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC, CVO, MC, Rtd. By passing this legislation we catch up with events that have overtaken us and with things that have changed. The superannuation surcharge had the effect of reducing the retirement allowance payable to the former Governor-General by the percentage rate of that particular surcharge. In speaking to this bill I want to note the great contribution that Ms Quentin Bryce, the Governor of Queensland, has made. People may be familiar with her CV. She is an absolutely rich and dynamic career person. She is a talented lawyer, academic and senior public officer who has been a prolific and dedicated contributor to a range of community organisations. She has an enormous sense of responsibility to the community. She is well known for her commitment throughout her career to advancing human rights and equality, the rights of women and children and the welfare of the family. She is well known for her willingness to share her skills and experiences to improve the lives of many throughout Queensland and throughout the country. She is a mother of five children and is now also a grandmother. I think these things give her a special quality and have set her apart from others. It is something you sense when you meet her. She also has a very warm personality. Ms Bryce has many achievements and has participated in many roles both professionally and in community service. Her achievements are outstanding and there are almost too many to list. She has rightly been recognised for those achievements throughout her life by being appointed as a Companion of the Order of Australia. It is an honour well deserved for her many contributions and efforts during her life, which include: inaugural Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service; head of the Office of the Status of Women; the Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner; the founding Chair and Chief Executive of the National Childcare Accreditation Council; the Principal and Chief Executive Officer of the Women’s College at the University of Sydney; a member of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and a lecturer in law at the University of Queensland. The list goes on and on. Ms Bryce has made many wonderful community and professional contributions not only to the great state of Queensland but to the country as a whole. As Governor of Queensland she was warmly regarded and affectionately received. She has passed on to Queenslanders many years of wisdom and passion about the things that she believes in. I wish Ms Bryce and her husband, Michael, all the best in their new roles here in Canberra, which I know they will do admirably. I know they will represent all Australians with great dignity and carry the high office of head of state with great honour. From the opportunities I have had to meet Ms Bryce at special events and other occasions, I know there is one thing that sets her apart from others, and that is the genuine warmth that she exudes. People feel very relaxed around her and feel that they belong there. She is a very inclusive person and really makes people feel very welcome. In all the dealings I have had with her, whether at formal events such as Anzac Day ceremonies or more relaxed occasions such as the opening of a community facility, she has always given everything she had, and I know she will carry that trait forward in her role as Governor-General. She also has a great deal of patience, a love of children, a sense of humour and a great personal way of making people feel relaxed. At very formal events which might seem a little stiff, she has a wonderful way of making everybody feel most welcome and a part of the ceremony that is taking place. Quentin Bryce is without doubt a wonderful choice as Governor-General. I can think of no better person to be our first female Governor-General. This is quite an achievement and it has perhaps been too long in coming, but it is here and it is a great choice. It sets a new tone for a new era in 21st century Australia to have a woman from Queensland as the representative of our head of state. Other speakers will mention this fact and also the area from which Ms Bryce hails—in particular, her schooling background—which she has proudly mentioned at functions. The member for Bonner will take great pleasure in mentioning a number of those things in her contribution. It is a really wonderful thing to have a Queensland woman as Australia’s first female Governor-General. While the position of Governor-General is often seen as being from another world or another era, I can assure people that Quentin Bryce is neither of those things. She will not be considered in that way by anybody. She will bring a no-nonsense approach to her role. She is a real woman of the people who is held in the highest regard nationwide. In wrapping up, it is a great privilege to speak on this bill. It is merely a technical bill in that it amends and adjusts salary and superannuation, but, more importantly, what this bill represents is the great office of the Governor-General in this country. So as not to create too much confusion for those republicans out there who support me—not many of whom reside in the electorate of Oxley, I can assure you—it would be very nice if at some point in time very soon we as a nation have the capacity to again go to the people and put a fair and reasonable question to them as to who should be our head of state. I remain firmly convinced of and committed to the ideal of an Australian as our head of state. I would certainly like to see that in my lifetime. There is plenty of time, but sooner rather than later would be a wonderful thing. I congratulate Major General Michael Jeffery on his contribution and I congratulate the Queensland Governor, Quentin Bryce, on her appointment. 5627 18:45:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I echo the sentiments of the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, my fellow member from the great state of Queensland—in fact, his electorate adjoins mine. I am pleased to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008 because I know that the people of Ryan would be very interested in my thoughts and also in a profile of our Governor-General designate. I think it is fair to say that Quentin Bryce is going to be an outstanding Governor-General when she takes up that office. I will elaborate on that in a few moments, but on this day, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, given that this bill has at its heart a lady, I would like to take the opportunity to very briefly put on the record in the parliament of Australia my deepest condolences to the McGrath family. Of course, we heard in the news today and last night that Jane McGrath passed away. She was a cancer campaigner and the wife of the great Australian cricketer Glenn McGrath. She was only 42. It has all been said in the media and in this place, but I would like to add my words on behalf of the people of Ryan, whom I represent here in the national parliament. She was clearly a lady of extraordinary courage, rare grace and, perhaps in particular, a selfless quality that few others could match. She was struck down by a terrible disease but decided that she would not let that disease overwhelm her life completely and that she would fight as much as she could to survive the cancer that eventually took her life at the age of 42. I extend my sympathies to her family and friends. In the scheme of things this bill is a technical bill. It amends the salary of our next Governor-General from $365,000 to $394,000. Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the salary of the Governor-General shall not be altered during their continuance in office. Therefore increases are usually accommodated before their appointment. At the outset, that certainly seems like a lot of money—indeed, it is a lot of money—but in the context of the high office that the Governor-General occupies, and the work and esteem of that office and of the individual who holds that office, I believe that it is entirely appropriate. I certainly support that significant amount of money as a salary of the Governor-General designate, Quentin Bryce. I have a particular interest in speaking on this bill because I want to talk about themes related to women. I know that all the women in my electorate would want me to talk about issues like domestic violence, crimes against women and their place in society. But, before I do that, I would like to mention that Quentin and Michael Bryce previously lived in the Ryan electorate, in St Lucia—in Hawken Drive, which is very much the heart and soul of that suburb. Quentin Bryce was born in Longreach, one of four daughters, and grew up in a town in south-western Queensland. She studied at Moreton Bay College, Wynnum, Brisbane and later at the great University of Queensland, where she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1962 and a Bachelor of Laws in 1965. The University of Queensland is also located in the Ryan electorate. As the representative of that electorate in the parliament and as someone who also did arts and law at the University of Queensland, I have great pride in representing that university here. I am sure that all those who know of Ms Bryce’s academic accomplishments would be pleased that she will now be appointed to the high office of Governor-General. I understand that in 1965 she was the first woman to be admitted to the Queensland bar. As someone who is also at the Queensland bar, I am particularly pleased to be able to put that on the record for the people of Ryan. I know there are many lawyers who live in the western suburbs of Brisbane, and they would be very well pleased that someone who was at the bar in Queensland will now hold this high office. From 1968 to 1983 she taught in the faculty of law at the University of Queensland, the first woman to do so. In 1984 she became the first director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service under the umbrella of the Office of the Status of Women. In 1987 she became Queensland director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Over a four-year period, 1989 to 1993, Quentin Bryce served as the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner and was later the founding chair and CEO of the National Childcare Accreditation Council. From 1997 to 2003, Bryce was Principal and Chief Executive Officer of Women’s College, University of Sydney, New South Wales. The college and university is where my sister studied and recently graduated with a degree in medicine. My sister Catherine Johnson has a small link to the Governor-General designate in the sense that she was a member of the same college where Quentin Bryce was CEO—Women’s College at the University of Sydney. I am pleased the Prime Minister has appointed Quentin Bryce to be the 25th Governor-General and our first female Governor-General. In achieving high office, she will leave the position of Governor of Queensland where those who have come across her in her work would have been deeply impressed and taken pride in the way she conducted herself—with great dignity, grace, elegance and eloquence. Irrespective of one’s politics, whether one supports a republic or a constitutional monarchy, those who saw Quentin Bryce in her role as Governor of Queensland would have been mightily impressed. Recently, I had the pleasure of being at the big Salvation Army fundraising breakfast in Brisbane and Quentin Bryce was guest of honour and guest speaker. Again, she demonstrated her charm, her elegance and indeed her compassion. The connection she made with such a large gathering as was present at the Queensland Convention Centre demonstrated her compassion and her great feelings for those disadvantaged in our community who really need the help of governments across the land. She also connected with those who might be in a position to be philanthropic and generous in supporting the people who really need the help of all of us. I would like to touch on some Australian women who clearly are role models for young women in our country and, indeed, examples which bring pride to the rest of the country. For instance, Professor Fiona Wood is Western Australia’s only female plastic surgeon. She is a mother of six. She was head of Royal Perth Hospital’s Burns Unit and a director of the Western Australian Burns Service. She is a co-founder of Clinical Cell Culture, recognised in medical circles internationally for its remarkable research and breakthroughs in the treatment of bones. Dr Wood would also have been known by many for her skill and work in paediatrics and child health at the University of Western Australia and as a director of the McComb Research Foundation. Ordinary Australians would know that she was an Australian of the Year and again, like the Governor-General designate, conducted her duties in that role with great aplomb. Marie Bashir is the current Governor of New South Wales and Chancellor of the University of Sydney. She set a historical benchmark upon her appointment as first female Governor of New South Wales. Susan Kiefel and Susan Crennan are justices of the High Court of Australia. Both were appointed by the previous Howard government. Mary Gaudron was the first female justice of the High Court, appointed by the previous Labor government. These women are examples to young professional women in the law and at university that, with application and dedication, young women in this country can reach high office and be appointed to significant positions by the government of the day because their integrity, dedication and diligence warrant such appointments. The 2007 Young Australian of the Year, Tania Major, is the youngest person elected to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. She is a key Australian for discussing and highlighting Indigenous issues for young women, particularly domestic violence. It is incumbent upon all of us to highlight the good work of young Australians whether they are like Tania Major, an Indigenous young Australian, or other Australians who try to do their bit to redress any forms of violence in our community, especially violence against Indigenous women throughout Australia. The 2006 Young Australian of the Year, Tricia Broadbridge, established the Reach Foundation designed to build young people’s esteem. Quentin Bryce will interact with these young Australians. She will have opportunities to engage in discussions in all parts of our country. It is a great thing and says so much about our country that a head of state is able to mix with Australians far and wide across the country, in all stations of life and from all backgrounds. In our place in the national parliament, in the context of this bill and in honouring the first female Governor-General designate, I would also like to mention some women who have been elected to this place. Enid Lyons was elected to the House of Representatives on 21 August 1943 and on the same day Senator Dorothy Tangney was the first woman elected to the Australian Senate. The first female member of the ministry, Enid Lyons, Vice-President of the Executive Council, was appointed on 19 December. The first woman with a portfolio was Senator Annabelle Rankin, who was Minister for Housing in the Holt government from 26 January 1966 to 22 March 1971. The first female member of cabinet was Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, Minister for Social Security in the Fraser government. At this time, we are bidding farewell to Senator Natasha Stott Despoja who, when she came to this place, was the youngest woman elected to the parliament. She has certainly captured the interest of young Australian women around the country, and I know she tried to encourage them to get involved in politics and in the political party of their choice. She bids farewell to the Senate after, I think, 13 years. I have had the opportunity of working with her on a couple of occasions. I had the benefit of her experience when we both went to Cambodia to be observers of a general election there several years ago. I appreciate her goodwill and her dedication to trying to make things better in this country as she sees fit according to her philosophical compass. I also want to acknowledge the current Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, and the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the last parliament, Jenny Macklin. Irrespective of one’s politics, one can really only admire all of the women in this country—from Enid Lyons to Julia Gillard—who have decided that they would like to be in the front row of political life in Australia. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —What about the Deputy Speaker? 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr JOHNSON —Indeed, I acknowledge Deputy Speaker Bird. At some point, we need to have our first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am not sure when that will happen; I am not sure if there are any volunteers at the moment. For my part, as some of you would know, I certainly advocate reform of the position of Speaker—but that is a speech for another time. To all those women in the current Labor government and in previous governments who have attained ministries and cabinet positions, I say in a bipartisan spirit that that is very commendable. I hope they use those positions not only to carry out their work but also to go a little further and talk to young women across the country about opportunities for women in parliament. Whatever one might think about politicians, I like to think that all of us come here with great determination to make a difference to our country—as Quentin Bryce, our next Governor-General, will do when she takes up her position at Yarralumla. In closing, I would like to encourage all the men out there to appreciate women. I am a husband, a son and a brother to women. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have sisters, wonderful mothers and wonderful female partners or wives should treasure them. I do not have a daughter; I have a son who turned two yesterday. Those of us here who are parents know what a wonderful thing it is to have children. At the end of the day, they are our ultimate pride and joy—for all our high ambition in this place. I am very close to my mother, I am in a loving relationship with my wife and I am fortunate to have a sister—who I think voted for me at the last election but I do not know as it was a secret ballot! I want to pay tribute to the women in my electorate and to all women across Australia who are raising families and who are involved in their school communities—the sorts of women Quentin Bryce will be talking to. I am sure that she will have a particular interest in making the acquaintance of and getting the opportunity to talk to women in communities right across this great country. In that context, I want to pay tribute to the great women of this country. Government members interjecting— 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr JOHNSON —I hear a supporting comment from the two Queensland members sitting opposite. I am sure they will endorse my remarks that this is a bill which both sides of the parliament support. We want to encourage greater respect amongst men for women in this country. I am sure that, without exception, all of us in this place condemn absolutely any form of violence by men against women—whether it be verbal, psychological or physical. Of course, the reverse also applies—perhaps not so much with physical violence but with verbal and psychological violence. On behalf of the people of Ryan, I am pleased to extend very warm congratulations to Quentin Bryce on her appointment by the Prime Minister to be our next Governor-General. We in the Ryan electorate, in the western suburbs of Brisbane, very much look forward to meeting her. I am sure that she has a fondness for Queensland and that she will return to Brisbane. She is certainly welcome to come and meet the wonderful people of the Ryan electorate, whom I have the great honour of representing in the national parliament for a third term. (Time expired) 5630 19:06:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I too rise with great pride and pleasure to address theGovernor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. This bill has come about as a result of the appointment of a new Governor-General who, as we know, will be the first female Governor-General to reside at Yarralumla and is a great Queenslander. For those reasons, I am very proud to stand in this chamber and endorse the appointment of the Hon. Quentin Bryce. Queensland has a very rich and diverse political history. Sometimes the other states like to tar us with a particular stereotype, but Queenslanders contribute a lot to the political life of this country. We produced the first Labor government—an achievement that all of us Queenslanders on this side of the House are very proud of. HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr Neumann interjecting— HVR Rea, Kerry, MP Ms REA —I can hear the member for Blair behind me endorsing those comments. We elected to the Queensland parliament the first and only member of the Communist Party to be elected in Australia. We also elected probably one of the most controversial National Party governments in the country. The legacy of that government, in particular under the premiership of the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has been well noted in many historical accounts in terms of the events and decisions that were made by that government. We are also unique in the sense that we elected the only group of politicians who in fact voted themselves out of a job. Once they were in the majority in the Queensland upper house they in fact voted to dissolve that upper house. The Queensland electorate are always very proud that there were politicians who were prepared to give up their jobs. Of course, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are Queenslanders. We have topped it all off with the appointment of the first female Governor-General, who is also a Queenslander. This has been a very fitting accomplishment for this last 12 months because all of that was preceded by the appointment of the very first female Premier in Queensland, the Hon. Anna Bligh. At last we have some recognition—and national recognition—of the breadth and the depth of political talent that has always existed in Queensland. It is a chance for us to showcase on the national stage the talent that we know has always resided in the sunshine state. It was with great pride that I heard of the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Queen had accepted his nomination for Governor-General and appointed Quentin Bryce the next Governor-General of Australia. Of course, our head of state is a woman. In fact, we have had two female heads of state and they have been two of the longest reigning monarchs in British history. I think it is a testament to women in leadership that those two women have gained the international recognition that they have. With a female head of state it is very fitting that we now have as her representative in Australia a female Governor-General. I know that one day we will have an Australian as our head of state. Indeed, as an avowed republican, I look forward to that day. For now, I think it is incredible and wonderful for all Australian women that the highest position in the country will be held by a woman. It is not just a matter of great symbolism; it is a very real and practical sign that women in Australia can achieve even the highest office in the land. This evening in this chamber we have heard many speakers talk about Quentin Bryce. There is probably no more appropriate Queensland woman who could attain and hold the position of Governor-General. Quentin’s curriculum vitae and her community involvement are a testament to her lifetime of public service. Having trained as a lawyer and been one of the very first women to be admitted to the Queensland bar, she has used her skills and experience to improve the lives of women and children throughout the whole country. She was the inaugural Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service, the Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the founding chair and CEO of the National Childcare Accreditation Council, Principal and CEO of the Women’s College at the University of Sydney, a member of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and a lecturer in law at the University of Queensland and is currently the second woman to serve as Governor of Queensland. It is an impressive life of service indeed which is equalled by her impressive contribution as a person and her inspiration as a woman, particularly for young women in Queensland. Quentin is synonymous with the campaign for equality for women. Her role in the Women’s Electoral Lobby is a testament to that. Her persistence and dedication to improving the lives of women and children inspired many young women, like me, to seek political office and to try to make a difference. Indeed, many of us are both grateful and indebted to her and the women that she worked with. If it were not for women like Quentin Bryce then women like me would not be sitting here as members of the Australian parliament, and for that we are very grateful. Of course, no woman or man is an island. Our upbringing and childhood experiences contribute significantly to the adults we all become. It is, therefore, no coincidence that Quentin Bryce is a past student of Moreton Bay girls college. Moreton Bay College is one of the largest girls schools in the electorate of Bonner. Indeed, it has long been recognised as one of the foremost girls schools in Brisbane. I have a personal connection with that school and I am proud to be the federal member who represents it. My husband’s mother was a previous boarder at that school and she too was a woman dedicated to community service and to supporting education for all women. I myself attended a local Catholic school in the bayside area. In those days, girls studying the sciences, particularly maths and physics, were fairly rare. Let us say we were amongst the minority in the school. Indeed, some of those subjects were not even offered in our school. Moreton Bay College was the girls school just down the road, along Bay Terrace in Wynnum. It also did not offer all the maths and physics subjects that we needed in our senior years, so there was a reciprocal arrangement. I, in fact, studied senior physics at Moreton Bay College. Girls from that college came up to our school to study maths too. So, although I am not an old girl, I do have a close personal connection. The residents of Bonner can really feel that they are in the thick of things at the moment. The electorate borders the electorates of both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and is home to the school that has produced the first female Governor-General. But, as I have already indicated, this is no accident. I have visited Moreton Bay College several times over the last 12 months and have always been impressed by the calibre of the students and the professionalism of the staff under the very competent stewardship of Principal Jennifer Haynes. The college has a longstanding record of academic, sporting and cultural achievements, but I think what seals this school’s status as a great school and one worthy of respect is its genuine emphasis on community service and compassion for the disadvantaged. Moreton Bay College has a long history of teaching the value of service, encouraging students to think and act in a way that supports the community within which they live and to appreciate diversity. It is a value that stays with many of the past students, including our soon to be Governor-General. Ms Bryce has in fact put her name to a bursary fund at Moreton Bay College. It is a bursary fund that can be positioned as one of the ways Moreton Bay College models the behaviour that it teaches by working to support the community. It is about providing opportunity to someone who could use it to change their life and about creating something lasting. It is about believing that education is a valuable component in providing life-changing opportunities. It is about the need to contribute to issues that are socially just, understanding that not all families have the capacity to pay the fees charged by Moreton Bay College, and a desire to give back to the community. It is a bursary that I think all of us on both sides of the parliament would be proud to see endorsed at one of our local schools, in particular at one that has the prestige and the status of Moreton Bay College. Indeed, I was very pleased to attend the launch of the bursary, which was held by Her Excellency the Governor at Government House. I think this is a great testimony to the role that Quentin Bryce has played in her position as Governor of Queensland, where she has seen her role as an opportunity to reach out to all Queenslanders and include them in any way that she can in community and public service. In fact, I think it indicates also her very personal involvement in the bursary. It indicates that she will always continue to support the improvement of the lives of young women across the country, no matter what circumstances they find themselves in, that she will always use her position not just as one of status or personal reward but as one of giving back to the community and encouraging young women to pursue their goals and their dreams. But it also indicates her affection and gratitude for the school that gave her the education which she has used so effectively for the common good. What is very interesting about this particular bill, given the speeches that have been made on it—and this is a true reflection of the standing that Quentin Bryce holds within the community of Queensland and indeed the community of Australia—is that it has bipartisan support. It demonstrates that her community service has outweighed political partisanship and that both sides of politics respect her as someone who has the dignity, the capacity and the ability to uphold the position of Governor-General and to ensure that the position is used to advance the cause of all Australians. I think it is also interesting that it has bipartisan support in that even the member for Oxley and I, who have always been avowed republicans, can stand up here to support her appointment to this role. It is respect for the position of Governor-General, but it is in particular respect for the capacity of Quentin Bryce to uphold that position that has commanded such broad based respect and support across the whole community—even among those like me who will one day be very pleased and proud to see an Australian citizen as our head of state. I hope we will see that day in the very near future, but in the meantime I know that Quentin Bryce will do her best to ensure that the position of Governor-General is one that is respected, that she will continue to advocate the cause of socially just issues and that she will continue to advocate for the support of women to seek to achieve whatever their dreams are, including holding the position of the highest office in the land. I would like to conclude by paying my respects to her. She will be a great representative. I wish her, her husband, Michael, and her family all the very best in her new role. 5633 19:19:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise to support the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. This bill has broad bipartisan support, but I would like to begin by taking up the member for Bonner on some of her remarks where she indicated her support for a republic. Indeed, the member for Bonner said in her argument that it would be great to have a female achieve the highest office in the land. I could not agree with that argument more, because the Governor-General is the highest office in the land. I come from the school of thought that says that the Governor-General is the head of state. We do have an Australian head of state, so I find it incongruous that the member for Bonner then proceeded to argue this ongoing myth that we tend to hear repeated around the place that the head of state is not an Australian currently. The truth is our head of state has been Australian for many, many years. Indeed, the member for Bonner substantiated that position in her own contribution just now when she said that the incoming Governor-General will be the first female to achieve the highest office in the land, and indeed it is. Therefore, I would like to record my support for her remarks in that regard. This bill arises out of the constitutional requirement that the Governor-General’s salary not be increased during his or her term of office. The Constitution is very clear that the Governor-General’s salary will not be altered during the period that they remain there. I support the conventions and the traditions of this provision. The salary of the Queen’s official representative in Australia and our head of state, the Governor-General, ought to be about the same as that of the Chief Justice of the High Court, in recognition of the serious and substantial contribution that they make to our democracy and its stability and the important role they play across Australia in representing our country and our nation-state. The power of a Governor-General is not simply applied during a constitutional crisis. Indeed, most of the powers, I would argue, are reserve powers. In recognition of a person’s ability to hold reserve power, it is actually a role that requires a serious level of professionalism and a serious level of understanding of our system and the way it works. It requires qualities worthy of recognition with a high salary. Despite many of the myths that are circulated, governors-general are not simply a rubber stamp. They do play an important function and we seek to pay them well in recognition of the times when they will be required to make very serious decisions and contributions that could affect the entire course of our nation. The Governor-General exercises the role of constitutional auditor. He or she does so through exercising three constitutional rights which have been categorised as the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. The Governor-General acts as an impartial, non-political constitutional umpire, and acts as the impartial auditor of constitutional and legal processes. Indeed, in recognition of how serious a role that is, we ought to be supporting the bill and its provisions here before the House today. While the Governor-General’s role as auditor is usually hidden from the public, both ministers and public servants are well aware of the important work that the Australian Governor-General undertakes. It ought not be underestimated. Indeed, anyone who has watched the reports, series and documentaries on the dismissal when the Governor-General dismissed the Whitlam government would know that the pressures and constitutional requirements placed on such a figure are immense, serious and require a certain temperament and experience. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Major General Michael Jeffery who is finishing his service as our 24th Governor-General. As with his military history, he has once again served our nation with distinction and has been a fine choice as our representative in that role. Some interesting points to note are that he has given over 900 major speeches throughout his time in office and he has had over 700,000 hits on the Governor-General’s website each month. He and his wife, Marlena, are patrons to over 190 community organisations in Australia. During his tenure he has represented Australia at overseas events and the funerals of very influential people, including the funerals of Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, who was one of the greatest presidents the free world has ever had. I want to specifically wish the Governor-General and his wife, Marlena, all the best for the future. I would also like, in a bipartisan fashion, to welcome and congratulate Quentin Bryce on her appointment as our 25th Governor-General. She is an incredibly impressive individual and is a testament to all sides of politics. Under the current system with its current conventions, we can select individuals who are very impressive, who have great distinction and who will serve with great temperament. I note that Quentin Bryce has a series of firsts to her name. She was the first female to lecture in the faculty of law at the University of Queensland, the first director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service under the umbrella of the Office of the Status of Women and she became the Queensland director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In a rare event she slipped to the second woman appointed as Governor of Queensland, but she has reclaimed the mantle and was in January this year appointed the first woman to occupy the position of Governor-General of Australia. The strengths of the candidature of our current and next Governor-General provide a clear indication that our system works. The system of appointment on the advice of the Prime Minister encourages the selection of an impartial and well-respected person. It avoids internal politics and wheeling and dealing for a political appointment. The stable and successful liberal democracy which we live in today is a result of the strength of this system. It is something that is often underestimated. Sometimes you do not know the importance of a measure or a mechanism in a machine until it breaks. You do not realise how important a particular feature can be until something goes wrong. Following the 2020 Summit the role of the Governor-General in Australia has again come into the spotlight. One of the only outcomes in my mind that arose out of the 2020 Summit was support for an Australian republic. It really was the issue of the republic that shows what real problems arose from the 2020 Summit. I note that of the entire governance panel every member—that is, 100 per cent of them—supported the republic. Not one member voted against it, which is really quite revealing of the nature of this summit when you consider that 100 per cent of people rarely agree on anything. Consider that in 1999, only nine years ago, a referendum on this question lost the popular vote in every state and in 72 per cent of electorates, and now the governance panel of the 2020 Summit, which was there to consider and consult on views, was 100 per cent in support of a republic. I also note that, only one month after the 2020 Summit, in May 2008, a Roy Morgan poll found that only 45 per cent of Australians want a republic with an elected president, which is down six per cent since 2001. There is a tendency to not understand how important the role of Governor-General is in our society. There is this attempt to create a myth that we do not have an Australian as our head of state but, as the member for Bonner acknowledged, we do have a woman achieving the highest office in the land and it is a very good thing. It is something which both sides of this House support. Our Constitution, which as Governor-General Michael Jeffery recently pointed out ‘is taken for granted because it’s worked so seamlessly and so effectively’ is something that we ought not to overlook. We have had 100 years of political stability as the Constitution has ensured that the checks and balances, which were put in place by the wise founding fathers of our country, work. Whilst many constitutional models over time have failed, Australia’s has not. In fact under our system Australia is one of the world’s seven oldest democracies. Of the seven oldest democracies, five are constitutional monarchies as is Australia. Of the leading 10 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index, eight are constitutional monarchies. The Australian Crown has significantly evolved since Governor Phillip came to our shores. The evolution of our Constitution signifies its greatest advantage. Our Constitution is able to adapt to and to grow with the circumstances of the times without the need for radical, sudden and disruptive changes. The provisions of this particular bill before the House indeed indicate some of those conventions that have worked over the years. It is a proper convention that a Governor-General not be able to raise their salary during their term. It is a sensible, foresighted measure that has led us to this place today to discuss this legislation. The strength of our Constitution has equipped our nation with a strong, stable, democratic government. Any Australian republic, if we are ever to have one, needs to be from the bottom up not from the top down. It needs to be led by a broad consensus of the Australian people not by a minority of elites. In keeping with our nation’s egalitarian spirit, I hope that constitutional reform, when it does next occur, will be for the right reason and in a considered and representative fashion. The Governor-General is unquestioningly the head of state of Australia. I support this bill with its provision for a higher salary for the incoming Governor-General and, together with my fellow coalition members, wish Ms Bryce all the best for her term of service as Australia’s head of state. 5636 19:29:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. I think it is quite interesting that Moreton Bay College, which was founded in 1901 and shares its birthday with Federation, has produced the first female Governor-General. I note the contribution from the member for Bonner, which I thought was a terrific speech. The member for Mitchell just cannot help himself: at a time when we should be making bipartisan speeches, he comes in here and tries to tell us that the Governor-General is the head of state. Well, I suggest he reads the Constitution: the Governor-General represents the Queen here. I have to say that I thought for a moment we were going to get a diatribe about how 1975 was so wonderful. He must remember that 1975 cuts very deep for those of us over this side of the House. It is the galvanising moment for many of us who represent the Labor Party in this particular legislature. I remember it very vividly. I was a young boy at school and I remember exactly how my parents felt, exactly how my community felt and exactly how I felt at the time. We never want to go back to those days, and I would suggest that the member for Mitchell thinks very clearly, simply and studiously about whether he will make speeches in the future on those matters. But I want to say about my old law lecturer how terrific it is that she has been appointed as the Governor-General of this country. I express my congratulations to her and to her husband, Michael. I also express my appreciation to His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery for his contribution and that of his wife and for the service they have extended to our country. Her Excellency Quentin Bryce will be sworn in on 5 September this year. That is a great thing, and it is great thing for those of us who are from Queensland. The bill before the House deals with the salary of the Governor-General which will go up from $365,000 to $394,000 and it also gets rid of certain references to the superannuation surcharge, but I do not really want to talk about those sorts of issues. I want to talk about what an accomplished woman Quentin Bryce is. When I think of her I think of women’s rights, Indigenous rights and human rights. She has had a sterling career. She is highly respected in Queensland. She was one of the first women admitted to the bar, in the mid-sixties. She is a mother, a wife, a grandmother. She has received honorary doctorates from various universities. From 1968 until 1983 she taught law at the University of Queensland’s law school. From there on she contributed enormously to life in Queensland and Australia. She was a director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service and of the Office of the Status of Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. She was Queensland director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She was the founding chair and CEO of the National Childcare Accreditation Council and the principal and CEO of the Women’s College at the University of Sydney, New South Wales. And from 2003 she was the Governor of Queensland. She has broken many glass ceilings. What she has done is remarkable. But there are a few specific things I would like to say about her. When I was campaigning in 2004 I remember campaigning in rural areas at the country shows. When she came to those country shows she was received by farmers, graziers, people from all walks of life, and what really struck me was her grace, her poise, her dignity and her common touch. She spoke to people at the stalls, to everyone wherever she went. She showed tremendous dignity and compassion towards people if they were injured or hurt or had concerns and raised them with her. It was extraordinary to see how people from all walks of life were taken with her dignity and respect and her contribution. My electorate of Blair takes in about two-thirds of Ipswich, and the mayor, Paul Pisasale, actually thinks she is the governor of Ipswich because she comes there so often. She is accepted wonderfully well at the Ipswich Christmas celebrations sponsored by the council. I also saw her with her husband at the 80th celebration of the RAAF at the RAAF base at Amberley. She was speaking to military personnel and, again, it was extraordinary to see the way she was accepted and could communicate with people from all walks of life. There is an affection for Quentin Bryce that you rarely see in public life. I want to talk about one particular time, when she was lecturing and tutoring me at the University of Queensland, that I remember for her compassion and humanity. On this particular day, a young woman, Sally Fraser, who later became a friend of mine and worked in my law firm, was at a tutorial in the law faculty. Sally was unwell but she sat there trying to get through the tutorial as best she could. She was obviously in discomfort, and I could see how unwell she was feeling, and in the end she could not cope and had to rush out. Quentin Bryce was there and showed her tenderness and affection and friendship. I remember it all these years later because I have rarely seen someone show such compassion and humanity to a woman in need. My view was always that she was a very good law lecturer; she was a very interesting law lecturer and one of the few female lecturers there. But that particular day cemented my view of Quentin Bryce, and so I was absolutely thrilled when she was appointed as the Governor of Queensland. It is terrific that the Deputy Prime Minister is a woman. It is terrific that we are to have our first female Governor-General, breaking 107 years of masculine tradition. And I think it is terrific that we have another Queenslander in a prominent position—I note the Treasurer is a Queenslander and the Prime Minister is a Queenslander and Quentin Bryce is too. But the thing about her that really shows the degree to which she has the common touch and how much—as so many people have said, and I agree—she will be an adornment to the office is the way she has talked about women’s issues and Indigenous issues in Queensland and Australia. She is a reformer. She is someone who wants to see our society progress, who wants to see people have equal opportunity, who wants to end discrimination and who wants women to have every chance in life, as men do. I am the father of two teenage daughters. My wife, Carolyn, and I have tried to instil that in our children as well. You can be whatever you want to be, whether you come from a small rural or regional town in western Queensland like Quentin Bryce did, or whether you come from a place like Ipswich, where I come from, or Townsville or Melbourne or Birdsville or wherever. If you are a woman, you can do whatever you want to do. That is the sort of society that we need to become. Too few women are captains of industry; too few women are leading lawyers; too few women are judges; too few women are politicians. I look forward to the day when we have a female prime minister. I also look forward to the day when Quentin Bryce is our last Governor-General. I look forward to the day when we have an Australian as our head of state. I look forward to the day when we can stand up ourselves and say that we can govern ourselves without a hereditary monarch from Britain having the power and capacity to dismiss an Australian government elected by the Australian people. I think that day will finally cement Australia’s full independence from its long tradition of British sovereignty, rule and hegemony that we have experienced for a long time. We have evolved and broken that down through various pieces of legislation that have moved us to a point where we are a country which has so much freedom and democracy that we are the envy of lots of places in the world. But there is that last holdout, that last thing. We have got rid of the Privy Council; we have our own High Court as the highest court in the land. The last thing needs to go. Those of us on this side of the House who are republicans, and there are many, look forward to that day when we can have our own head of state. Until that day comes I hope that we have people like Michael Jeffery, Quentin Bryce and others in the role of Governor-General. We need Australians of such esteem, such accomplishment and such ability in that role. I thank the Prime Minister for taking the initiative in terms of Quentin Bryce. I thank the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, for effectively letting her go, because we in Queensland know and respect her so well. I look forward to the contribution of Quentin Bryce in representing and being a role model for young women. I look forward to what she will do as she speaks on issues in our country and as she represents Her Majesty at various events throughout Australia. She would be most warmly welcomed in the federal seat of Blair once again. 5638 19:40:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I rise today to make my contribution in this debate on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill because it gives me the opportunity to express my support for the appointment of Her Excellency Quentin Bryce AC as Australia’s next and first female Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery. I would also like to congratulate the member for Blair and the other members who have made their contributions to this debate. By way of background I think it is important that I provide a brief outline of the role the Governor-General currently plays in our democracy. In several sections of our Constitution the Governor-General’s powers and roles are expressed. Section two of the Constitution provides: A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. Or her. Additionally and importantly, section 61 of the Constitution provides: The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth. In addition to being the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by the Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. I think it is particularly important to re-iterate the important points the members for Flynn and Bonner have raised. It needs to be highlighted that the salary and pension for the Governor-General are set out in an act of parliament—the Governor-General Act 1974. Also, and very importantly, under section 3 of the Constitution, the Governor-General’s salary cannot be altered during a term of office. With the impending retirement of His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, we have the opportunity to address salary and superannuation issues for the position before the swearing in of our new Governor-General. That is why the act needs to be amended to update the salary figure before the swearing in of the next Governor-General on 5 September 2008. I think it is significant to note that there has been a linkage between the salaries of the Governor-General and the Chief Justice for quite a long period of time. In fact, this linkage has been around since the original 1901 salary, and it was subsequently updated in 1974. It should also be recognised that the salary of the Chief Justice is reviewed each year by the Remuneration Tribunal. Because of the link between the salaries of the Governor-General and the Chief Justice, when setting an appropriate salary for the Governor-General designate regard has been given to likely increases in the Chief Justice’s salary over the next five years—an important point because that is the term of the new appointment. It should also be noted that there is precedent for the Governor-General’s salary to be reduced by the amount of any existing pension entitlement or for the amount of any pensions to be donated to charity to avoid any perception of double-dipping. The current Governor-General exercised this practice in his remuneration. His Excellency Major General Jeffery was in receipt of a military pension. At the time of his appointment in 2003 he indicated he would donate the entire amount of that pension to charity during his term of office. I take a moment to commend and thank Major General Jeffery and his wife, Marlena, for the contribution they have made to community service over the past five years, and who, as Governor-General, is completing a very distinguished term of service in this high office. After having a quick read of a few of the Governor-General’s annual reports and looking at the Governor-General’s website—yes, it is amazing that the Governor-General has a website as well—I soon realised what an enormous workload and vast responsibilities come with the position of being Governor-General. For the benefit of the House I will just outline a few of the contributions that the Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery have made over the years. The Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery are either individual or joint patrons of over 180 organisations. I will not go into naming them all but I will tell you that they are very wide-ranging from being patrons for Youth Hostels Australia to being patron of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia. To be patrons of over 180 organisations is truly a remarkable achievement by anyone’s standards. Both the Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery have visited every state and territory on several occasions each year. The Governor-General has hosted hundreds of official functions including a reception for over 500 family members after the Bali bombings along with special Christmas functions for children with special needs, their families and their carers. The Major General has delivered hundreds of speeches during his appointment including a recent address at the opening of the Dugong Beach Resort, Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory during this year. During his tenure, the Governor-General has performed his constitutional and statutory responsibilities over the years by considering and giving assent to hundreds of pieces of legislation passed by this parliament, along with presiding over meetings of the federal Executive Council and receiving hundreds of high-level visitors—too many to mention for fear of offending somebody. And I would like to reiterate what the Prime Minister said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 April 2008. He said: On behalf of the Government and the people of Australia I record our deep appreciation of Major General Jeffery’s services to his country and our great respect for the outstanding way he has carried out his duties as governor-general. I wish Major General Jeffery and Mrs Jeffery the very best for their future. That now brings us to a new chapter in Australia’s history, the appointment of Australia’s 25th and the first female Governor-General, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce. She will probably be remembered fondly on this side of the House, as will 24 other governors-general—and the member for Blair alluded to the one that we probably did not talk about very often. It is a tremendous appointment, an appointment that not only has the full support of every member on our side but also the support from the Leader of the Opposition who, as reported in an article in the Age on 14 April this year, offered his public support, and I quote: Brendan Nelson welcomed the appointment, saying Ms Bryce ‘had demonstrated a strong commitment to the rights of women, indigenous Australians and the bush’. And it is this type of fortitude in decision making from our side of government, along with the bipartisan support shown, that as politicians we are showing all Australians, that there are practical ways of doing things differently to improve the lives for all in our community. I would like reiterate what the Prime Minister said about the appointment of Quentin Bryce in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 April this year. He said: ‘... Ms Bryce had an outstanding record of service to the entire Australian community and was highly qualified for the role of governor-general ...’ ‘She is highly qualified for the role of governor-general. Ms Bryce has enjoyed a rich and dynamic career as a lawyer, academic and senior public office holder.’ …            …            … ‘On behalf of the Government and the people of Australia, I extend very sincere congratulations to Ms Bryce’ So after 107 years of male dominance in the Governor-General’s position, what does the appointment of woman mean for Australia? I might start by answering that question with a few quotes I found in the media following the historic announcement by the Prime Minister. Democrat spokeswoman on women Natasha Stott Despoja hailed the appointment of the first woman Governor-General as ‘a ‘herstoric’ day ... both symbolic and substantial, sending a strong message that women can hold the highest positions in the land’. Greens leader, Bob Brown, described it as a great choice and ‘very 21st century’, saying a female Governor-General should have happened decades ago. And I think it only appropriate that I quote Quentin Bryce herself when she said: I grew up in little bush town in Queensland of 200 people and what this day says to Australian women and to Australian girls is that you can do anything, you can be anything, and it makes my heart sing to see women in so many diverse roles across our country and Australia. Ms Bryce said that the new appointment was ‘a great honour and a great responsibility’ and that it was also ‘a great day for Australian woman’. Whilst some members have spoken about the republic debate, as a republican myself I thought it was more fitting that I focus not on the debate that we will have in the future but on why it is such an inspiring appointment. It is inspiring for women, young women like my daughters and nieces who are growing up in rural and regional Australia. These young ladies have a shining practical example. It does not matter where you have come from; it is all about where you want to go. The NT has a worldwide reputation for being a male domain, a frontier. In reality, this reputation does not stand up to even the most basic analysis. Much of the hard work and innovation in the Territory currently and historically has been achieved by its women providing leadership or supporting partners in their roles. The NT, I believe, is leading the way across a range of activities in government, business, industry and the community sectors. It is the women of the NT that have achieved milestones across public administration, private enterprise and in the community while raising families and providing secure homes. Pat Miller, Deputy Administrator; Clare Martin, former Chief Minister; Marion Scrymgour, Deputy Chief Minister member for Arafura; Jane Aagaard, the Speaker of the House; Jodeen Carney, member for Araluen; Lorraine Brahm, member for Braitling; Malarndirri McCarthy, member for Arnhem; Alison Anderson, member for MacDonnell; and Adele Young, Chief of Staff to the Chief Minister. While we celebrate the emergence of women in government and public administration, it has been possible because of the historic yards done by their sisters in private enterprise, and the community sector in the Northern Territory has acted as an inspiration and support for them in their enterprises. Women such as Sue Shearer, Carole Frost, Sylvia Wolf, Marilynne Paspaley, Rosemary Campbell, Linda Deans, Vicky Spence, Alison Hucks, Betty Pearce, Di Deanes, Cathy MacDonald, Vicki O’Halloran, Connie Jape, Pamela Jape, Lucy Biggs, Kat Byron, Wendy Phillips and Marie-Louise Pearson—to name but a few—are all very successful women. They are all shining examples of women in the north of our country who have been and continue to be fantastic role models. It is a great pleasure to this side of the House that we have so many women who are great representatives of their constituencies, whether they are ministers or backbenchers like me. They bring a lot to the table, and I am often inspired by the way they carry themselves in the House and by the contribution they make. The list of women will go on and on, and I really believe that the appointment of Quentin Bryce will continue to inspire young women in the future. This act needs to be amended to update the salary figures before the swearing in of the next Governor-General on 5 September. I commend the bill to the House. 5642 19:53:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I rise to add my comments to those of my colleagues who have spoken about Quentin Bryce, a truly awe-inspiring lady. Quentin Bryce, the current Governor of Queensland, is a great friend of Townsville. She has been to Townsville on many occasions and I have been with her, both in Townsville and at Government House in Brisbane. I have come to know her as the person that she is—an absolutely delightful mix of formality and informality. She relaxes you immediately that you are in her presence. She does not just do the job for the sake of doing the job. She does the job because she cares; she does the job because she is interested. She is engaging, and she understands, wherever she is—and, of course, governors get to go to all sorts of interesting places, even to Maranoa, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—what is being explained to her and she asks very relevant questions. I know that, most recently, she enjoyed her visit to James Cook University, one of the premier tropical universities in the world today, and she enjoys visiting the north. She is a noncontroversial person, as governors have to be. And it does take a special person to perform that role: to make sure that nobody is offended in the community yet to let the community know how you feel about particular issues. She is the sort of person who would agree with what I am going to say now. It is kind of a bit irreverent, but she would appreciate what I say and she would not take offence at all. She is in fact an air commodore in the Royal Australian Air Force, and she from time to time reviews Air Force parades. The Army would say, ‘We know how to march,’ and the Air Force would say, ‘We know how to march too, but perhaps Army has a better claim to that.’ When the Governor is in her Air Force uniform, she probably has the worst salute that I have ever seen, and she would agree with that. But that is the way things go. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I hope you are not reflecting on Queensland’s governor, because it would be improper, I would remind the member for Herbert! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I am not reflecting on the Queensland governor. She would understand, and she would agree with me. I also pay tribute to her new official secretary, Mark Gower, who is also an Air Force officer and who is also an air commodore. Mark Gower has spent a lot of time of his time in 395 ECSW in Townsville. His last posting was at Amberley, but he is now the new official secretary. He deserves that job, and he will fit that job very well indeed. There have been a number of female governors, but of course there has not been a female Governor-General, so this is a step forward. I have not found a person who actually disagrees with that appointment. It is a very good appointment, and she will do a great job. There are so many female members of the community—across the community, in all segments of the economy—who are leaders in our economy. Thinking about that, Gale Kelly, the CEO of the Westpac bank, comes to mind. She was, of course, CEO of St George Bank, and is a very, very impressive lady. She is not unalike in stature to the Queensland governor. One of the areas—and now I will be controversial again—where perhaps females are not as well represented as they should be is in the churches. I find that quite sad, and I am not a Catholic but I certainly speak to my Catholic bishop about that. He has a surprising view on that, and I think, one day, we will see Catholic female clergy in the church. I hope we see that sooner rather than later. That would then involve a discussion on married priests, but that would be straying from the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was just about to suggest that to you! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —We will not go in that direction. Congratulations to Quentin Bryce for her elevation to Governor-General. I of course support this machinery bill that is needed at this time to do what needs to be done in relation to the Governor-General’s salary, and I certainly commend the bill to the House. 5643 19:59:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I rise in support of the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. As the House is aware, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC will be appointed as Australia’s next, and first female, Governor-General. This comes following the retirement of His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery, who is concluding a period of distinguished public service including his time as Governor-General of Australia and in his former role as the Governor of Western Australia. The bill before the House seeks to review the salary of the Governor-General. Alterations to the salary of the Governor-General must occur through an amendment to section 3 of the Governor-General Act 1974. This amendment must occur prior to the swearing in of the next Governor-General, as section 3 of the Constitution precludes any change to the salary of the Governor-General during a term of office. As Ms Bryce will be sworn in on 5 September 2008, if there is to be an amendment to the salary of the Governor-General it must occur during this current sitting. Ms Bryce is of course a woman of exceptional ability and achievement. She is a fine choice for the role of Governor-General. Since 2003, she has discharged her duties as Governor of Queensland with a flair that would be expected, knowing her background. Raised in regional Queensland, Ms Bryce is a trailblazer by nature with an impressive collection of firsts under her belt. She was one of the first women to study law in Queensland, she was called to the bar and she also lectured in law at the University of Queensland. As a lawyer myself I acknowledge the pioneering role played by women such as Ms Bryce in what was then a very difficult career for women. Also numbered amongst Ms Bryce’s achievements are her roles as federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the inaugural director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service and the founding chair and Chief Executive Officer of the National Childcare Accreditation Council. Ms Bryce has toured Queensland extensively in her time as Governor, paying special attention to small rural communities like the one she grew up in. I am sure she will continue to be a fierce friend of remote and regional towns as Governor-General. It goes without saying that Ms Bryce will be Australia’s first female Governor-General, although a number of states have had female governors. This obviously includes Queensland, which can boast two eminent female governors, Ms Bryce and Leneen Forde. Even the current Governor-General’s wife, Mrs Marlena Jeffery, noted as recently as this past weekend the unique talents that women bring to leadership. Speaking whilst opening the three-day national conference of the Alliance of Girls’ Schools in Canberra, Mrs Jeffery noted that in educating young women it was important to encourage and foster their unique talents. Mrs Jeffery also pointed out that it was evident just how far Australia had come by the fact that we now have a female Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and we are soon to have a female Governor-General. I am sure Ms Bryce would echo Mrs Jeffery’s sentiments regarding the education of young women, as Ms Bryce herself has a rich history of mentoring girls through her time as a lecturer at university and also as head of the Women’s College at the University of Sydney. Ms Bryce possesses a wealth of experience and a proud record of community involvement and this will also stand her in good stead in her new role. It is this sort of work that makes the Governor-General such an important part of public life in Australia. Numbered amongst the Governor-General’s official duties are the opening of new sessions of the Commonwealth parliament, acting as patron to a vast array of community organisations and the opening of and participation in conferences. I note in particular Major General Jeffery’s attendance at the recent 2020 Summit, which brought many Australians together to harness our collective potential to make this country a better place. Apart from fulfilling necessary constitutional and ceremonial functions, the office of Governor-General has a tangible history of engaging with the community at large. If I draw the House’s attention to page 50 of today’s Courier Mail you would see an unobtrusive article—one that appears every day—outlining the Governor-General’s engagements for the previous day. Although the article is small and tucked away, it does not diminish the significance of the work the Governor-General does. Pose a question to the members of any charity or community group who have been welcomed at Government House for a special function. Ask them what it means for their group. In fact, it is just as likely that the Governor-General has visited the groups themselves and if you were to ask the significance of this interaction between the vice-regal office and the grassroots of our community I think the answer would be the same every time. They will tell you that the recognition they get from the Governor-General is a vital part of the work that they do. It validates their activity and encourages them by recognising that the work they undertake is valued by the community at large. In his time as Governor-General, Major General Jeffery has attended more than 1,000 events throughout Australia and has hosted a further 800 official functions. He has presented hundreds of honours and delivered a great number of speeches. He has received over 500 callers, many of whom were representatives of the approximately 180 services for which the Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery are patrons. He has received the credentials of over 129 ambassadors and high commissioners to Australia. He has presided over 131 meetings of the Federal Executive Council, which has considered over 2,468 agenda items, and he has assented to over 782 pieces of legislation passed by the Commonwealth parliament. This high level of activity is indicative of the popular demand on the Governor-General’s time, as well as the willingness of the vice-regal office to participate in a variety of community activities. I have no doubt that Ms Bryce will continue Major General Jeffery’s tradition of active engagement with all Australians. I recently attended a function at Queensland’s Government House for graduating guide dogs. Ms Bryce is patron of the Guide Dogs organisation and I have to say that she truly inspires people with her approach to her role and by her recognition of the importance of organisations such as the Guide Dogs and the many others of which she is patron. I know that as Governor-General she will fulfil that role very well for the whole community of Australia. The office of Governor-General quite rightly transcends partisan politics and it is this quality that allows the office to play a unique role in public life. The Governor-General can speak to people regardless of their background or political persuasion. It is for these reasons that the remuneration of the Governor-General should be not simply a token gesture mandated by the Constitution but a true and accurate reflection of the work the Governor-General does for our communities. As I mentioned earlier, the salary of the Governor-General cannot be altered during a term in office. That is why it is necessary to arrive at a figure that will remain a fair and accurate salary for the Governor-General’s full term, which is usually five years. It has become common practice, when calculating the level of the Governor-General’s remuneration, to have regard to the salary paid to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. This does not mean the salaries are identical. The Governor-General’s salary is set to moderately exceed the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice over a notional three-year period. What is important to note is that the salary proposed in the bill—$394,000 per annum—has been calculated in a way consistent with the convention established in 1974. The proposed salary is also in line with precedent established by Sir William Deane, who asked that his remuneration take into account the non-contributory pension he received under the Judges’ Pensions Act after his retirement from the High Court. I note also that this bill removes the superannuation surcharge—which was discontinued in 2005—from the Governor-General Act 1974 for future governors-general. This change, however, does not affect the continued application of the surcharge to former governors-general to whom the surcharge applied. I believe this bill provides for a fair salary for the Governor-General. It is an accurate gauge of the work that the vice-regal office undertakes in our community and it has been set in accordance with laws and precedents that are long standing. I want to acknowledge the continuing role played by the spouse of the Governor-General, currently Mrs Marlena Jeffery, and also the spouse of the Governor-General designate, Mr Michael Bryce. These spouses assist the Governor-General in their duties and often have proud records of achievement and community engagement in their own right. I wish Ms Bryce well in her time as Governor-General and I have no doubt that she will be one of the most successful and well-regarded occupants of the office. 5645 20:09:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I feel compelled to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008 as it raises some very important issues. Section 3 of the Constitution precludes any changes to the salary of the Governor-General during the term of office, which makes it very important that we pass this legislation in the parliament tonight. Whenever a Governor-General is to be appointed, changes to the salary of the office must be made by way of an amendment to the Governor-General Act 1974 prior to that appointment. The bill amends section 3 of the Governor-General Act 1974 to set a salary of $394,000 per annum. The bill also amends sections 2A and 4 of the Governor-General Act 1974 to remove reference to the superannuation surcharge, which was discontinued in 2005. While the bill amends the act to remove the superannuation surcharge for future governors-general, it does not affect the continued application of the surcharge to those former governors-general to whom the surcharge applied. On 13 April this year it was announced that Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC would be appointed as Australia’s next and the first female Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery. Ms Quentin Bryce is a very special person and I am sure she will be an outstanding success as Governor-General. She has enjoyed a rich and dynamic career as a talented lawyer, academic and senior public servant and as a prolific and dedicated contributor to a range of community organisations. She has made choices throughout her professional and community life that show her strong sense of community responsibility, her commitment to advancing humanity, equity, the rights of women and children and the welfare of the family, and her willingness to share her skills and experiences to improve the lives of many. She is just the type of person that we need as Governor-General. She is a mother of five children and now a grandmother. The personal aspects of her life, along with her academic qualifications, her community contributions and the fact that she has been a parent and a grandparent, give her a very, very special perspective on life. She has had outstanding achievements with every single thing that she has done in her life. Her appointment as the first female Governor-General means that she will be an even greater role model to women than she has been to date. She was inaugural Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service, Office of the Status of Women; Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner; founding Chair and Chief Executive of the National Childcare Accreditation Council; Principal and Chief Executive Officer of The Women’s College, University of Sydney; member of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and lecturer in law at the University of Queensland. We all know that her work has been recognised and she was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988. In 2000, Ms Bryce received the Australian Sports Medal for her service to women’s cricket. I would like to spend a little time on the issue of her status as a role model and what that could mean for women’s sport. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I am not sure whether you are aware of this, but women’s sport does not enjoy the same profile as men’s sport. I was recently at a function and spoke to Cheryl Salisbury, the captain of the Australian women’s soccer team. I am sure the House will be surprised to learn that she has been unable to get sponsorship or receive support. For the whole time that she has been captain of the women’s soccer team, she has had to work. It has made her sport a part-time job. If we look at men’s sport, we see that our football players receive salaries in excess of what I earn as a member of parliament. I do not deny their right to receive it. I really enjoy watching the footy when I am at home or going to watch the Knights play in Newcastle, but I also enjoy watching women’s sport, including women’s soccer and basketball. I feel that they should have the same recognition that male participants in sport receive. Captains of Australian national sporting teams, be they male or female, should receive similar recognition. Our new Governor-General will be in a position to be a role model for women. Her support of sport in the past will be of benefit to other women involved in sport. I think that Quentin Bryce will probably be one of the finest, if not the finest, governors-general that this country has ever seen. It took the Rudd Labor government to appoint the first woman Governor-General. I really look forward to being in this parliament with her as Governor-General and to working with her over the next few years. 5647 20:17:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —I had endeavoured to get on the speakers list, but I was advised that it was being confined to a small number of members. But, when the honourable member for Shortland saw fit to jump up without being on the speakers list, I thought that the same rules ought to apply to the opposition. I will be quite brief because I realise my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has to sum up the bill and we have to move to private members’ business at 8.30 pm. I want to use my contribution to the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008 as a chance to place on record my great admiration for our retiring Governor-General, Major General Jeffery, and also for the role played by Mrs Marlena Jeffery, the wife of the Governor-General. They have done an absolutely outstanding job and I would like to wish them well in retirement. I would also like to congratulate Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce on her appointment as Governor-General of Australia. I must say that I think it is appropriate that the Governor-General’s salary is not increased during the term of the Governor-General and, thus, this bill is most timely, essential and appropriate. I think, however, the fact that so many people have praised Ms Bryce as being someone who has been chosen because she will be the first woman to be Governor-General is probably not giving Ms Bryce the credit that she deserves. She is a person who is eminently qualified to be Governor-General—not because she is a woman but because she is a qualified person to be Governor-General. She is not the token woman; she has not been chosen because she is a woman; she has been chosen because she is a competent person whose gender happens to be female. I have observed Her Excellency’s role as Governor of Queensland. She has performed in an outstanding manner. In her capacity, she has gone the length and breadth of Queensland—including, I suspect, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, to your own electorate of Maranoa. She is widely and well respected by everyone. I would, however, at this stage also like to mention that I believe that there is a defect in our Australian honours system in that we are not currently able to appropriately recognise the holders of vice-regal office. I think it is ridiculous that a person who is Governor of Queensland and about to be sworn in as Governor-General of Australia is known as simply Ms Bryce AC. I understand, of course, that the government has an objection to the former honours system, but under the Order of Australia we did have the position of Knight or Dame of the Order of Australia as part of our uniquely Australian honours system. Those awards were able to be made to a very small number of people who were eminently deserving of that level of recognition. I consider that it would be appropriate for the governors of the several states and also for the Governor-General of Australia to be properly recognised within our Australian honours system as holders of very high office. It would set the person in the federal sphere, the head of state of Australia, apart. It would mean we would be able to adequately respect that person’s position. For the holder of that office to be Mr, Mrs or Ms like the rest of us I think is sadly to demean the very high office to which those people have been appointed. Having said that, I would like to wish Major General Jeffery and Mrs Jeffery every happiness and success in their retirement. I would like to wish Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC and her husband, Mr Michael Bryce, every success in the new appointment. There is no doubt, in my view, that Quentin Bryce will be as effective a Governor-General as she has been the Governor of Queensland. 5648 20:22:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —in reply—I would like to thank all the members who have spoken on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008. It was obvious through the course of the debate that there have been many well-considered and thoughtful remarks. In summary, this bill will do two things. It will set an annual salary of $394,000 for the office of Governor-General during the tenure of Her Excellency Quentin Bryce. The bill will also remove references in the Governor-General Act 1974 to the superannuation surcharge, which was discontinued by the previous government in 2005. The Prime Minister announced on 13 April that Her Majesty the Queen had agreed to his recommendation that Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC be appointed as Australia’s next and, historically, first female Governor-General following the retirement of His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC, CVO, MC, after five years in office. Ms Bryce will be sworn in on 5 September 2008. She has an outstanding record of service to the entire Australian community and is highly qualified for the role of Governor-General. Ms Bryce’s commitment to the bush, to women and to Indigenous Australians is well known. As has been noted, Ms Bryce will be the 25th and first female Governor-General of Australia. I note that the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, has welcomed Ms Bryce’s appointment. In fact, it is obvious that members from both sides of the House, regardless of their views on the question of a republic, have welcomed the appointment of Ms Bryce. I also particularly welcome the member for Dickson’s comments about the high standard of the office of the Governor-General and his generous remarks about the qualities and suitability for the office of Ms Bryce. I am sure the member for Fadden’s assessment of Ms Bryce following his two-year-old son’s encounter will be borne out. Honourable members would be aware that section 3 of the Constitution precludes any change to the salary of a Governor-General during their term of office, which is why we are here tonight. Therefore, whenever a Governor-General is to be appointed, changes to the salary must be made by way of amendment to the Governor-General Act 1974 prior to this appointment being made. The Governor-General’s salary needs to be set at the time of appointment at a level that will be appropriate for the duration of the appointment. We have heard from both sides of the House that that is the assessment of this House. Although the appointment is at the Queen’s pleasure, a five-year term is considered usual. The salary proposed in the bill is consistent with the convention applying since 1974 under which the salary of the Governor-General has been set with respect to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I note that the Chief Justice’s salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, a body that is independent of government. The government has forecast the Chief Justice’s salary over the next five years using wages growth projections, and the salary that is set is approximately the salary which will be payable to the Chief Justice at around the midpoint of the Governor-General’s expected five-year term. In setting an appropriate salary, regard was also given to the Commonwealth funded pension that the Governor-General designate will be entitled to receive during her term in office from her previous employment by the Commonwealth including, for example, as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. This is at the request of the Governor-General designate and is in line with the precedent established by Sir William Deane in 1995 who asked that his salary as Governor-General be set to take account of the non-contributory pension he received under the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 after retiring from the High Court. The proposed salary of $394,000 per annum, combined with Ms Bryce’s existing pension, will maintain the traditional relativity between the Chief Justice and the Governor-General. While this bill amends the act to remove the superannuation surcharge for future governors-general, it does not affect the continuant application of the surcharge to those former governors-general to whom the surcharge applied. I want to make one point on behalf of the government concerning the retiring Governor-General. We would like to thank Major General Jeffery—and I am sure I speak for everyone on both sides of the House—and his wife, Marlena, for the contribution they have made. By the time Major General Jeffery retires from office in early September 2008, he will have served just over five years as Governor-General. Major General Jeffery has a long and admirable record of service to the community. He is patron to over 180 organisations. His interest in charities is particularly well known. In some of the personal conversations I have had with him as a member of the Executive Council, I have been amazed at his deep and abiding interest in these charities and at the great work that he and his wife, Marlena, do. I commend him on that work. We know that he served as Governor of Western Australia from 1993 to 2003. He has held a number of very senior posts in the Australian Army, including as the first commanding officer of the SAS Regiment. He served in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Military Cross. Major General Jeffery has served in the role of Governor-General with honour and distinction. On behalf of the community and this party I would like to thank him for his service to our country in his role as Governor-General and wish him, his wife, Marlena, and his family all the best for the future. On behalf of this place and the Australian community, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 5649 Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 20:28:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5649 Committees 5649 5649 5649 20:29:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee’s report, incorporating an additional comment, entitled Reforming our Constitution: a roundtable discussion together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —Reforming the Constitution: a roundtable discussion is the first report of the committee for this parliament. Despite dramatic change and growth in Australia as a nation over the last 100 years, Australia’s Constitution remains very much as it was originally drafted. Over that time there have been 44 referenda to amend the Australian Constitution, of which only eight have been successful. It is now over 30 years since there was a successful referendum to amend the Constitution. This is the longest period since Federation without even minor reform to the Constitution. In addition, the present decade may be the first since Federation during which there is no referendum held. To progress debate on constitutional reform, the committee conducted a roundtable discussion on 1 May 2008 with 14 eminent and expert participants: Professor Larissa Behrendt, Mr Peter Black, Professor Tony Blackshield, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Professor Greg Craven, Professor David Flint, Professor Michael Lavarch, Dr Lowitja O’Donoghue, Professor Kim Rubinstein, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Ms Khatija Thomas, Ms Anne Twomey, Professor George Williams and Professor Leslie Zines. The roundtable took place shortly after the 2020 Summit and consequently was able to apply some of the ideas raised in the governance stream of that forum to the context of constitutional reform. This report brings together those discussions and puts to the parliament and the public of Australia some key questions about what we want from our Constitution. The report considers various means of changing the operation of the Constitution. It is telling that formally amending the Constitution, the most transparent and publicly accountable means of change, has become the least often used. Another much criticised area of the Constitution is the disqualification provisions for members of parliament, particularly those relating to foreign allegiance and office-of-profit under the Crown. Before the last election, I was involved in giving advice to a number of people on these disqualification provisions and had direct experience of the lack of certainty in their interpretation. The roundtable considered the appropriateness of the three-year election cycle for the House of Representatives. All states, with the exception of Queensland, have now moved to four-year election cycles. Consideration of fixed four-year election terms should be on the Commonwealth agenda. Federal-state responsibilities and negotiating more cooperative federal-state approaches are other areas of constitutional contention. We need to consider reforms that will bring the Constitution more in line with current practice and enable cooperative federalism to operate effectively. One consequence of our Constitution’s separation of federal and state responsibilities is the proliferation of intergovernmental agreements. Of most concern is the lack of transparency and oversight applied to agreements of this nature. For this reason, the committee has recommended scrutiny of intergovernmental agreements by a parliamentary committee, as currently happens with international treaties. There have been calls for our Constitution to recognise the special position of Indigenous people as the first Australians and traditional custodians of the land. The roundtable considered proposals for this recognition to be included in the body of the Constitution or in a new preamble to the Constitution, which could encompass a broader statement of identity, aspiration and belonging for all Australian people. The government has committed to engaging in a process of public consultation around a charter of rights for Australia. While the roundtable and the committee did not make any recommendation regarding a bill of rights, this is another key issue in debate on constitutional reform. I am hoping Australians will engage more with our Constitution, recognise its importance as the founding document of our nation and debate how it might be reformed to be the document that shapes our nation into the next century. Public involvement in these issues is critical. I hope that this report challenges and assists in changing the current freeze on constitutional reform. I extend my thanks to all members of the secretariat team who assisted with the various tasks for this inquiry: Clare James and Jane Hearn, for their work with the roundtable; members of other committee secretariats who assisted in the drafting process—Dr Mark Rodrigues, John Carter and Mr Kevin Bodel; and especially the committee secretary, Dr. Anna Dacre. I thank the participants in the roundtable who engaged in robust and constructive debate to help bring these complex issues into a form that is meaningful and relevant to all Australians. Finally I thank all members of the committee for demonstrating their commitment to progressing constitutional reform in Australia. (Time expired) 5651 20:35:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Let me join with the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in supporting the tabling of this important report on reforming our Constitution. On constitutional issues, I suspect that the chairman and I might well be very many kilometres apart. I am a constitutional monarchist and I strongly support the essential principles of our Constitution, as no doubt does the honourable member for Isaacs, but on certain issues we might have a different approach. When I first heard about this proposed roundtable discussion I had a modicum of concern that it might be a slow boat to republicanism by stealth. I want to place on record my admiration for the chairman and the way in which he conducted the roundtable discussion. We were able to attract participants of an extraordinarily high calibre. The discussions were particularly interesting and focused on what was attainable rather than on what was necessarily desirable. When we looked at the mechanisms for changing our Constitution, particularly the double majority requirement whereby a majority of citizens in a majority of states must sign up to a constitutional change for it to actually occur, the participants in the forum did not state what they would like but looked at what was possible. There seemed to be general acceptance that removing the requirement that there be a majority of people in a majority of states would be seen as an attempt by politicians to subvert the constitutional process and that any proposed amendment of the Constitution to take away that safeguard would undoubtedly be rejected by the Australian people. In the discussion it became very clear to me—and it came up in much of the comment made by the participants—that if there is to be constitutional change then the Australian people ought to have an ownership of the process of constitutional change. At the present time we have had constitutional conventions, we have had a debate on whether Australia should become a republic and we have had motions put forward through the federal parliament by way of bills to change the Constitution. I suppose one of the benefits we have as Australians is that, as a nation, we are sceptics. When people are pushing a change, our first reaction is to ask: ‘Why on earth are these people pushing this particular change?’ What became very clear to me personally and what came though loudly and clearly in the committee discussions was that if there is to be any sensible consideration of changes to the Constitution then the community must enjoy a sense of ownership of the process. There is no doubt in 2008, well over 100 years from when the Australian colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, that if you look at the Constitution today you can see that it is not operating in the way that the founding fathers intended it to. And there is no way that the founding fathers, even with the greatest foresight in the world, could have predicted the needs of Australia in 2008 compared with the needs of Australia in 1901, which then became the Commonwealth of Australia. There has been, by a series of different processes, a concentration of power at the centre. Whether or not you think that is healthy or unhealthy is a matter for individuals to decide, but the reality is that, largely through constitutional interpretation, a referral of powers from the states to the Commonwealth, cooperative schemes and the power of the purse, the Australian government does in fact have a greater say than it did. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Does the member for Isaacs wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) 20:40:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 5652 5652 5652 20:40:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee’s report entitled Better shareholders—better company: shareholder engagement and participation in Australia, together with the evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I am pleased to table the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into shareholder engagement and participation in Australia. Best practice corporate governance in Australia’s companies depends on shareholders engaging in a meaningful way with company boards and holding them to account through company votes. This requires good channels of communication between companies and shareholders through clear company reporting and effective face-to-face discussion. It also requires an effective and transparent company voting system that allows for informed decision-making by shareholders. The committee found that the regulatory framework for shareholder engagement in Australia is generally adequate. However, there is room for improvement. The committee also found areas where companies themselves could be encouraged to do better in this area. The committee heard that one of the main problems for companies wishing to engage with institutional shareholders is the complexity of many share ownership arrangements. These arrangements, including equity swaps and contracts for difference, make it difficult for companies to identify beneficial share owners. The committee encourages institutional shareholders to make direct contact with companies they invest in. It also recommends that the government consider amending the tracing provisions in the Corporations Act to include derivative instruments. Some institutional investors also felt that the ASX’s continuous disclosure requirements prevent them from engaging with shareholders on sustainability issues. The committee has responded by recommending that the ASX clarify the scope of their continuous disclosure requirements to allow companies to safely respond to queries about long-term environmental, social and governance matters. Communication between companies and smaller retail shareholders can also be improved. Shareholders continue to struggle with dense, barely comprehensible company reports. To encourage companies to better tailor their reporting to the needs of shareholders, the committee recommends that the mandated concise report be scrapped in favour of a voluntary, clear, short report. We have also recommended that ASIC establish best practice guidelines for clear and concise company reporting. Companies’ annual general meetings could also be more shareholder-friendly. AGMs should be at convenient times, allow reasonable opportunity for discussion and questions, and best utilise technology to reach shareholders. The committee recommends that ASIC also establish best practice guidelines for company AGMs. The committee has also recognised that predatory share price offers have a negative effect on the shareholders’ views of the companies they invest in. We recommend that access to share registers should be limited to the details of those with substantial holdings, except in certain legitimate circumstances. Disclosure around short selling and margin lending can also be improved. The loophole allowing covered short sales to go undisclosed needs to be fixed. Institutional investors should also make sure that they are disclosing their stock-lending policies to members. The committee has also suggested that the rules governing the disclosure of director-shareholders’ exposure to possible margin calls are inadequate. The government should clarify the uncertainty over the materiality of directors’ margin loans and the circumstances in which disclosure to the market is required. The integrity of company voting systems is also important. Companies should implement electronic proxy voting systems to provide a proper audit trail, and the Corporations Act needs to be amended to prevent cherry-picking of proxy votes. The committee also recommends that the government investigate the best way to prevent vote renting. A good way to address the problems with the integrity of proxy voting is for companies to allow absentee shareholders to vote directly. The committee recommends that the ASX encourage direct voting via an ‘if not, why not?’ provision in its corporate governance principles and recommendations. As well as being fairly conducted, shareholder voting needs to be informed. The committee is of the view that shareholders would benefit from being able to vote after deliberating on discussions at company meetings and recommends that consideration be given to postponing voting until after the close of company AGMs. Another area that is open to improvement is the way companies nominate candidates and conduct board elections. Too often, directors become entrenched on boards and potential quality candidates are excluded. The committee recommends that ASIC develop a best practice guide to companies’ constitutional arrangements for nominating and electing directors. Finally, the committee believes it is not appropriate for director-shareholders to be able to vote on their own remuneration packages and recommends that the Corporations Act be amended to exclude them from doing so. My thanks go to all the people who made submissions and gave evidence to the committee during the inquiry, as well as the committee secretariat for their hard work and assistance and all the committee members for their diligence and participation in this very important inquiry. 5654 20:45:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to support the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Better shareholders—better company. I commend the report to the government. The report has 21 recommendations that cover a raft of issues to do with shareholders and improving shareholders’ work within corporations and the Corporations Act. A number of the clear recommendations that came through include abolishing the 100-member rule, where 100 shareholders can call for an annual general meeting. A range of evidence was heard with respect to the electronic proxy voting system and the need for such a voting system to be rigorous, to be electronically based and to have a strong audit trail to enable those who wish to use a proxy for voting to do so securely and quickly without the hassle and the contentious issues with current paper based voting systems. Likewise, the committee heard evidence that strongly looked to stop the cherry-picking of proxy voting, whereby someone at the meeting may have a range of proxy votes but may elect to use only some and not all of them. The issue of vote renting also needs to be addressed. Participants in the review also raised the issue of market manipulation through naked short-selling and the need for full disclosure of those who actually hold stock within a company. Currently, if you own more than five per cent of stock in a company, the Corporations Act requires disclosure of that unless the stock is held in sophisticated derivatives, whereby companies and company owners may actually not know who holds substantial amounts of their stock. Likewise, I support the chair in saying that director-shareholders should not be voting for their remuneration. I commend the report to the government. It will bring better shareholders, better engagement and stronger corporations within the nation. I thank the many people that contributed. I thank those who attended the public hearings and those who put in lengthy submissions and explained and spent time with the committee. I commend the report to the government. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The time allotted for statements on the report has expired. Does the member for Oxley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:48:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 5654 5654 5654 20:48:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee’s report of the inquiry into the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2006-07, together with the evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HWR Parke, Melissa, MP Ms PARKE —I am pleased to present the committee’s report on the first annual report by the Integrity Commissioner. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, or ACLEI, was established on 30 December 2006 for the purpose of providing independent oversight of Commonwealth agencies that have a law enforcement function, and the Integrity Commissioner’s 2006-07 report covers the period from the commission’s inception to 30 June 2007. This first annual report provides a review of the process and history that led to the creation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which is of course the first Commonwealth integrity agency of its kind. In receiving the annual report, the committee was satisfied that it complied with all the reporting requirements. The inquiry has allowed the committee to satisfy itself that the development of the structures and processes that enable ACLEI to conduct its work is well advanced. The committee noted the observations in the annual report on the staged implementation approach to developing ACLEI’s operation and determining its workload requirements and therefore to assessing the adequacy of its resources. ACLEI’s pressing need for additional resources to undertake its increasing workload has been recognised, I am pleased to say, by the provision in the 2008 budget of $7.5 million in additional funding over four years. ACLEI is a significant addition to Australia’s anticorruption apparatus. It was established to strengthen this apparatus both at the structural level and at what could be described as a cultural level. The commissioner’s annual report makes the point that ACLEI was created to address the risk of corruption rather than in response to identified corruption practices. This pre-emptive health and maintenance approach to fighting corruption is to be commended. As they say, the best time to check your gutters is in summer. Indeed, under section 15 of the relevant act, which sets out the functions of the Integrity Commissioner, one of the commissioner’s responsibilities is to ‘maintain and improve the integrity of staff members of law enforcement agencies’. From my experience of working to establish the Ethics Office within the United Nations, I am a strong believer in mainstreaming ethics and values into staff and management training and advice within the context of any relevant agency or institution as a necessary and effective part of anticorruption efforts. It is critical to recognise the crucial role of both people and processes in ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions and to remember that, without good institutions, good people will fail, and without good people good institutions are ineffective. Looking forward, it is perhaps this creation of a culture of integrity aspect of ACLEI’s function that in time will be considered the best argument for extending ACLEI’s current jurisdiction to other Commonwealth agencies with a law enforcement function. Such an extension is contemplated by section 224 of the act and is noted in the committee’s report. I also note the Integrity Commissioner’s comments with respect to the positive relationship that already exists between ACLEI and, on the one hand, those Commonwealth agencies under ACLEI’s jurisdiction—that is, the AFP and the ACC—and, on the other hand, the four state based law enforcement integrity agencies. It is to be anticipated that this Commonwealth-state interaction will benefit agencies at both levels. I would like to take this opportunity to endorse the remarks made in the Senate by the chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Senator George Campbell, and to thank my fellow committee members and the secretariat for their work. I thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee. I want to commend and congratulate the Integrity Commissioner, Mr Philip Moss, and his staff for their work and, of course, I recognise and value the important contribution made by Professor John McMillan, who was the acting Integrity Commissioner for the first six months of ACLEI’s existence. Finally, I would particularly like to acknowledge the fine work of Senator Campbell in leading the committee this year. 5656 20:53:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —Like the member for Fremantle, I am delighted to speak on this first report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, or ACLEI as it is known. I have joined the committee in opposition and this is my first committee in many, many years. It is proving very interesting and I would like to thank the secretariat of the committee for their excellent work and the chairman of the committee for his good work as well as ACLEI, who appeared before the committee to provide very useful and interesting evidence which forms the basis of this report of this parliament. There are some concerns about the operation of ACLEI and the support that has been provided to ACLEI by the government. That is what I would like to speak on in the five minutes that I have to address the House tonight. I am particularly concerned, as is the opposition, that ACLEI is not being funded with the resources that are necessary to ensure that the overseer of both the Australian Crime Commission and the AFP has the necessary resources to with confidence be able to guarantee the public and the government that corruption allegations or matters referred to it are able to be entirely thoroughly investigated. In evidence to the committee, Commissioner Moss did say: ... you start with our present allocation and then the assumption is that over time, as our capacity develops and as the need becomes clear, further resources would be given to us. The committee noted in its report that ACLEI is operating at a loss in 2007-08 of $0.523 million—$523,000—and has received permission from the government to operate at such a loss. In the budget just announced it was provided with another $750,000 for this financial year. As the resources are needed and the requirement is growing, I would have thought that the government would have committed much greater resources to ACLEI in this budget and going forward than we have seen in the budget in May. In fact, the former shadow minister for homeland security, Arch Bevis, made those points before the election but, as with so many promises, once the election was out of the way, it went the way of the wind. Commissioner Moss also made the point that there had been a change in the way that matters were being referred to his commission. He said that there were four areas where the work is growing for ACLEI, making it harder for them to exist with the tiny staff that they have now. Not only are there now 45 corruption issues that have been referred to ACLEI in the last couple of years but there is a change in the nature of the work they do. The committee noted that they are now more likely to be involved in contemporaneous and even imminent matters and that those issues demand more timely assessment by ACLEI. It also said that previously many of the cases notified to ACLEI by the ACC and the AFP had been subject to at least preliminary investigation, but that is no longer the case. The burden of original assessment has shifted towards ACLEI. It is also the case that ACLEI have developed their access to more information sources enabling better assessment of an issue before it has grown and as a consequence they are taking longer to be able to assess them properly. Finally, because their operational knowledge is growing as a new agency they are able to undertake broader and more meaningful inquiries than they previously were able to. The committee expressed its concern about the impact of this increased workload on the organisation’s capacity and indicated that we thought that the government should provide greater resources to ACLEI in order for it to be able to do its job properly. The former commissioner for ACLEI, Commissioner McMillan, indicated that at least 50 extra staff needed to be employed by ACLEI. I note that in this budget there are sufficient resources for three extra staff but the former commissioner indicated that at least 50 extra staff were needed. So ACLEI is dwarfed in size by the Victorian and New South Wales agencies that do a similar job and yet it has to cover about 6½ thousand AFP employees let alone the ACC and now it is reaching into other aspects of the government. So the committee, while it does support greater reach for ACLEI’s activities, has indicated that ACLEI needs a much higher resourcing for staff for it to be able to do its job successfully. (Time expired) 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The time allotted for statements on the report has expired. 5657 5657 5657 20:58:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I present the committee’s report of the inquiry into the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2006-07, together with the evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —The ultimate objective of the committee’s examination is to evaluate the performance of the ACC, identify its strengths and weaknesses and isolate any issues that may have hindered the effectiveness of the ACC. Overall, the committee is satisfied that the ACC appears to be working efficiently and effectively and it is pleased with the predominantly professional manner with which the commission has conducted itself. However, I note one point of concern for the committee resulting from a failure of the ACC to communicate with the committee concerning a matter within the committee’s area of legislative responsibility. I take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of openness between the ACC and the committee to maintain the integrity of the parliament’s administrative function. The committee has made two recommendations to parliament in its examination which, if adopted, will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the ACC. The first of these relates to the inclusion of the Commissioner of Taxation on the ACC board. This is a recommendation that has been made by this committee previously, in the examinations of the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 annual reports. The government indicated in 2006 that it was giving due consideration to the committee’s recommendation. However, since that time we have not received a more substantive response, which is rather disappointing. The appointment of the Commissioner of Taxation to the board of the ACC is a logical progression of the relationship between the Australian Taxation Office and the board. Many of the matters brought before the board for its consideration require specialist knowledge of the Commissioner of Taxation; in fact, ACC intelligence resulted in $75 million of tax assessments being conducted. The ACC’s report into organised crime underlined further the value of the close working relationship between the ATO and the board. Accordingly, I strongly endorse the committee’s recommendation that the government amend the Australian Crime Commission Act to include the Commissioner of Taxation on the ACC board. The second of the committee’s recommendations pertains to the government’s response to the Trowell report, and in particular the behaviour of witnesses under examination from the ACC. The committee heard that certain individuals are employing delaying tactics, not only to advance serious organised crime but also to frustrate the efforts of ACC operations. The committee was greatly concerned to hear of these occurrences and has requested that the government expedite its response to the Trowell report, particularly its recommendation that the commission be conferred with the power to certify persons for contempt for not fulfilling their statutory obligations. I wish to acknowledge the significant results that the ACC, its officers and its partner agencies have produced in 2006-07. In particular, I call attention to the remarkable figure of a massive illicit drug seizure with an estimated street value of more than $1.5 billion, and 429 charges laid in the reporting period. I understand that the investigations into these seizures are still being conducted, so that number is sure to increase, and I congratulate the ACC for its diligence and tenacity in eliminating the drugs scourge from our streets. I have no doubt of the important role the ACC plays in law enforcement in Australia. I am confident that the aforementioned recommendations will, if implemented, assist the ACC in its ongoing efforts to combat organised crime. Finally, I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the committee, Senator Steve Hutchins, and my fellow committee members, particularly those present in the House, including the member for Werriwa, who will be speaking next, and the member for Sturt, who spoke previously. We are obviously working very closely, in a bipartisan way, to do our best to ensure that we are one voice fighting crime. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr Jacqueline Dewar, Dr Robin Clough, Monika Sheppard and Jill Manning of the secretariat for their work on this report and for the continued support they provide to the committee. I commend the report. 5658 21:04:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I am happy to follow the member for La Trobe in speaking on the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. He is a very good deputy chair of this committee and, being a former police officer, understands full well some of the issues that go directly to law enforcement. This report is on the Australian Crime Commission’s annual report, which does require the oversight of the joint committee. I think it is fair to say that the committee agrees with the increased efficiency and operational services as reported by the commission. Generally, the commission has continued to refine and improve its intelligence and information systems and services, which are well received by clients of the commission—namely, the respective police forces around the country and the other law enforcement agencies which subscribe to the ACC. In terms of the operations of the Australian Crime Commission, it is worth reporting that the ACC has significantly disrupted and deterred much serious organised crime activity over the past 12 months with its conducting of six special intelligence operations, four special investigations and three intelligence operations and task forces. In particular it is worth mentioning the enhancement of Australian criminal intelligence databases, the production of the Organised crime in Australia product, the launch of the high-quality Illicit drug data report and the establishment of the National Indigenous Violence and Child Abuse Intelligence Task Force. These things have taken much of the time of ACC personnel. I agree fully with the two recommendations made by the joint parliamentary committee. As the member for La Trobe indicated, they were made on a bipartisan basis, supported by all members of the committee. I would also like to join with him in expressing my concern about the general lack of communications on some aspects between the commission itself and the oversighting body, that being the committee. I think it has got to be understood by the Australian Crime Commission that it has very special and extraordinary powers. It has coercive powers, powers which are not common in most law enforcement agencies. But what goes with those powers is a great degree of responsibility. As a consequence, the decision was taken that part of that responsibility for the exercise of these powers would be the general oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC. The committee is not there as some form of bureaucratic appendage—a box that must be ticked once a year. It is really there to fulfil, I suppose, those extraordinary powers that this parliament in its wisdom decided to vest in the premier crime fighting organisation in this country. It seems to me that what has occurred over the last 12 months is that perhaps we were not taken into their confidence. We are not there as investigators, we are not there to simply ask questions to gain information out of these professional investigators. We are there to fulfil our role on behalf of the community. From my point of view, and supported by my colleagues, I think there was a slight tendency for the organisation to think, ‘If you do not ask, you do not receive.’ I am sure that that is now being addressed. The committee has certainly made some significant comments to that effect, and I certainly lend my weight to those. I would like to comment on our secretariat, Dr Jacqueline Dewar, Dr Robyn Clough, Ms Monika Sheppard and Mrs Jill Manning. We are fortunate to have a very talented, dedicated group of professional officers serving on this committee. These people work very hard to make us look probably better than what we are. They certainly put a lot of time and effort in, and I admire their professionalism. We are very lucky as a parliament to have access to people such as these for our parliamentary committee activities. I think where possible their effort should be appropriately recognised. I commend the report to the House. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The time allotted for statements on the report has expired. 5659 Bills R3035 5659 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt. 5659 21:09:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —The Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 is a private member’s bill which seeks to overturn the Rudd Labor government’s decision to means test the solar rebate of up to $8,000 per household. The previous coalition government raised the existing solar rebate from $4,000 per unit to a maximum of $8,000 per unit as a budget measure in 2007. Demand for solar panels under the rebate subsequently tripled. On 9 May 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard stated on Sunrise that: As many households as want it can have it ... On budget night 2008, the Rudd Labor government issued a non-reviewable administrative order which introduced an immediate means test with a maximum threshold of $100,000 income per household as the cut-off point to qualify for the solar rebate. The Rudd Labor government’s own modelling indicates that this will reduce demand for the rebate by two-thirds. The general industry experience has been in line with the Rudd Labor government’s expectation of a two-thirds drop in demand. There are two effects: first, small business has already begun to lose both business and jobs; second, as a system generally costs between $15,000 and $20,000 per household, this outlay is beyond the reach of most households. The decision was in breach of Labor’s election promise to maintain the rebate and there was no consultation with or warning to industry. The decision has created anger within the small business sector and has already led to job losses. Importantly, it has undermined the Rudd Labor government’s climate change credentials, its standing with small business and confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett. Against that background, the save our solar bill is a private member’s bill designed to remove the means test on solar panels by making the government’s administrative order a disallowable instrument. This decision of the Rudd Labor government is in the process of destroying this small business sector. It must be reversed and this bill seeks to reverse this disastrous decision. Phil May of Solartec has summed up the effects of this decision: They have totally destroyed it— the solar industry— absolutely and totally ruined it. The Managing Director of Conergy, Roger Meads, has said: Following the government’s solar means test announcement, Australian families have now cancelled 80 per cent of their solar system orders due to this cost being prohibitive, meaning less solar panels on roofs. The Communications Director of the Clean Energy Council said on 20 May: The government has killed the industry stone cold dead. She also said: We’ve been blindsided. The industry was not consulted and the consultation we had was not about this. These are just some of the many examples of hardship experienced by solar panel operators, installers and makers in Australia. Their stories are numerous. They have come through the doors of my office, they have written, they have faxed and they have phoned, and their hardship is real. That is why we have introduced this bill: first, to keep faith with Australian families who want to put solar panels on their roofs; and, second, to protect people such as Phil May and Sophia Moody who own and operate a solar small business. I hope and ask that the government does not gag this bill but allows genuine debate in this the House of the people on a topic which is important to the people so it can serve its role as a parliament for the people of Australia and protect the solar industry. I commend the Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 to the House. Bill read a first time. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—In accordance with a standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 5660 Private Members' Business 5660 5660 21:15:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I move: That the House: acknowledges the important contributions of cleaners across Australia as recognised through the International Day for Cleaners in June 2008; recognises that cleaners require jobs that provide them with basic economic security, enough time to do their jobs properly, and respect in their workplaces as essential elements of these reforms; supports the call for a fair go for cleaners across Australia; and congratulates all cleaners for the work they have done in promoting the ‘Clean Start’ campaign and the rights of cleaners across Australia. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —I second the motion. DZY Georganas, Steve, MP Mr GEORGANAS —I rise to draw the attention of the House and the government to, and to focus for the next few minutes on, one of the most poorly-paid groupings within the Australian economy, and I am speaking of cleaners, people who quietly go about their business in the background or after hours, doing their work in such a way that allows all others to get on with the matters at hand. While we are cosily tucked away in our beds at night, you will see a flurry of activity in this place and in office blocks all around Australia of dedicated people who ensure that when we turn up in the morning to the office it is clean and it is tidy, and we can get on with our work. Sunday 15 June was International Day for Cleaners. It is a day celebrated by cleaners. International Cleaners Day was first celebrated in the United States when cleaners campaigned for better conditions and exercised their democratic rights. The day is an annual occasion used to highlight the plight of cleaners round the world—their working conditions, remuneration and the hours they work. Many people may not be particularly interested in such things, considering it all just a little too mundane, perhaps menial, tedious or insignificant, but for the people concerned it means a lot. For the people that work their butts off to ensure that we have clean offices—and, as I said, office blocks around the country are spotless every morning—let us take a few minutes to stop and take a look at the lives of the many, many people around the nation. It is said that the average city office cleaner is required to clean 1,000 square metres, a space equivalent to four suburban houses, each and every hour. Hectic pace too often means workplace injury. In New South Wales in 2006, for example, cleaners had double the injury rate of other workers. Shifts are usually short—maybe three hours—and at times least likely to be family friendly. They may be at 3 o’clock in the morning or at 10 o’clock at night or at any time in the evening at which families usually like to come together, if they possibly can. This is something I can particularly appreciate. My mother was a cleaner, and I am very proud of the work that she did. She cleaned office blocks in Adelaide’s CBD for many years. And, while I appreciate that she was working her heart out to bring money into the household—a lot of hours for not a lot of money, mind you—I also appreciate that families need time together. Children need time with their parents and parents live to spend time with their children. In my case, my mother did not do it because she particularly liked the work. She was committed to working for the benefit of her family and took what work she could, as did my father, as do hundreds of thousands of other Australians who perform casual work or are contract employees around the country every day. Forgoing lifestyle, they work the hours they are offered without job security or great financial incentive, with the hope of making life just that little bit better for themselves and their families. Within Australia, the cleaning industry has been slimming down as a result of fierce competition within the sector. The slimming has been targeted at the cleaners themselves, of course, consisting of what we see as ‘more work, less time’—the double whammy. There is a campaign being undertaken within the industry by cleaners and their professional associations. It is called the Clean Start: Fair Deal for Cleaners campaign. The focus of the campaign consists of seven key elements: first, fair hours—in other words, replacing those very short shifts with those of a minimum of four hours, and opportunities for shifts of six hours where possible; second, fair workloads—the introduction of fair and reasonable, should I say ‘responsible’ and transparent contracting practices throughout the industry that factor in civilised workloads for cleaning staff; third, fair pay—improved pay rates over time toward a national rate and a minimum shift rate; fourth, fair job security, as with the completion of each and every contract cleaners face acute job insecurity; fifth, fair treatment—improving training and occupational health and safety and getting some respect, of course; sixth, fair leave, where they have portable long service leave across the industry; and, finally and very importantly, fair rights—effective dispute resolution procedures to help solve workplace issues and ensure cleaners’ rights to join and be represented by their professional association, generally the LHMU. Fair Hours has been the principal focus of International Cleaners Day this year. The campaign had some success. Fifty-one contract cleaning companies have adopted the Clean Start: Responsible Contracting Principles. This is where cleaning companies that have the contracts work together with the workers to ensure that they take on these responsible work practices. This is a very good start and it is necessary for the industry to establish itself on a sustainable footing. Sustainability is a bit of a catchword these days. It crops up in discussions concerning the agricultural sector, the building industry, the automotive industry and even power generation. But sustainability is also relevant to more discreet, less obvious and less powerful industries such as cleaning and the employees who keep the industry going. Workplace relations are important. The demands that are placed on the workforce cannot reasonably be expected to create a situation wherein employees have a high risk of injury and burnout, resulting in the loss of personnel to the industry and the economic consequences that injured cleaners can be forced to endure. Sustainability is something that industry does not embrace voluntarily. Usually there is a cost to be factored in, a cost of perhaps a little less sweat and a little less productivity, a slightly higher cost for the same work performed, and maybe a greater effort made to accommodate the needs of the workforce. The needs of the workforce must be taken into consideration when developing work practices, especially given the circumstances in which cleaners work and the hours that cleaners are on the job. As I was saying, it is not just industry that can have a hand in improving the sustainability of the industry and its workforce. We all know from the last few years how much a government can influence the nature of workplace relations. If we look back over the last few years, we can see what sort of a climate can be created by a government, a climate in which perhaps greedy people, or those who are not there to do the right thing, can bore their way into Commonwealth legislation and the workplace relations framework, ensuring that people do not get to exercise their full rights. But we should also remember that government is a highly substantial market for cleaning contractors, and government departments are highly significant in the establishment of contracts that point not only toward polished floors but also to a decent work environment for the cleaners themselves and the hours they work. The campaign this year, the focus being on fair hours, is a campaign that all of us can take part in. You might ask, ‘How can we take part in it?’ It is a campaign that anyone who has something to say about a contract, anyone who has some input into a contracting policy or anyone who has the opportunity to express their views on a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay can become involved in and promote for the betterment of the cleaners and the industry’s sustainability in its own right. I ask the House to consider this motion in the context of the Fair Hours campaign—to consider the working conditions of the people concerned, their hours, the times of the night they work and the degree on which we rely on their meticulous standards and attention to detail in the performance of their work. Australia is not a nation built on a tradition of using people, chewing people up and spitting them out, or of taking what you can get out of people irrespective of the cost that they will have to endure. We as a nation are much more than that: fairer, considerate and supportive of our fellow Australians in one of the few truly egalitarian societies the world has to enjoy. This motion acknowledges the important contribution of cleaners. I would also acknowledge the important contribution of the cleaners in this House, who turn up every morning in the early hours to ensure that our offices are spotless. Those of us who come in early in the morning see them just finishing their shifts. Most of them have been up all night. Many of them are from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They work in one of the lowest paid industries that is offered. (Time expired) 5663 21:25:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I would like to begin my remarks where my colleague the member for Hindmarsh left off by thanking the cleaners who clean this building and look after us so well in our offices. As has been pointed out, cleaners are very much an invisible workforce. They come in the night or the very early morning and they disappear, leaving our workplaces fresh, spick and span and ready for a new day. We thank them very much. I do not know the names of the people who clean my office here, but I would like to thank Michelle, who cleans my office in Albury. I understand she is a single mother with two children, working in her own business and having a red-hot go working, I think, well over 40 hours a week. I suspect that she has trouble getting others to work with her, given the nature of what she does and the very strong job market in the town where we live in Albury. Cleaners deserve acknowledgement of their hard work, and I think that is the No. 1 thing that I would like to recognise today. In our very cerebral activities, a lot of what we do is quite comfortable and the heart rate does not necessarily increase—or not from exertion, anyway. We do not always realise that cleaning is a strenuous, difficult, backbreaking task and, depending on the circumstances, can have some serious occupational health and safety aspects. So a safe workplace is absolutely vital for the cleaners who work in Australia. We have traditionally seen problems with attracting people to the cleaning industry. There is a concern that some businesses cannot get enough cleaners at all. Of course, it is not perceived to be an attractive industry, due to the hard nature of the work. The shifts are often short—two to four hours—and they vary throughout all hours of the day and night. In looking at the Fair Work hours component of this year’s campaign, I understand that, in many ways, two hours is not enough, and to get yourself ready for two hours work a night will not suit many people and the amount you earn will be insufficient. But we have to be careful that we do not institute something that is far too inflexible and that we therefore do not sacrifice the flexibility that makes this type of casual work more suitable for some. We need to better understand the needs of all parties and individual responsibility in making arrangements in this way. But, having said that, I recognise that many cleaners are migrant workers. They are women from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They often have dependent children living at home. Cleaning has been one of those industries that has offered them a prime way to enter the mainstream workforce and to build a future for themselves through hard work. Of course, women—particularly, as I said, migrant women—are not always in a good position to negotiate with an employer, so I accept the points made by the members opposite and, as shadow minister for women, am very concerned that we do look after women at all levels of society. The wages for cleaning will not surprise anyone. They are rather low: $15 to $18 an hour compared with $13.75 as the minimum wage. Some other statistics are that one in four cleaners say they have inadequate time to do their work and that one in five cleaners had to use the same mops for the toilets as other areas. Some cleaners were told to cut costs, including cutting their sponges in half to save supplies. That is not good enough. Conditions at work are vitally important. The impact of these conditions have led to lack of training, security risks, an unstable and transient workforce and occupational health and safety problems. So let us remember this international day for cleaners. I think this day has been going for four years now. I think it should continue into the future. I think we should take time to think, as I said, of the invisible workforce that looks after us so well and remember that it is a lot more fun, if I can use that word, cleaning your own house, your own car and your own things than it is working for somebody else. Debate interrupted. 5664 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 5664 5664 21:30:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —With the melting of the polar icecaps and the bleaching of coral on the Great Barrier Reef caused by climate change, we have now come to the road of no return where we have no choice but to put the environment first or lose these great natural wonders. Even at the local level in my electorate of La Trobe environmental experts are greatly concerned with what impact climate change will have on the Dandenong Ranges. With even a small temperature rise, dormant and new weed species are expected to flourish and worse still there is a likelihood of wildfires. Human impact on our environment is causing the greatest effect on our climate. Transport, especially the use of cars, is a major source of emissions. The rapid population growth of Melbourne’s outer east and the rising cost of fuel mean that public transport is an increasingly important issue for my constituents of La Trobe. Trains from Belgrave and Pakenham are groaning under the weight of more and more commuters. Residents of the Dandenong Ranges in particular bemoan the lack of public transport that makes owning a car in the hills a virtual necessity if you want to get anywhere, as the state Labor government has failed to provide regular local bus services. La Trobe is the classic case of why there are so many cars on our roads. Quite simply, many La Trobe residents have no choice but to use a car. They are forced to use a car simply because they have not got the option of a reliable, safe, timely and extensive public transport service. Locals are really hurting with the price of petrol now over $1.70 and fast heading towards $2.00, and it may go higher. The Victorian Labor government, like their federal Labor counterparts, pays lip service to every green fad, yet it has done absolutely nothing as simple and as practical as improving public transport infrastructure, which will get people off our roads and into more efficient and less-carbon-emitting transport. I have raised the importance of several local rail projects numerous times, including duplication of the Belgrave train line between Ferntree Gully and Belgrave, providing this project passes an environmental impact statement. There is no time to waste on starting work on the triplication of the line between Ringwood and Ferntree Gully, on expanded rail services to Pakenham and on the train line to Rowville, yet the Victorian Labor government continues to ignore the push for greater investment in public transport. As you are aware, the federal Labor government proposes to implement a national cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme after the receipt of the final report by Professor Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut’s interim report was delivered in February 2008; however, it did not refer to the role public transport may play in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In August 2006, the National Emissions Trading Taskforce released a discussion paper on the possible design for an emissions trading scheme, but there was no mention of public transport. I believe that when a carbon emissions trading system is established in Australia emitters should be able to offset their emissions by buying permits, with the proceeds being re-invested in public transport infrastructure. Increasing the use of public transport has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector, for instance, by enabling carbon credits to be created by the emissions saved by bus companies converting their fleets from diesel to natural gas or LPG, or by train companies increasing their levels of patronage. In the meantime, as the carbon trading scheme is being rolled out, the Australian government should immediately set about improving Australia’s public transport infrastructure by investing a significant portion of the $20 billion infrastructure fund in creating a first-class public transport scheme. This can happen right now. No time is left to waste. I believe that a new carbon trading system will provide a wonderful opportunity to inject investment into Australia’s public transport infrastructure and it must be incorporated into any future Australian carbon trading system. 5665 5665 21:34:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —It is more than two years since a private member’s motion called on the Howard government to use the Council of Australian Governments to deal with the issue of young people in nursing homes. The Council of Australian Governments agreed on a proposal to fund and develop a $244 million program to begin to address this very issue. It is 16 months since I made a statement in this House on this same issue. There are still issues with the provision of these essential services across state and territory borders and there is still an appalling lack of specialised care for young people living in nursing homes, which are primarily geared towards looking after the elderly. Two of my constituents care for their son at home. It is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. This young man was stricken by an acquired brain injury requiring continual intensive physiotherapy and rehabilitation and, with their son having a long life expectancy, the parents are engaged in an open-ended commitment. It is done with love and it is also done with care. But the reason his parents and many others in the community have chosen this path of care is the lack of facilities that offer respite and that can give the level of intensive therapy and care required. In the case of my constituents, their search for a facility offering the adequate level of care they were looking for brought them to the Australian Capital Territory. But the sting in the tail is that because they are New South Wales residents the cost must be met by the patient and his family. It is an expensive proposition for them and, of course, for most families. The division of responsibility between the states and the Commonwealth is such that young people with disabilities requiring a high level of care are caught between the two—a Commonwealth carrying responsibility for nursing homes and the states with carriage for disabilities. The need for respite or long-term care and intensive therapy for young people in care appear to be mutually exclusive. Nursing homes, whose primary role is to provide care for the elderly, are not able to provide the necessary intensive therapy and rehabilitation that a young person with a need for a high level of care may require. While nursing homes can offer respite and long-term care for a young person, the lack of specialised care condemns that young person to a life with little optimism. The families look further afield, sometimes as far as the Australian Capital Territory, to meet the needs of their loved ones, and even then it is not always satisfactory. If a young person is in need of medical treatment they go to a doctor or hospital and, once treated, will hopefully have a full recovery. The treatment appears relatively seamless because the bureaucracy behind that treatment is relatively seamless. The bureaucracy of the relevant state or territory is entirely responsible for the treatment. However, what happens if there is no recovery? That young person may end up in a nursing home. The primary role of a nursing home is to care for the elderly and they are not geared to provide intensive therapy and rehabilitation for a young person. Worse still, the division of responsibilities between state and Commonwealth governments is reflected in the differences between nursing care—and the facilities that provide it—and care for the disabled, who require intensive therapy and rehabilitation. The care is not seamless. The result is that patients and their carers are being tied up in bureaucratic red tape and buck-passing. This is an intolerable situation which leads to more despair. Carers must have more options at their disposal and must not be further burdened by having to deal with a disjointed bureaucracy as well as the ongoing commitment of being carers. It is imperative, therefore, that the federal government look at the establishment of specialised high-care beds for young people in nursing homes, accompanied by the availability of intensive therapy and rehabilitation where required; and, through the Council of Australian Governments, reduce and eliminate the red tape which prevents the seamless and timely care of young people in nursing homes. 5666 5666 21:39:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I know that I am not the first person to speak in this place about the Elgin marbles, also known as the Parthenon marbles, an issue of great concern for Greek people in my electorate of Cowan and Australia generally. The marbles are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures and other artworks that were originally fixed to the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis of Athens. I have never been to Greece but I have been to Rome, and I have seen the ruins of Roman temples and buildings in various parts of the UK and Europe. When you look at these ruins you try to imagine what they were like some 2,000 years earlier. You wish that they were preserved to look just like they were in the years following their construction. Unlike many of the Roman buildings, the temples and buildings on the Acropolis survived fairly well for a long time after the decline of the Athenian city-state. The buildings of the Acropolis survived well until the 350-year rule of the Ottoman Empire. During that period, in 1687, the Venetians bombarded the Acropolis. That bombardment caused even more damage because the Ottomans had used the Parthenon as a munitions store and the building was damaged with an explosion. In subsequent conflicts further damage was done. There is no doubt that the misuse of the Acropolis by the Ottomans was responsible for significant damage to the building during their 350-year rule over Greece. In 1801 Athens was still controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and the British Ambassador was Thomas Bruce, or Lord Elgin. Although Lord Elgin was the ambassador from 1799 to 1803, between 1801 and 1812 he or his representatives removed half of the remaining sculptures of the Parthenon, the propylaea and the Erechtheum. The items taken included 247 feet of a total frieze of 524 feet, 15 of the 92 metopes and 17 pedimental figures. There is no doubt that great damage was done to the buildings of the Acropolis in the conflicts leading up to 1801. In spite of the damage caused by the conflicts, many parts of the frieze, statues and other artwork remained fixed to the buildings. The better preserved pieces as well as the damaged pieces all interested Lord Elgin. After receiving a form of authority from the Ottomans, he had much of the marble artwork hacked and sawn off the buildings of the Acropolis. The majesty of what remained became the loot of Lord Elgin and was transported back to England between 1801 and 1812 to be onsold to the British Museum in 1816 for just ₤35,000. For many years I have been concerned about the presence of the marbles in the British Museum. It is a matter I have discussed with my Greek friends Vic Tountounzis, Savvas Pappasavvas, Paul Afkos, George Georgiou and, most recently, George Chatzopoulos. They have further impressed on me the feelings Greek people have for the marbles. Over the last 200 years there has been a lot of discussion about whether the Ottoman Turks gave permission for the artefacts to be taken away or just taken down for examination. In any case the facts are that, as a result of Lord Elgin’s actions, the British Museum has the sculptures, the statues and the artwork collectively known as the Parthenon marbles. We should never forget that the marbles were created by Greek sculptors more than 2,000 years ago as religious artefacts for the Athenian Acropolis. It should also be stated that the United Kingdom has no cultural link or claim to the marbles. These are the facts, and the simple yet accurate assessment of the matter is that the Parthenon marbles are cultural artefacts created by the Greek civilisation. The Greek people have always called the Athenian Acropolis ‘home’ regardless of occupation and past oppression. The Parthenon marbles must be sent home. They must be returned to the place where they were created and where they belong. This is my personal opinion. I appreciate that this is a matter between the governments of Greece and the United Kingdom. I also appreciate that both sides of politics here in Australia have an official view, a policy view. But I believe the marbles should be returned to their rightful owners, the people of Greece. 5667 5667 21:44:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —The Illawarra region has a large number of residents born overseas—that is what makes my electorate a very special one. In the electorate of Throsby there are some 25,000 people in this category. Of those people born in a non-English-speaking country, the largest percentage in Throsby are Macedonian by birth. It is also within this community that we have the largest number of people speaking a language other than English at home. The Macedonian community rightly places a great deal of pride in their heritage, their culture, their language, their religion and their identity. Being the daughter of migrants to Australia, I guess I understand the importance of this attachment. The postwar immigrants from Macedonia continue their traditions through a range of local community organisations which, importantly, link the younger generation to the land of their parents and grandparents. I have had great enjoyment participating in a range of these events and remain impressed with the numbers of young people involved in such activities as dance groups, language classes and church activity. This community are very loyal and proud citizens of Australia who fully participate and experience the benefit of integration within the rich multicultural tapestry that is Australia today. Macedonian migrants in my region made an immense contribution to our postwar economic efforts and formed a large part of the local workforce, particularly in heavy industries like steel. They helped cement the foundations of our regional economy. Throughout the Macedonian community there is a strong desire for the Australian government to give due recognition to the Republic of Macedonia. It is a matter constantly raised with me by my constituents and supported by the Ambassador of the Republic of Macedonia to Australia, Mr Viktor Gaber. Macedonia was, thankfully, spared the interethnic violence that occurred elsewhere in the Balkans following the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Broad and democratic rights have been provided in the Republic of Macedonia’s constitution for all its citizens, regardless of their national, ethnic, political or religious affiliations. It is a democratic political system with a multiparty parliamentary system. Today, in excess of 120 countries give formal recognition to the Republic of Macedonia. In fact, four of the five permanent UN Security Council members provide such recognition. Other countries that recognise the Republic of Macedonia include Canada, Israel, Malaysia, Paraguay, Poland, the Philippines, Serbia, Slovenia, Taiwan, Turkey, the Ukraine and Vietnam. Australia ranks with about a dozen countries that have to date refused to recognise the Republic of Macedonia, much to the great concern of the Australian Macedonian community. Recognition of the Republic of Macedonia is also an important element in the development of future constructive bilateral trade relations between our two countries. Late last year the Australia-Macedonia Chamber of Commerce, with the assistance of the Macedonian trade commissioner, Peter Ristevski, organised a roundtable forum here in parliament with the Macedonian Minister of Foreign Investment, Mr Tashkovich. More recently, a delegation of Macedonian companies came to Australia accompanied by the Macedonian secretary to the foreign minister, Jovica Palasevski. A reciprocal visit is now being planned to take Australian companies to Macedonia in September this year. The chamber of commerce is working hard to develop these productive bilateral trade relations and anticipates millions of dollars in growth over the next several years. More recently, in representations to my office constituents have pointed to the Australian government’s recognition of the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state, which occurred in February this year. My constituents ask: what is the difference between recognising Kosovo and Macedonia? When Australia recognised Kosovo, it did so even though two members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, disagreed, as did a number of EU members. It was put to me: Australia has always been a fair country and treated everyone who came here from the former Yugoslavia equally. Many of my constituents view the current situation as unfair and one that should be rectified as a matter of priority. It is fair to say that many Australians of Macedonian heritage hoped that a newly elected Rudd Labor government would provide due recognition to the Republic of Macedonia. On behalf of my constituents, I urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister to revisit the matter and take into account the strongly held views of the Macedonian community. 5669 5669 21:49:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP 0 0 Mr FARMER —I rise tonight to pay tribute to a great lady—a lady who dedicated her life to living and encouraging others to do the same: Jane McGrath. Many people would find it difficult to squeeze into 100 years what Jane and Glenn have been able to do in just over a decade. Jane and her friends set up the McGrath Foundation in 2002, and through this foundation they have been able to employ four breast-care nurses, who are employed in Bega, Moruya, Albury-Wodonga and Perth. A breast-care nurse is a specialty nurse. They are trained and registered nurses who provide support to cancer sufferers and their families and coordinate patients’ care needs. Jane described her experience of having access to a breast-care nurse as ‘allowing her to be Jane McGrath the friend, the mother and the wife—not just Jane McGrath the breast cancer survivor’. The psychological wellbeing of cancer sufferers and their families is just so important. Cancer sufferers and their families have to deal with the emotional trauma of this disease whilst trying to comprehend information from doctors about surgery procedures and treatments. It is the breast-care nurses who support the patients and the families through this very difficult time. Having access to accurate information can help inform patients and give their families a better understanding of the situation, which will ultimately give them the hope that somehow they may just be able to beat this disease. I am sure that Holly and James will for the rest of their lives feel incredibly proud of the strength that their mother and father have shown in dealing with life’s tragedies and support others to make their lives just that little bit easier. Jane and Glenn are two people who have had an effect on me and on many other Australians. This is why I feel compelled to honour them here tonight for the sacrifices they have made in being public with their lives so that others may learn to deal with their circumstances just that little bit better. Jane McGrath has left us at the age of 42. Her death a loss not only to her two children, James and Holly, and for her husband, Glenn, but also to the many people whose lives have been touched from afar. Through her charity work and her determination, she made every single second count. She saved lives through breast cancer awareness and comforted many others. To be diagnosed with breast cancer at any age is devastating but in the next 11 years Jane was able to accomplish far more than most of us could ever dream of. To sing as if no-one can hear you, to dance as if no-one can see you and to love as if there is no tomorrow, this is the legacy Jane has left for all of us. To the McGrath Foundation and to the family who have done so much for this country, I would like to say a sincere thank you. 5670 5670 21:53:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —When speaking on the appropriation legislation on 2 June 2008, I referred to the Harpers Field and Tilley Reserve sporting facilities in the Makin electorate. These two facilities were both promised funding by the Howard government in the lead-up to last year’s federal election but the money was never delivered and, with respect to the Harpers Field promise, neither was a funding agreement ever drawn up, even though several months had passed after the funding promise had been made by the then Prime Minister in a media stunt that was clearly aimed at bolstering the Liberal Party vote in Makin. It is now clear that similar promises had been made to hundreds of other community groups around Australia. Understandably the local community in Makin had their hopes built up about getting much needed funding for their facilities. Last Thursday, my office presented a petition to the House Standing Committee on Petitions, signed by some 4,500 people, calling on the federal government to provide funding for the Tilley Reserve and Harpers Field facilities. Once the petition has been cleared by the petitions committee, I will formally present it to the House. On 28 May, I was advised by the office of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that both the Harpers Field and Tilley Reserve facilities had been included in a list of 86 projects from around the country that were granted until 31 July to finalise funding negotiations and therefore be considered for funding. As the minister quite properly points out, local communities should not become victims of the Howard government’s Regional Partnerships funding program mess which, not surprisingly, was criticised by the Auditor-General and which was inherited by the Rudd government. In raising this matter, I also want to speak briefly about the important role community sporting clubs play in the overall wellbeing of local communities. Through my long association with many local sporting clubs I see firsthand the extraordinary level of commitment by volunteer committee members, coaches, officials and club members. Frankly, these clubs would not exist without those volunteers but they need the financial assistance of all three levels of government to fund their buildings. I believe every dollar expended on local sporting facilities by governments is money well spent. In recent months we have seen much public debate relating to binge drinking, obesity and social problems surrounding young people. Participation in sport is a practical way of responding to those issues. By doing so, young people engage in a healthy activity, they become responsible, disciplined and committed. They learn to work with others and develop their social skills. Those who work hard are inevitably rewarded with a personal sense of achievement either through being selected to a higher level of competition or through achieving personal goals. Local sports groups build communities, community pride and often individual careers, yet many of these clubs are struggling to survive because of inadequate facilities, the rising cost of living and the ever-increasing competition for the recreation dollars spent by families. I have seen many talented young sportspeople drop out of their sports because of the costs associated with their continued participation. It is an absolute shame that those young people are not able to achieve their full sporting potential and equally society is denied the enjoyment of watching them at their best. Australia prides itself as a great sporting nation, and rightly so. Our sports men and women inevitably begin at local grassroots clubs and that is where more of our government recreation dollars should be targeted. 5671 5671 21:57:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —This Saturday will see the opening of the Shoalhaven Entertainment Centre. The centre was built by the Shoalhaven City Council and Edwards Construction. It has two very large stages, one capable of holding 900 people seated and the other 200. It can be converted in approximately 1½ hours into a restaurant style, seating 800 people. The centre cost $24 million. The previous government gave $3.3 million from the Regional Partnerships program. I have to say how much the community appreciated this funding from the partnerships program. Can I also say that the artists, the theatre people, the people who do the dance and so many young people will now be able to hold all their school speech days and dramas in the entertainment centre which has been built by the community, for the community, with community funding and Regional Partnerships funding from the previous federal government of $3.3 million. Question agreed to. 5671 21:59:00 House adjourned at 9.59 pm 5671 Notices The following notices were given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 23 June 2008, namely: The construction of a childcare facility within Parliament House. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted to operate for the remainder of the 2008 sittings: Standing order 34, Figure 2, be amended as follows: MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY Prayers Prayers 9.00 am 9.00 am Prayers Government Business Government Business 12 noon Government Business Prayers 2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time 2.00 pm Question Time approx 3.30 pm Documents, Ministerial statements approx 3.30 pm Documents, Ministerial statements, MPI approx 3.30 pm Documents, Ministerial statements, MPI approx 3.30 pm Documents, Ministerial statements, MPI Government Business approx 4.20 pm Government Business approx 4.20 pm approx 4.20 pm Government Business 4.30 pm Adjournment Debate 6.30 pm Divisions and   quorums deferred 6.30 pm Divisions and quorums deferred Government Business 5.00 pm 7.30 pm Adjournment Debate 8.00 pm 8.00 pm 8.00 pm 8.30 pm Petitions (to 8.40 pm) Committee & delegation reports   and private Members’ business 8.30 pm Adjournment Debate 9.00 pm 9.30 pm Adjournment Debate 10.00 pm Standing order 207 be amended to read: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That the standing orders Nos. 1, 192 and 193 be amended to read as follows: Maximum speaking times (amendment to existing subject, as follows): Members’ statements in the Main Committee 90 second statements Whole period Each Member (but not a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary) (standing order 192a) 3 minute constituency statements Whole period Each Member (standing order 193) 15 mins 90 seconds 30 mins 3 mins 192.                                 Main Committee’s order of business Figure 4. Main Committee order of business MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY 9.30 am 3 min constituency statements 9.30 am 3 min constituency statements approx 10.00 am Government   business and/or committee and delegation reports approx 10.00 am Government   business and/or committee and delegation reports 12.30 pm Adjournment Debate approx 1.00 pm approx 1.00 pm 4.00 pm If required 4.00 pm 3 min constituency statements 4.00 pm If required If required approx 6.40 pm 90 sec statements 6.55 pm Committee & delegation reports and private Members’ business approx 7.30 pm 8.30 pm Grievance debate approx 8.30 pm 9.30 pm The meeting times of the Main Committee are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips. 193.                 Members’ three minute constituency statements R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That: the Honourable T R H Cole AO RFD QC, President of the HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry be authorized to access exhibits held for less than ten years and confidential submissions received by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade during its inquiry into the loss of HMAS Sydney, subject to: appropriate consultations by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade being undertaken with those who provided confidential submissions, prior to any such material being accessed by President Cole; the Commission not using the material in a manner contrary to the law of parliamentary privilege as per section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987; the material not being made public as evidence tendered to the Commission or as part of the Commission’s report without the agreement of the Presiding Officers; and the foregoing resolution have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; and a message be sent to the Senate informing it of this resolution and requesting that it concur. 2008-06-23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 6.40 pm. 5675 Statements by Members 5675 5675 18:40:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —Tonight I rise to talk about the oldest church in Australia, Ebenezer Church, which is in my electorate. The Reverend Grant Bilby had the pleasure of hosting a couple of hundred people on Sunday for the annual pilgrimage. Ebenezer Church was established in 1809. It was a pioneer in education in the colony, beginning a school in 1810. The church is the oldest school building in Australia. The first communion service according to the Church of Scotland was conducted in 1824 by the Reverend Dr John Dunmore Lang, and Andrew Johnston was ordained as an elder. David Dunstan and later Charles Smith, carpenter for Governor Macquarie, and architect Greenway—after whom the seat is named—did the carpentry at Ebenezer Church. Next year, 2009, will be the bicentenary, and already plans are underway. A number of families have lived in the seat of Greenway in the Hawkesbury area for that length of time, 200 years. They are not the same people, obviously, but their descendants—families like the Johnstons and the Turnbulls. Jennifer Turnbull actually did one of the readings on Sunday. Normally, every year at the pilgrimage, we have the pleasure of hearing her sing one of the old hymns. (Time expired) 5675 5675 18:41:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —Tonight I would like to pay tribute to the Hackham West Community Centre. In particular, I want to draw people’s attention to one of the great projects that are run through the Hackham West Community Centre. It is called the community connections project. This program is based at two schools in my electorate—the Hackham South Primary School and the Noarlunga Downs Primary School. This program is about creating bridges, linking parents and their families to their children’s school and, thus, providing an inclusive hub in the electorate. The community centre does great work connecting these families by providing them with parenting support and also avenues for training and help to access services within their community. Often parents do not feel comfortable accessing large agencies but they do feel comfortable at the children’s schools. So having a connection point at their local school for these families and parents not only helps them but also helps their children. I was very pleased that this project was a three-year project and was making real headway in the community and I was very pleased that recently their funding was extended for another 12 months. It is a great outcome for the people affected by this program and a great outcome for the Hackham West Community Centre. (Time expired) 5675 5675 18:43:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise in support of workers in my electorate of Forrest in the south-west of Western Australia who have been stood down from their jobs due to the gas crisis resulting from the gas explosion at Apache Energy Australia’s Varanus Island operations on 3 June 2008. Over 40 per cent of that gas supply is used by south-west industries. This is the third week of gas rations to the south-west businesses or no supply at all for those who cannot convert to diesel. There is now no work for many casual staff contracted by labour hire firms, and most permanent staff are cooperating with management by taking annual leave. But annual leave cannot last indefinitely and many workers do not have any leave accruals to fall back on. South-west industries and businesses have been crippled due to the trickle of gas that is being made available to them on a day-by-day basis. This week the job losses in the south-west alone are expected to grow to 2,000, with a further 2,000 job losses expected over the next week. The Western Australian government clearly does not comprehend the effects on the south-west industries and businesses that are being disproportionately affected—those which cannot convert from gas to diesel or those which cannot afford to pay the high spot prices for the gas. Industry in the south-west is becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of transparency and fairness of the rationed gas allocation. (Time expired) 5676 5676 18:45:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —Being a member of parliament gives you a chance to meet some very special people and to share some very special moments in their lives. A few months ago, I popped in to visit Anna Cecchin. Anna migrated to Australia from Italy in 1938 and settled in Griffith. In 1945 she moved to Yagoona, and she has lived there ever since. During the Second World War, Anna worked in the Arnott’s factory and produced biscuits for the Army ration packs. Her late husband, Victor, served with the Australian Army and lived a long and fruitful life, living to the age of 83. In March, Anna celebrated her 100th birthday. On Friday, I popped into the Greenacre Nursing Home to see another centurion—and a chocoholic. Norman White, with his wife, Rosa, only moved into the nursing home in January of this year. They had lived together at home in Earlwood until then, until he was 99½. Norman loves his chocolate and he loves the railways, having worked for them for 48 years. It was a privilege to meet these two very special constituents—one who has lived in the local community for 63 years and the other who has just moved in. I wish them both a very special 100th birthday. 5676 5676 18:48:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —Further to my earlier remarks on the gas explosion in Western Australia and as an example of the lack of transparency of the rationed gas allocation, a laundry business was allocated gas over a weekend when it did not need it; so, not wanting to waste the supply, they called in their workers and paid them double time for working on the weekend. A better plan would have been to allocate that gas ration to an industry that could have utilised it over a regular weekend period. There is no capacity for industry or for workers and their families to plan effectively. It may be months before the repair work required on Apache’s East Spar Joint Venture facilities, as well as the Harriet Joint Venture facilities, is completed and before gas supply is back up to full production. Loss of production in the powerhouse of industry in the south-west of Western Australia will result in a loss of revenue for both governments and will impact adversely on the national economy. This gas crisis highlights just how quickly job security can be threatened, even in WA’s booming economy. State owned power stations should have been converted to diesel to free up more of the gas supply to small and medium industries that cannot convert to diesel. I call on the WA government to start talking to industry representatives to discuss relief packages such as a moratorium on payroll tax, for example, during the period of this crisis. What will the state government’s relief package be to workers who have been stood down without pay? Industry cannot afford to lose these skilled workers and key employees. (Time expired) 5677 5677 18:48:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —As a member of parliament you are often privileged to meet local heroes who champion great ideas. Tonight I want to share a very special idea with the House. In my electorate of Hasluck, the youth group Youth Action Kalamunda Inc. and the Rotary Club of Kalamunda have combined to offer year 12 students in the shire of Kalamunda the opportunity to participate in an exciting alternative to the infamous ‘schoolies week’. These students will spend 10 days in Timor-Leste providing much needed assistance to community projects, including painting a medical clinic, repairing a village community hall and local houses, as well as constructing a youth sports area. This journey is likely to be the journey of a lifetime for these students, or Team Timor-Leste, and they will be well and truly stepping out of their comfort zones. This opportunity is the brainchild of Peter Kenyon, of the Bank of IDEAS, assisted by local community activists Juliana Plummer, Steve Hall and Lyn Harris. These people hope that the students will come away with a sense of achievement, new life skills and new friends. Apart from wanting members of Team Timor-Leste to have the time of their lives, the organisers are hoping it will encourage these young people to think and act as global citizens. I would like to acknowledge the organisers, YAK and the Rotary Club of Kalamunda, as well as the sponsors of the initiative, ConocoPhillips, Bank of IDEAS, Community Vision Kalamunda, the Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce, RU Mad and the Darling Range Rotary Club for supporting the project. I applaud everyone involved in the project. I wish them every success for their trip and I look forward to supporting this wonderful initiative. (Time expired) 5677 5677 18:49:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I rise this evening to inform the Committee of the savage attack being made on rural hospitals by the South Australian government. It will impact so strongly on the communities to which these hospitals belong that, for many of them, it will be seen as the beginning of the end. The proposal is to downgrade 43 rural units into what the South Australian government is calling GP Plus Emergency Hospitals. In-patient services will be closed and limited beds will be available only for things like aged care and 24-hour observations. Maternity services, acute care and general surgical services will all be discontinued. The Rural Doctors Association are outraged and they question whether they will be able to practise in the affected towns. The ramifications of this outcome are enormous. It will lead to people who are seeking health care driving or taking ambulances hundreds of kilometres to reach the nearest ‘proper’ hospital. Rural people have made it clear to the Rann government that the plan is totally unacceptable. Far from the government’s claims about improved services, this plan attacks rural communities at their foundations. No meaningful consultation has taken place. The reduction of hospital services to rural communities will lead to doctors leaving rural areas. This, in turn, will lead to the loss of allied health professionals and nursing staff and, eventually, the ability to provide aged care for community members. Twenty-three of the 43 hospitals adversely affected in South Australia are in my electorate, and I object strongly to the inevitable blanket destruction of these rural communities by a government that would abandon rural Australia. I call on the federal government to intervene and on the Prime Minister to live up to his promise to fix hospitals and to govern for all Australians. (Time expired) 5678 5678 18:51:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —This week four schools from the Shortland electorate will be visiting Parliament House: Belmont Public School, Marks Point Public School, Gateshead Public School and Jewells Primary School. Three busloads of students are coming to parliament from Jewells public school. At the weekend, Jewells public school won gold medals in the state aerobics competition for all of its six teams that entered. At Jewells public school, the students in years 3 to 6 were involved in the aerobics competition, and all six teams have won the honour of going to Melbourne on 22 and 23 August to represent New South Wales. I put on record my congratulations to all the students from Jewells public school. In addition, I look forward this week to meeting here, in parliament, the students from all the schools I have mentioned. 5678 5678 18:52:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I welcome the funding of $74,500 to restore the historic South Perth Old Mill in my electorate of Swan. During the 2007 federal election campaign, I pledged to pursue the federal government for funding for the Old Mill, after recognising that the 172-year-old building was in dire need of repairs. The City of South Perth Historical Society, South Perth MLA John McGrath and I supported funding for the local landmark, as it was falling into disrepair. I believe it is critical that such a historically significant building be preserved for future generations. The funding that the mill has received will be used to repair its windmill sails and for general maintenance. The windmill is one of two that was built by William Kernot Shenton, who was one of South Perth’s first residents. The first mill was ransacked by Indigenous Australians in 1834; the present mill was then built in 1835 by millwrights Paul and James Lockyer. It is also WA’s oldest industrial site. In the late 1950s, the mill was in danger of being demolished for the construction of the Kwinana Freeway, but it was saved after local residents in the historical society intervened. The Old Mill is a very historically significant landmark in Perth, Western Australia, and, whilst the funding is most welcome, both South Perth MLA John McGrath and I will continue to pursue both state and federal governments to provide further funding for more improvements and ongoing maintenance at the Old Mill. South Perth Library and Heritage Manager Susan Marie and the City of South Perth Historical Society have developed a proposal for the mill that includes an interactive resource centre for the community, which I believe is a fantastic idea that the government should look into funding. 5678 5678 18:53:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to pay tribute to the Samaritans on the Central Coast and the wonderful job they are doing this winter. This winter in particular has already been harder than most on the Central Coast, with the number of people seeking assistance from the Samaritans emergency relief centres doubling; that has occurred already in this very short period. This has caused the Samaritans to give out food vouchers of only $20 instead of $60—which is the amount they were able to give out last time—because of the increased number of people who are seeking assistance. In speaking in the Committee today, I am seeking to make sure that all Central Coast residents who can dig deep—who can provide blankets, food or cash—in relation to the Samaritans winter appeal do so. It is absolutely vital that we look after our fellow citizens on the Central Coast and support the Samaritans in the wonderful job they are doing. While food is an absolute priority, cash is also very important because it can be converted into vouchers; but warm clothes and blankets are also most welcome. The Central Coast, obviously because of its distance from Sydney, has been hit harder by petrol price increases than most other areas. This has led to the demand for help from the Samaritans being even greater. The Samaritans do a wonderful job, especially on the Central Coast, and they should be absolutely commended for it. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 5679 Private Members' Business 5679 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Trevor: That the House: recognises the 100 year centenary of Australian Rugby League and its contribution to Australian society, culture and community; and congratulates and recognises the contributions of players both Indigenous and non‑Indigenous, volunteers, officials, parents, children and others who have made this sport a truly great contributor to Australia as a nation. 5679 18:55:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I proudly rise tonight to support this motion before the House—namely, that the House recognise the centenary of Australian Rugby League and its contribution to society, culture and community. This motion is also to congratulate and recognise the contribution of players, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, volunteers, officials, parents, children and others who have made this sport a truly great contributor to Australia as a nation. Rugby League—the greatest game of all; it is simply the best—has stood the test of time and celebrates its 100th birthday this year. I, too, celebrate a birthday today, my 47th, which makes the day even more special. Honourable members—Hear, hear! HVU Trevor, Chris, MP Mr TREVOR —Had I known that I was going to live this long, I would have looked after myself a bit better, I am sure. But, as a former Rugby League player of many years standing, who played his juniors with the Gladstone Wallabies and his seniors with the Gladstone Brothers and never took a backward step, I am proud to have played the game, and I continue to be involved in it—as in moving this motion before the House. During my playing days, I suffered many broken bones, cuts, strains and sprains, but I would not trade those days for the world. My only regret was that, at 40, I was too old to play the game. I have been luckier than most, having had the great privilege in my senior playing years to be captain-coached by Rugby League greats Chris ‘Choppy’ Close and Phil Daly, who were both State of Origin football stars and Australian representatives. I was proud to take the ball up alongside them and for them. I was also lucky enough to play a game against the Brisbane Brothers late in my career, although the internal bleeding I suffered for three days after that match was a reminder to me that it is very much a young man’s sport. I pay tribute today to all of those who have played and who continue to play junior and senior Rugby League throughout my electorate of Flynn and Australia generally. I congratulate the Australian Rugby League and National Rugby League for their ongoing support to Rugby League in Australia, including country rugby league in Flynn and other communities. I pay tribute to the late Dick ‘Tosser’ Turner, whose memorial service was held in Brisbane today. I congratulate all, including supporters, officials, parents and volunteers of Rugby League throughout Australia. I also thank the referees. I sponsor them in my home town of Gladstone and I also sponsor Rugby League teams in Gladstone and Biloela. Some of the most talented players I ever played against were Indigenous, including those in the Woorabinda Warriors in my electorate. I make special mention of them today. Some of my most loyal and trusted friends to this day come from my days of playing Rugby League. I thank them for being part of my life, both on and off of the field. I have met some great blokes through Rugby League, but there are far too many of them to mention here. I continue to meet great people, both men and women, associated with the great Rugby League game in Flynn. I thank all the NRL players, past and present, who give so much of their time to charity. I am inspired by all of them. All too often we hear of the bad news but not the good news about past and present Rugby League players. Only a week ago at my home in Gladstone I entertained a number of ex-NRL players, including Ryan Girdler, Ben Kennedy, Mark Hughes and Adam Muir. They had come to Gladstone to support a great charity event organised by my great friend Russell Thomas, who walked with me from Gladstone to Brisbane in 2005 to raise money for the charity and emergency services personnel I was involved with in Gladstone. I thank referee Bill Harrigan for coming to the event. I also especially thank my good friend Chris ‘Choppy’ Close for his donation of State of Origin jerseys each year for me to donate to worthy charitable causes. Chris, you are a legend and a loyal and trusted friend, mate, and I thank you in every sense of the word. I thank the Queensland State of Origin players for signing the jerseys for me each year. I acknowledge and pay tribute today to Paul and Betty Smith from the Gladstone Brothers and also to Peter White from Gladstone, for their contributions to the Rugby League game in Gladstone. Finally, I thank Rugby League for the best years of my life. I am proud and I always will be proud to be associated with the greatest game of all. (Time expired) 5680 19:00:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —This year Rugby League celebrates its 100th anniversary in Australia after commencing in the north of England in 1895. Indeed, the origins of the great game of Rugby League go back to England’s north, which broke away from the Rugby Football Union after it refused to allow working-class players to be compensated for playing the game and for any injuries received while on the field. While I am not one of those in this House who are from the great cause of organised labour, I do want to record my admiration of this achievement of the working classes of that era. While having the foresight to commence a semiprofessional competition at the time, ahead of the Rugby Union, they also chose to create a more free-flowing and entertaining spectacle that set the game aside from the intricacies and complexities of rugby union. Teams were reduced from 15 to 13 players and play-the-balls were introduced to lessen the need for scrums and replace the scrappy rucks and mauls. The changes made the game more popular with the players and spectators, and the increased gate money allowed the clubs to pay benefits to the players. By 1907 in Australia, successful rugby union players such as Dally Messenger had realised their value. Messenger agreed to join the professional competition for ₤50 and a place on the upcoming tour of England. In 1909 the first ever British Lions Rugby League team visited New South Wales, Queensland and New Zealand. They attracted huge crowds wherever they played and the new Rugby League authorities were able to secure a solid financial base. Rugby League became the preferred code in Sydney, Brisbane and Newcastle and established a hold in Auckland and Wellington in New Zealand. Since 1910, Rugby League has held its place as the premier winter sport in New South Wales and Queensland. In the late 1980s the New South Wales Rugby League competition evolved into a national competition and became the National Rugby League in 1998. The game of Rugby League is of particular importance to the psyche of Sydney. Growing up in Sydney I can record that, like so many other young people, I spent much of my time chasing my team across Sydney. The Sydney teams have very strong links to the areas they represent and ‘tribalism’ is a word often used to describe the strong local following the Sydney teams have in their area. The annual State of Origin competition between New South Wales and Queensland is the game’s greatest drawcard. I understand that the first game of this year’s State of Origin in Sydney is so far the most watched program in 2008—a sure sign of the game’s success and continuing popularity. At the local and the grassroots levels of the game, I can proudly point to the significant contribution to the game of Rugby League made by my electorate of Mitchell. Our local team is the greatest rugby league team ever to grace the paddock—the Parramatta Eels. It is widely accepted—and I know the member for Cook would accept this!—that the greatest moments in Australian Rugby League history came in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1986, with the four greatest premierships and the most talented football teams ever to be fielded. My electorate of Mitchell contains four clubs that participate in the Parramatta District Rugby League competition: the Hills District Bulls, the Kellyville Bushrangers, the Rouse Hill Rhinos and the Winston Hills Tigers. Mitchell also has the Northwest Polecats participating in the tertiary students competition and the St Michael’s Baulkham Hills Brumbies in the Catholic schools competition. The Hills District Bulls are the largest club in the Parramatta District Rugby League, with 40 teams from under-six to A-grade, and play their home games at Crestwood Reserve, Baulkham Hills. One of the newest clubs in the Parramatta district competition is the Rouse Hill Rhinos. The Rhinos are in their formative years as a club; however, they already boast 20 teams across all age divisions from under-six to A-grade. All of Mitchell’s local rugby league clubs are busy and active clubs that are generously supported by many of the area’s local businesses. Our local clubs are great examples of active, community focused and community minded clubs. They perfectly prove just how enmeshed in the community the game of Rugby League is, particularly in its stronghold of greater Western Sydney. I want to thank the players, the coaches, the staff, the volunteers, the parents, the kids and the families in my electorate who make a great contribution to the game and to our great local clubs: thank you for everything you do. On the occasion of the centenary of the game in Australia, I also want to particularly thank, congratulate and remember those brave pioneers of the game of Rugby League, true champions of the working class, for their foresight and vision in establishing a semiprofessional league and breaking away from Rugby Union. It is a superb achievement that Australia should be proud of. In conclusion, I would like to quote the late, great Jack Gibson, who coached the mighty Parramatta Eels to premiership victories in 1981, 1982 and 1983. Gibson, after completing his successful coaching stint, was widely regarded as having revolutionised the game and was famous for quoting a player’s performance as ‘played strong; done good’. To praise 100 years of Rugby League in Australia, there is no better person to refer to and no better quote about the game than what Jack Gibson said: ‘The day that God invented Rugby League he didn’t do anything else but sit around and feel good.’ 5682 19:05:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —Congratulations to the member for Mitchell; I thank him for his contribution. Congratulations also to Rugby League on 100 years of the game. Rugby League has provided many great moments in sport in this country that have centred around fantastic eras: St George’s 11 straight premierships in the fifties and sixties; and, as the member for Mitchell said, Parramatta in the eighties, with legends such as Sterling, Price, Edge and Cronin, to name a few. My father used to go out and plant trees after Parramatta won. But the game evolved outside of Sydney as well. Some of those teams have dominated the competition: the Canberra Raiders, in the late eighties and early nineties; the Brisbane Broncos—I would argue that winning six premierships in 20 years is a significant contribution to the sport; and the Melbourne Storm, whose rise is more recent, in the heartland of Madam Deputy Speaker Burke’s area. As part of the journey, the dominance of the Kangaroos cannot be forgotten. The Australian side is the invincible side—it is indestructible, unbeatable and all of the other sorts of names that they used to call them. But life has not always been easy for Rugby League. In the early days, trying to establish the game against Rugby Union was quite a significant battle. Later, the Super League war divided Rugby League between the traditionalist ARL and the Super League. It ended friendships. That is how much passion there was: it divided the game and it ended friendships. There was also the failed expansion of the game into South Australia and WA throughout the nineties, but through it all Rugby League has survived. The State of Origin, as the member for Mitchell alluded to, is the showcase of the game. It is a premier sporting event, but I think at times it is a double-edged sword. The State of Origin is such a fantastic game that the premiership struggles to step up to that mark. I know that other codes step away from playing State of Origin because of that. The history of the game in my electorate of Solomon commenced in 1940, when there were three teams. During 1949, there were two scratch matches organised by expat New South Welshmen and Queenslanders who had arrived in Darwin to take part in its reconstruction after the war. The armed services and the Commonwealth Public Service made up some of the sides, along with Qantas. At this time, there were 7,000 people living in Darwin, and most of the population were single men. The sides were the Wallabies, Qantas, Army, Navy and RAAF. By 1950, Rugby League had gained permission to use Kahlin Oval, which the Army was responsible for. Rugby League had trouble establishing itself and, after sharing the Gardens Oval facility with Aussie Rules, it finally moved to Richardson Park, which is the home of Rugby League today. But the thing about Rugby League is that it is a game made by the people. It is the people’s game. Recently in Darwin they lost ‘Shadow’ Mount, who was the groundsman at the football field. His death, at the hands of others, was untimely and very tragic. They remember him as a volunteer. The game of Rugby League in the Northern Territory has been built around the volunteers who have contributed their time, effort, toil and passion to making it work. Brothers, Litchfield, Nightcliff, Palmerston, South Darwin and University make up the Darwin Rugby League competition now. Brothers is currently celebrating 50 years. They are having a reunion of all Brothers clubs in Darwin in October this year. I will be the guest speaker there, though it is a bit ironic that they will have an Australian Rules Football coach member of parliament coming to speak at their 50-year celebration. Nightcliff and Litchfield have been two of the most successful clubs but, once again, it is the people who have contributed. The current president of Brothers, Johnnie Adams, puts in a lot of time, and Frank Geddes and Frank ‘Doodles’ Ahmat had a long history with the club. There was Mark Fitzgerald at Litchfield and Lyle Mackay, the past president. Frank McPherson was the founder of the Litchfield club. Nightcliff have had greats like Stem Edwards, Ron Gatley, Kane Bonson and the late Chico Motlop. Former Kangaroo Steve Rogers coached the club to a premiership in 1993, and I played on that side; they recruited an Aussie Rules guy to carry them over the line! Palmerston had John Johnson and South Darwin had Paul Kelly and Mick Palmer, a former federal policeman. We have had players play at the highest level as well—Frank Stokes, Johnnie Alder, Steve Larder and Duncan MacGilgray. Rugby League has a fantastic history in Australia and, while there have been lean times, it continues to contribute. Passionate supporters of the game call it the greatest game of all—and who could argue? Being born in Queensland, let me say: ‘Queenslander!’ (Time expired) 5683 19:10:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —As a sportsman and an avid watcher of sports, I congratulate the member for Flynn for his motion, and I rise today to support that motion and to recognise the centenary of Australian Rugby League and its contribution to the Australian society, culture and community. I also wish to congratulate and recognise the contributions of players, volunteers, officials, parents, children and others who have made this sport a truly great contributor to the Australian identity. It has been 100 years since Rugby League first reached out to its supporters in Australia, and the number answering that call has grown every year since. The centenary of Rugby League is a salute to those who pioneered the game, to those who through each generation have passed it on stronger and to those who will take it into the future. Rugby League in Australia started as a rebel football competition established in defiance of New South Wales Rugby Union. With its mix of hardness and athleticism, it has grown to become one of the most popular of Australian sports, a skilful, fast-moving game that has the passionate support of its fans. Rugby League also has solid foundations with the working class of Australia. Before the big money contracts of recent years, league was a part-time game. Training was held at the end of a hard day’s work and games were played on weekends. Although the game has come a long way to be the high-paying spectacle it is today, none of the passion and hardness that made the game so popular has been lost. Rugby League is a tough game, both physically and mentally, and anyone who has ever played the game can attest to this. Some of the great players of our time such as Mal Meninga and the King, Wally Lewis, were some of the toughest men in Australian sports. At a local level the game of Rugby League has seen a huge boost in popularity and participation. New junior and reserve grade teams are emerging right across the country, willing to participate in their growing local competitions. Rugby League is a great character-building sport. It instils in players a sense of camaraderie, teamwork and discipline and improves physical fitness. Rugby League, both at a club level and in the national competition, has always supported and encouraged participation from the Indigenous community. Superstars such as Matt Bowen from the North Queensland Cowboys have become outstanding role models for young Indigenous players and helped build the game in communities outside our metropolitan centres. In Perth the Western Reds joined the Australian Rugby League for the 1995 season. However, Rugby League was not new to the people of WA, as it had been played competitively in Perth since the end of World War II. During the war servicemen from the west were exposed to Rugby League games while they were in Army training camps in Darwin and on visits to Brisbane and Sydney. Also, large numbers of servicemen from the eastern states remained in Perth after marrying WA girls, bringing with them their love of the game. The arrival of the 1946 British Lions triggered the growing movement to establish Rugby League in Perth, and a club competition soon commenced. The first competition was formed from established Rugby Union clubs that crossed over to Rugby League. While Rugby League never reached any great heights in the west, it was certainly well above the standard of any efforts in Melbourne or Adelaide. In 1992 the NSWRL announced that WARL’s submission was successful, and the Perth Pumas, which were later renamed the Western Reds, debuted in 1995. In their first season the Western Reds established a formidable home ground record, ultimately winning eight of 11 games in Perth. Their season ended in a respectable 11th position out of the 20 clubs competing. Then Super League started in 1997 and the Western Reds, which became known as Perth Super League, were one of the clubs in the 10-team competition. Unfortunately the Perth side was closed down at the completion of the season. The loss of Perth ended premiership Rugby League’s brief flirtation with Western Australia. This is unfortunate, as the ARL and Super League had a long-established rugby league community to build upon and nurture with the Western Reds. My electorate of Swan is the proud home of the South Perth Lions as well as the Central District Football Club Bulldogs. Coincidentally, both clubs will be celebrating their 60th anniversaries this year, with each one having formed in 1948. Currently the South Perth Lions are the most successful club in WA and have won more club championships and more premierships than any other club in WA. The club history includes 15 first grade premierships and 21 club championships. So far this year the Lions remain undefeated and are sitting on top of the ladder. The Bulldogs are also one of the most successful clubs in WA and currently occupy a very respectable fourth place, after winning four out of seven games this season. The club history includes 10 titles and seven times as runners-up. In summation, Rugby League truly has come a long way over the past century. Although it is unfortunate that a national team failed to be firmly established in WA, it remains that fans in the west persevered and local clubs are performing stronger than ever. With any luck, well before the next century Australia may see a truly national league. 5685 19:15:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —First, I congratulate the member for Flynn not only for bringing this motion forward but also for his birthday today. The origin of Rugby League is 1895 in northern England. The genesis of the break between Rugby Union and Rugby League is the fact that the working class people who played what was at that stage rugby league wanted payment at least for troops away on representative tours and for injuries. The ruling body, the Australian football union, in declining their request said, ‘If men could not afford to pay, they shouldn’t play the game at all.’ That was the basis upon which the division of these codes emerged. As the codes divided, some changes in the pattern of play emerged. Rugby League, certainly the working class game, started to establish different patterns of play—playing the ball and things of that nature—and became more of a spectator game as opposed to appealing just to players themselves. Any organisation that has 100 years of history, 100 years of success, really does need to be recognised. Rugby League in this country does have 100 years of history this year. It has been, since 1908, a significant spectator sport in Sydney and throughout New South Wales and Queensland. I am sure it will catch on at some stage in the other states, but we are still working on that. It is about not only the fact that it has a history but also all of the clubs that go to making that history. The club that I follow—and I know the member for Banks also follows—is Wests Tigers. That organisation is the combination of two teams, the Western Suburbs Magpies and the Balmain Tigers. Both of those teams are federation teams; they both played in the very first year of Rugby League. As a matter of fact, they played against one another in the very first game in 1908, so there was some synergy there when we had this coming together. In any coming together, there are upsides and downsides, but since we won the premiership in 2005 we have thought it was all upsides. It is one of those things that has a lot of history and it is good that we do follow it that way. I liken what occurred in 2005 to what occurred when we had the Olympics in Sydney—the feelgood period that emanated throughout my locality of Campbelltown was sensational. People do look up to these players, and what goes with that is that players have responsibilities as well. It certainly affects the culture of an area and the way a locality thinks about itself. There are a few other things I should mention. Not all that long ago in this place I spoke about another Rugby League football club that started in 1908—that is, the Campbelltown City Kangaroos Junior Rugby League Football Club. Just down the road from where I live now, they had their 100th anniversary only a few weeks ago. It is a club on the outskirts of Sydney. These days it has about 11 teams; it takes kids from under six to under 15 and it is the genesis of what we all follow in sport. My involvement in Rugby League goes back to when my sons turned six—no, five; they wanted to play in the under sixes. From that stage on—marking lines out on fields, running canteens, being a coach, being a manager and doing all those sorts of things that parents do for their kids to pursue sport—I have to say it was a very good period. A lot of the people we have as friends today are from that group of parents who turned out with their kids, who were doing the very same things we were back then when my boys were six and seven. You do build communities by participating in junior sport. That is one of the things that I think is very important to remember as we talk these days about childhood obesity and activity in our local communities. It really does require parents to be committed to and involved in kids’ sports. It is not just about sending your children to some form of weekend childminding activity; it is about actually getting involved with them, participating with them and encouraging them. They are not all going to be first-grade players, but kids deserve the chance to go onto the field and enjoy themselves. That is one of the things I think we have done pretty successfully in Rugby League, and I am glad to have had some involvement in it. To all those involved with the Kangaroos football club, I really hope they enjoy their celebrations for the 100-year anniversary of the game. (Time expired) 5686 19:21:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I join with the other speakers in commending the member for Flynn for moving this motion and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I note your keen and enthusiastic interest in the debate. The Cronulla Sharks are a worthy chapter in the centenary history of Rugby League. The Cronulla Sharks club was formed in September 1956 and officially incorporated in 1957. The Sharks entered the New South Wales competition in 1967, at the same time as the Penrith Panthers, expanding the competition from 10 to 12. In its first season the club won three games, drew one and suffered 18 defeats, taking out the wooden spoon. It has always been up since then. In 1968 the club moved to its permanent home ground at Endeavour Field, Woolooware. Uniquely, the Sharks own their own home ground to this day and are the only NRL club to own their own home ground and the adjacent leagues club. In their 40 years of competition in the top division of Rugby League, the Sharks have yet to win a premiership, although they have come close on three occasions—and 2008 is shaping up to be our year, without question. They are currently leading the competition, with three other clubs, having had a great win over Parramatta just yesterday afternoon under Ricky Stuart’s leadership. We are looking forward to big things for the remainder of the season. Many in the shire enjoy getting down to ‘Shark Park’ on a weekend, and we will continue to enjoy doing that over the balance of the season. We are looking forward to the semis. The Sharks played their first grand final against Manly Warringah, our arch enemies the Sea Eagles, in 1973. We lost that game seven points to 10. In 1978 we had the chance for yet another grand final, and that was again against Manly. On that occasion there was an 11-all draw, only for the Sharks to go down in the grand final replay 16 to nil. Our next encounter with Manly will be on 12 July, and we are looking forward to that fixture very much. In 1979 the club had a win in what was then the Amco Cup, which I remember watching as a youngster. It was an experiment with games at night, under lights. It is one of the many innovations that Rugby League has brought to many sports. The club has produced many champions. Some of them have already been mentioned here in this debate. The late Steve Rogers was a Sharks great. He was a great not only in the game of Rugby League but in the game of life. He was highly respected by all those who live in the Sutherland shire community. Between 1973 and 1982 he played 231 games. Steve Rogers remains the club’s top points scorer, having scored 1,253 points, which comprised 82 tries, 499 goals and five field goals. The late Steve Rogers was truly a champion. There were other champions, like Andrew Ettingshausen, who the great Jack Gibson said could get into bed before the light went out. He played for the Sharks between 1983 and 2000, in a total of 382 games. The Sharks have attracted several first-rate coaches in the last 40 years. There was none greater than the late, great Jack Gibson, who was also a great shire identity. I pay tribute to Jack tonight, and there have been many tributes to the late Jack Gibson in recent times, with his recent passing. During the nineties the club welcomed other high-profile coaches, including Arthur Beetson and John Lang. In 1999 the club had its most successful season, achieving another minor premiership, accounting for the Brisbane Broncos in the quarterfinal only to come up short against the St George Dragons in the grand final qualifier later that season. The club can claim six Rothmans medallists: Terry Hughes in 1968; Ken Maddison in 1973; the late, great Steve Rogers in 1975; Barry Russell in 1989; Gavin Miller the following year, in 1989; and Paul Green in 1995. That is more than any other club in the league. It also has a long list of players who went on to play at the state and national representative levels. There have been three Sharks players considered worthy enough to receive the competition’s prestigious Dally M award. They are: again, the late Steve Rogers, in 1981; Gavin Miller twice, in 1988 and 1989; and Preston Campbell, in 2001. But in the shire we have not just great players but also some great resident former referees in Bill Harrigan and Graham Annesley. The club the Sharks is not just about rugby league. The club is also about what it gives back to the community, and there is not an event that I attend in my electorate—whether it is charitable or otherwise—where you do not see the Sharks involved. In supporting the McGrath Foundation, which is particularly topical today, they have donated $500 for every try scored this year; the tally is currently at $20,000. Later this year, in August, we will be opening a new stand at Shark Park. That stand was made possible by the commitment of $9.6 million from the Howard government, under the great stewardship of the former member for Cook Bruce Baird. We look forward in a few weeks time to opening what will always be affectionately known—at least by those on this side of the House—as the Bruce Baird stand. 5687 19:25:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —As a Melbourne born person with an affinity for AFL, I have to say straight up that it is indeed a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to support the motion moved by the member for Flynn on the centenary of Rugby League. Rugby League has its roots in the working classes. The first President of the New South Wales Rugby League, in 1909, was Mr Henry Hoyle, who was also a New South Wales Labor MLA. The foundation of the formation of the game came from disheartened rugby union players wanting a fair go. Put simply, what they wanted were some basic rights, such as to be compensated for lost work time due to injuries. When I reflect on the history I want to talk particularly about the Canberra Raiders, who first took the field 75 years later, in 1982, and despite finishing at the bottom of the ladder in their first year took only five years to reach their first grand final. Two years after that, in 1989, they won their first premiership. I notice the motion of the member for Flynn talks about both Indigenous and non-Indigenous players. It is at this point that I must refer to one of our favourite, if not our favourite, Indigenous players—Chicka Ferguson. It was Chicka Ferguson who in 1989 actually won that grand final for the Raiders in extra time. He is very famous and that grand final is very famous. It was a remarkable achievement not only because the Raiders had been in the competition for just seven years but because they became the first team from outside of the top three on the ladder to win the premiership. They also earned the distinction of being the first team from outside the Sydney metropolitan area to take that title. The next year the Raiders were minor premiers in all three grades and premiers in first grade and the President’s Cup. This was a golden period for the club, with household names such as Meninga, Clyde, Stuart, Daley and Walters dominating the game. They are all now part of the history of this wonderful sport. It was also a time when the loyalty of those sorts of players was proven beyond doubt because, despite the fact that the Raiders had found themselves in financial strife due to salary cap breaches, all of these players took pay cuts—big ones—to stay with the club. A very strong spirit was very evident in this club. I would also like to talk about the involvement of the club with the community. During the 2007 season they were out there in the community and made no fewer than 155 appearances. They go to schools. They do all sorts of traditional charity support. Assistant Coach David Furner is a co-patron of the ACT Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group. They also run a program called Positive Choice-Positive Outcome, which is aimed at children learning about good health and good respect. It is a very successful program which promotes healthy living by emphasising the importance of correct nutrition, regular exercise and avoidance of addictive habits and offering tips for children to look after their own bodies. The program has reached out to over 10,000 members of the local community so far. It is a wonderful thing to see clubs like this and others do this sort of exercise. I would also like to talk briefly about the League of Legends: 100 Years of Rugby League in Australia, which is a wonderful exhibition developed with the league and sponsors. It opened at the National Museum of Australia, here in Canberra, on 8 March and was there until 11 May. It is now on the road. People who have seen it say that it is just the best experience if you want to talk about 100 years of a successful sport. It is currently at the Queensland Museum, in Brisbane, and will be there until 10 August. It goes to the Powerhouse Museum, in Sydney, from September to November of this year. It then goes to the Museum of Tropical Queensland, in Townsville, from December through to March 2009. It will go to the National Sports Museum, in Victoria, from April to July 2009. I strongly suggest that people get onto the website of the NRL and check out the League of Legends display, because it really is one of the best ways of encapsulating 100 years of wonderful sport. Sport is good for all our community. The Raiders, like other teams, do great work in promoting the sport through the juniors. I pay homage to all of those parents, sponsors and supporters who ensure that kids from a very early age right through to those in senior grades get out and play and enjoy their sport every week of the season, because, without those volunteers, the sport would never have been what it has been for the last 100 years. I wish it well in its next 100 years. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—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. 5688 Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs Hull: That the House recognises: there is a rising rate of HIV infection in Australia with around 1000 new HIV infections per year; there are more Australians living with HIV/AIDS than ever previously experienced; Australia requires a new and innovative strategy for a model of service delivery in prevention, reduction, and long term treatments of HIV/AIDS; attention must be given to the provision of better access to HIV/AIDS services for rural and regional communities; it is crucial for Australia to be a leader in the international fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS; a new international strategy for Australia needs to be developed; more resources and funding is critical to the future success of Australia’s HIV/AIDS strategies; and all policy and decision makers have an obligation to ensure HIV/AIDS sufferers and their families are given the best possible options for long term health management. 5689 19:31:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I have put this motion on the agenda simply to raise awareness of the issues that are confronting us with the HIV-AIDS populace and strategy. I just attended the UN National Assembly on HIV-AIDS in New York. It is my view that most countries are showing a lack of political leadership. At times, when we listened to the interventions and the presentations that were made at the assembly, it seemed that if the rhetoric counted for anything we would not have a problem. Sadly, the reality does not yield a positive picture. Whilst we have come a long way, we have a long way to go. In particular there are issues of treatment—more specifically, the lack of trained practitioners to deliver treatment—that we must deal with. There must be investment in workforce availability across the world to enable the delivery of antiretroviral therapies to those who are affected. It is a fact that many developed countries are poaching trained professionals from developing countries, and we are sadly leaving these areas with no ability to treat this HIV-AIDS epidemic. Prevention is still by far the best solution. When we are faced with figures that indicate that for every one infected person we treat there are 2.5 people who become newly infected, it is obvious to me that we need to have serious preventative measures and serious strategies that are concerned with the cheapest solution of all—prevention. That for every one person we treat 2.5 people become newly infected obviously puts significant pressure on maintaining and enhancing our funding. There has been a ridiculous notion that there is too much money going into responding to HIV-AIDS globally when in fact this is not correct. Treatment and intervention, particularly that which has a strong impact, is indeed very expensive and fewer than half of the people affected with HIV currently have access to treatment. Frankly, prevention is far less expensive and attention must be given to delivering prevention campaigns designed to target those most at risk. A serious rethink of Australia’s strategy should be undertaken. We must openly evaluate the success of the delivery of HIV care in all areas, including rural and regional areas. We must seriously re-evaluate our prevention message to determine if we have been effectively targeting our most at risk. Our first strategy was formulated in 1988 and it had bipartisan support that over the years successfully prevented many Australians from becoming infected. It began the process of eliminating discrimination. Indeed, it determined that all affected people would be provided with compassionate care. We have now seen four national strategies. My belief is that we are now heavy on rhetoric and the principles but that we are most definitely lacking leadership and drive in the delivery on the ground of a real HIV strategy. It is a fact that the strategy ends in only seven days time. Justifiable concerns have been raised that key programs could have their funding jeopardised. I urge the Minister for Health and Ageing to announce that the funding for programs under the old strategy will continue until the new strategy is in place. We cannot afford to take our eye off the ball. We must continue our practice of bipartisan responses to ensure that the sensitive issues are put on the table and discussed. This has been the platform—the key to the success—of the Australian control of HIV since the inception of strategies. It has been the desire of members of parliament on both sides of the House to discuss the sensitive issues of males having sex with males, intravenous drug use, sex workers and many other issues involved in HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C strategies. Every member in this House has an obligation to be a part of a candid response to HIV-AIDS, and it requires some significant thinking. We need to incorporate the UN declarations and the commitments from the UN into our strategies. We endorsed the declaration back in 2001, but we have never included the measures of that statement and the declaration into our own strategy. It is imperative that we look at ways to continue to show great leadership in the international areas. We have undertaken many reviews in respect of HIV and hepatitis C. There has been research into the epidemic and the disease, yet over the years we have seen few of these recommendations effectively implemented or even adopted. The states and the territories have been particularly lax and directionless in their response to HIV-AIDS. The Commonwealth must demand a better response from all parties. We can do better, and we must do better. There are many, many things that we need to apply in order to ensure that people have equity in treatment and services. We have an option to lead the world and to suggest greater implementation of new and emerging programs. The one thing that I was most interested in was to ensure that, in our strategy for HIV-AIDS—in the national strategy and the international strategy—we include a positive and proactive plan of action for those people who are survivors of rape and incest. If they were to get a postexposure prophylaxis for HIV, it would stem from some of the many problems that are now emanating from quite brutal actions in many Asia-Pacific countries. Indeed, Australia is not free from that either. We as a nation have always acted in a bipartisan way. It is time that we took the strategy, reviewed it precisely and determined its effectiveness on the ground in respect of controlling new infections, as we have over 1,000 new infections per year. Obviously, we have a problem that we need to address. I am concerned that the strategy has not yet been endorsed or implemented. Whilst I recognise that it is out there for consultation, many of the program operators are waiting for some sort of recognition or lead as to whether or not to continue their programs. Following my visit just recently to New York—and having now been appointed to the IPU HIV-AIDS task force—I feel quite confident that Australia still has so very much to offer. However, in order that we continue to be world leaders and provide direction for the rest of the world—and that in our international aid programs we can provide key advice and directions in those areas—it is very important that our strategy addresses the UN declaration, and that which is contained within the UN declaration, so that we continue to lead the way. This motion is before the House because we have only seven days before our strategy expires. I urge the minister—and I know that she is very aware of and significantly concerned about this issue—to ensure that our programs continue and that we take the opportunity to have a full and no-nonsense review of whether or not our strategy is being successfully delivered on the ground and what changes need to take place in order for us to provide whole-of-life and whole-of-health care for all of those HIV-AIDS sufferers and their families in communities in rural Australia and city areas alike. I applaud the House for allowing me to bring forward this private member’s motion. 5691 19:41:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Riverina. I am sure that I speak for all members of this parliament when I say that we should continue to invest in the areas of research, health services and education for the benefit of those suffering with the HIV-AIDS infection and the Australian community as a whole. While Australia continues to have one of the lowest rates of new HIV diagnoses among similarly developed countries, in recent years there have been worrying trends in infection rates for HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections—trends which the previous government did little to address. Up to 2006 there were five successive increases in the annual number of diagnoses of HIV, to around five diagnoses per 100,000 population. In 2006 there were 998, almost 1,000, new notifications of HIV infection. The statistics are similarly disturbing for other sexually transmitted infections. From 2005 to 2006 the rate of chlamydia increased by 12 per cent, continuing increases seen over the past 10 years. Gonorrhoea rates in 2006 increased by 29 per cent. Infectious syphilis increased from 3.1 per 100,000 people in 2004 to four per 100,000 in 2006. Respected data shows that, between 2000 and 2006, the number of new HIV diagnoses in Australia increased by 31 per cent. In Queensland the rate of diagnosed HIV infection in 2006 was four per 100,000 population. HIV continues to be transmitted primarily through sexual contact between men, although particularly concerning are recent media reports that there has been a significant increase in the rates of sexually transmissible infections in Queensland, particularly in young children—although an unknown proportion of the cases in children could result from a related chlamydia strain that causes an infectious eye disease called trachoma rather than having been acquired through sexual contact. The data also shows that, although there was a similar rate of HIV diagnosis per capita in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous populations, a higher proportion of cases were attributed to heterosexual contact and injecting drug use in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Although HIV-AIDS is one of the more commonly known of the blood-borne virus infections, in recent years chlamydia has been the most frequently notified sexually transmissible infection in Australia. Queensland has the highest number, at over 12,200 cases, and the second highest rate, at around 890 cases per 100,000 Queenslanders. Young, sexually active people are overwhelmingly the most at risk. Because untreated chlamydia can also lead to infertility in infected women, the high prevalence rates in Australia in women aged between 15 and 29 are of serious concern. Currently there is a testing program aimed at increasing the awareness of chlamydia and improving screening processes and surveillance. The results of this program will inform improvements in chlamydia testing nationally. The data on HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections in Australia emphasises the importance of federal and state governments taking an active role in dealing with all sexually transmissible infections. Obviously, it has been some years since we saw the grim reaper on our televisions, educating the Australian community about the risk of HIV-AIDS infection. At the time that campaign was very successful in bringing this issue to the forefront of people’s minds. This was especially the case for our young people. Of course, many of our youth and young adults today have never seen that advertising campaign. It is important that we keep a high awareness of the risk of HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections. Since 2005, prevention activities have been guided by a national strategy aimed at reducing the transmission of not only chlamydia but also other sexually transmissible infections, in addition to providing leadership through the four national strategies that underpin the national prevention and education activities. The government provides considerable funding to support targeted prevention and management of such infections. However, the statistics show that these strategies have not resulted in a reduction in diagnosed infections. It is not only the statistics that are disturbing in relation to chlamydia, gonorrhoea and infectious syphilis diseases; as these diseases share many risk factors, they paint a very worrying picture for HIV infection rates in the future. Clearly, the previous government fell asleep at the wheel. While Australia had a world-leading role in HIV-AIDS policy under the previous Labor government, this position was allowed to erode under the Howard government. In 2008 there are significant opportunities to redress this concerning trend. Reducing the transmission of HIV, other blood-borne viruses and sexually transmissible infections is a key area of the government’s preventative health agenda. The Australian government is committed to working in partnership with government and non-government organisations to refocus programs that help address rising rates of HIV-AIDS and minimise the personal and social impacts on those living with HIV-AIDS. There are opportunities in a number of areas to strengthen the health system’s focus on preventative health, as one of the key priorities of the government. Consistent with this, the government will look at how existing resources can be refocused and used more effectively to help reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmissible and blood-borne viral infections. The government acknowledges that effective partnerships between government, researchers, clinicians and affected communities have played a critical role in preventing and managing the spread of HIV to date and has committed in 2008 to reinvigorating this partnership approach. The previous government allocated $9.8 million in the 2007-08 budget for a four-year national prevention program to raise awareness of sexually transmissible infections, including HIV, and encourage behavioural changes to reduce their prevalence and spread. However, it did nothing to implement this program. The Rudd government will move ahead to ensure this program is implemented as quickly as possible. With regard to our leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region, the Australian Agency for International Development is undertaking a review of Australia’s international HIV strategy. It is greatly concerning that the epidemic is still expanding in many Asia-Pacific countries, including Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Fiji, Vietnam and China. Papua New Guinea has been confirmed as experiencing a generalised epidemic affecting more than one per cent of adults. On the other hand, with comprehensive responses now in place and a history of leadership on the issue, the epidemics in Cambodia and Thailand are considered to be declining. The Australian government provides $13.4 million per year to community based and research organisations that contribute to the development of prevention, education and research policies and programs. The government will ensure that it works closely with all key stakeholder groups and non-government organisations in refocusing our approach to HIV. Approximately $8.3 million of this funding is allocated annually to four national research centres to provide epidemiological data and undertake HIV clinical and social research, HIV and hepatitis virology research and research focusing on sex, health and society. Funding arrangements for community based and research organisations were reviewed in 2007. Future funding arrangements are presently being determined. An amount of $814.7 million over the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 is being provided to states and territories through public health outcome funding arrangements. The states and territories are required to meet a range of performance measures including the development of local HIV strategies and health promotion activities. The government is looking to reform and improve performance and accountability for funding provided to states and territories through its reforms to Commonwealth-state financial relations. In addition, stakeholder organisations have raised a number of complex issues about the ongoing effectiveness of Australia’s national response to HIV-AIDS. That is why officers from the Department of Health and Ageing have met with one of the key organisations to gain a better understanding of the issues from the sector’s perspective. This advice is informing consideration of the issues raised. The Rudd Labor government is committed to reinvigorating the partnerships between governments, researchers, clinicians and affected communities. To this end, the government will be undertaking a review of the four strategies before they expire at the end of 2008 and will respond to other issues raised by the sector in coming months. Importantly, the review will help establish more explicit links between the strategies and state and territory implementation plans. The government is confident that a reinvigoration of the preventative health agenda in partnership with the states and territories and other relevant stakeholders will assist in tackling the rising rates of blood-borne virus and sexually transmissible infections. The Rudd Labor government looks forward to working in partnership with all of these groups to tackle these important issues in our community. 5693 19:51:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the opportunity presented by the member for Riverina to speak on this important motion. After about a decade of decline, the rate of HIV-AIDS infection in Australia has been rising since the late 1990s. There are now more people in Australia with HIV-AIDS than ever before. Unfortunately, this trend seems set to continue. According to the research released in March by the University of New South Wales, Australia could actually be facing a huge surge in HIV infection rates over the next seven years. Lead researcher Dr David Wilson says that, although the numbers are lower than they were at the peak of the 1988 HIV-AIDS crisis, the trend is worrying. On a positive note, new treatments have seen a marked increase in the life expectancy of people infected with HIV and AIDS. If you were diagnosed with AIDS in 1996, the median survival time was only 19 months. By 2003, that had increased to 34 months. For Australians with HIV, the virus is no longer a death warrant, and many people diagnosed with HIV will go on to live long lives and have HIV-free children. The challenge before us is that people infected with HIV in developing nations have little or no chance of accessing the same treatment and medicines as Australians. Research by AusAID has found that 64,000 people, or two per cent of the population, in New Guinea are HIV positive. The research concluded that, unless interventions to address the spread and impact of HIV-AIDS are scaled up, by 2025 over 500,000 New Guineans will be living with HIV or AIDS. The effects of such an increase would be devastating: 117,000 children would lose mothers to HIV-AIDS, the workforce would decline by 12.5 per cent and 70 per cent of all hospital beds would be needed for AIDS sufferers. These statistics show that HIV and AIDS are not just a health challenge; they are an economic challenge, they are a social challenge and they are a national challenge. The diseases affect families physically, emotionally and financially. It is estimated that by 2015 HIV will have caused six million Asian families to slip below the poverty line. International experience has shown that, with strong leadership and comprehensive responses in place, the epidemics of HIV-AIDS can be brought under control, as evidenced in Cambodia and in Thailand. The problems are large and challenging. In Asia in 2008, only 26 per cent of HIV sufferers have access to the necessary drugs and treatment. Although this is up from just nine per cent in 2004, we would all agree that there is still a long, long way to go. Australia has been and has the opportunity to continue as a leader in the fight against HIV-AIDS. Internationally, we are recognised for our leadership on HIV policy and for technical strength in the prevention, treatment and research of the disease. Australia’s international AIDS strategy is due to conclude shortly—in fact, within seven days—and AusAID has released a consultation paper in preparation for the release of a new strategy later this year. This presents the Rudd government with an opportunity to continue Australia’s leading role in the field of HIV-AIDS treatment and prevention. Research into HIV-AIDS must continue in Australia, for the benefit of Australian sufferers as well as the international community. Unfortunately, many governments in our region have been unwilling or unable to develop comprehensive AIDS strategies. As a result, Australia’s position as a leader in this region is vital and must be maintained and expanded. On the domestic front, access to HIV-AIDS services for people living in rural and regional Australia must be improved. Counselling and support is often very difficult to obtain, and treatment may require travel and considerable inconvenience. HIV and AIDS are terrible conditions that affect thousands of Australian families. Today, I call on the government to ensure that HIV-AIDS sufferers and their families are given the best possible options for the management of their condition. 5694 19:55:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to commence my contribution to this debate by congratulating the member for Riverina for bringing this motion before the House tonight. In addition, I would like to put on the parliamentary record that she is renowned worldwide for the contributions she has made in this area. Recently, she was invited to participate in an IPU briefing held in conjunction with the 2008 high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly on AIDS. I would like to congratulate her for the work that she has done in this field and the recognition that she has brought to this parliament. I believe that the only way that we can have the best outcome in relation to HIV and AIDS is by adopting a bipartisan approach and having all levels of government involved in the fight against this deadly illness. We need a whole-of-community approach. As rightly mentioned by the previous speaker, people in developing African countries are some of the worst affected by AIDS and HIV. When you look at those countries, you can see just what happens if you do not adopt an approach where you attack the disease and try to resolve the issues that surround it. You can see that there is absolutely no benefit at all to putting your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist. Now, 25 years post the epidemic, we need to think about what it means to be HIV-positive and ageing. People with HIV are now living longer than previously as a result of antiretroviral medications. Those are the medications that need to be made available in Third World countries. Also, we need to look at alternative treatments. Something I have never before shared in this parliament is this: a member of my extended family was bisexual, and he had HIV-AIDS; his wife contracted the disease as well, and they both died. They had four children, and their deaths caused great anxiety and great upheaval in the lives of those children. When I look back to that era, there was much secrecy surrounding the illness and little treatment available. Moreover, there was not much of a mindset to actually attack the disease. It really does worry me that we are in an age where the number of HIV infections is increasing and we have developed a complacency about the disease. I would like to strongly support what the member for Riverina has said. We need to have more research. We need to have a very wide community campaign where we embrace the fact that this disease is out in the community and that it is actually increasing in prevalence. We need to look at the issues that are causing this increase. I do not want to see other families go through what the members of my family went through, with four young children having to be brought up without a mother or father. We need to have proper policies in place, and we need to have proper recognition of this disease and to ensure that the knowledge that we as a nation have is shared with other countries. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am mindful of the fact that I have jumped up the list of speakers so I will end my comments there. 5695 20:00:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to support the motion. There are approximately 12½ thousand Australians living with HIV, 2½ thousand of whom live with AIDS. From 1993 to 1999 the number of cases declined by 32 per cent, but it increased by 31 per cent from 1999 to 2006. Between 1993 and 2006, 12,313 new diagnoses of HIV infection were reported in Australia. The conclusion is that the number of HIV cases has risen across the country in the past seven years—although, incidentally, not in New South Wales. It is thought that the early drop in the number of cases and the new treatments available have perhaps reduced the fear of infection in the community and have caused the resumption of dangerous sexual practices. According to recent research at www.news-medical.net, if current trends continue, infection rates could rise by a staggering 70 per cent in Victoria and 20 per cent in Queensland. This research is based on men who have sex with men, because it is in this population that the increase in HIV has primarily been seen. It seems that almost one in five transmissions amongst gay men are from men who have been recently infected. It also appears that almost one in every three infections are estimated to be transmitted by approximately 13 per cent of men who are themselves undiagnosed and are unaware that they have the disease. The new spectre is the emergence of the drug resistant strains of HIV. In England right now, 27 per cent of HIV cases do not respond to treatment. Transmission in Australia continues to be predominantly through male homosexual contact, with 25 per cent attributed to injecting drug use and heterosexual transmission, but the pattern is changing. In the UK heterosexual contact has recently overtaken homosexual contact as the most common means of acquiring HIV. I therefore call on the government to do everything they possibly can about this. I note with interest that Meeting the Challenge, Australia’s international HIV strategy, finishes in seven days and there is nothing immediately available that I can see that the government are doing to follow it up. I call on the government to do everything they can to follow up on this strategy and to meet the challenge head on. Outside of Australia the AIDS epidemic is far from under control. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 58 million people have been infected with HIV and 23 million have already died from the disease. More than two-thirds of these cases are in sub-Saharan Africa, where infection statistics are staggering. In 2000, one in three adults in Botswana between the ages of 15 and 59 were infected with HIV. In South Africa, Zambia and Namibia one in four are infected, and the rate is one in five in Zimbabwe and Swaziland. HIV in Africa is primarily a heterosexual disease. This means that AIDS strikes down the most productive generation. The World Bank estimates that the central African republic of Malawi will lose a quarter of its workforce to AIDS in the next 10 years, with one in six adults infected. In Malawi 700,000 children will be orphaned by 2010. Uganda has been seen as the HIV model for the world. There, more than in any other country, the message seems to be working. There is community education at every level, predominantly the ‘ABC’ initiative, started by the churches. A is for abstinence, B is for being faithful and C is for being Christ like—that is, having a moral value in your life—although that is now changing, with C standing for condoms. This has been led by the churches. I acknowledge leadership of the Ugandan churches and especially KPC, under the leadership of Gary and Marilyn Skinner, who decided to fight this fight very early on. In 1990, 15 per cent of the population of Uganda was diagnosed with AIDS, including 30 per cent of all pregnant women in the country. At the end of 2006 the rate was only six per cent. Yet Uganda has a population of 25 million, and 50 per cent are under 15. It has the highest rate of AIDS orphans of any country in the world—upwards of two million. There is a tsunami every month in Africa. The deadly tide of disease and hunger steals silently and secretly across the continent. It is not dramatic and it rarely makes the television news. Its victims die quietly, out of sight, hidden in their pitiful homes, but they perish in the same numbers. The eyes of the world may be diverted from their routine suffering but the eyes of history are upon us. In years to come, future generations will look back and wonder how our world could have known what was happening—how our world could have known that, by 2010, there would be 50 million AIDS orphans around the world—and failed to act. The government needs to act. It needs to follow on from this successful strategy. We look to the government for guidance and leadership. 5696 20:05:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak on the motion of the member for Riverina. It is well framed and well put, and I congratulate her. As the former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan famously proclaimed in 1999, AIDS is everybody’s business. It has been nine years since that declaration was made, and HIV-AIDS still is everybody’s business. The disease respects no national boundaries, spares no race or religion and devastates both men and women, rich and poor, black and white. Since the first Australian case of AIDS was reported in Sydney in October 1982, Australia has not been inoculated from the threat of an HIV-AIDS pandemic. By September 2006, there were 23,065 Australians who had been infected with HIV and 6,658 Australians who had died from AIDS. In the 1980s, while other developed nations pursued policies which wrongly demonised HIV-AIDS as some sort of divine punishment for alleged sins, Australia subscribed, correctly, to the idiom that prevention is better than a cure. Australia’s approach, which focused on prevention and encouraged people to make simple changes to risky behaviour, was eminently more successful than the approaches overseas—particularly in America, which had adopted a head in the sand approach. Over 25 years on, Australia’s rate of HIV prevalence is 75 people per 100,000 compared with 402 people per 100,000 in the United States. Australia’s incidence of AIDS is 1.3 per 100,000 compared with 14.3 per 100,000 in the United States. Looking at the stark comparison, it is not too much to say that tens of thousands of lives have been saved thanks to Australia’s pragmatic and inclusive approach to HIV-AIDS. It was the policies initially pioneered by the Hawke Labor government that kept Australia’s rates of HIV-AIDS amongst the lowest in the developed world. As those in the chamber will be aware, it has been more than two decades since our last national prevention and education campaign. A generation of students have graduated without ever having heard the grim reaper’s warning. Twenty-five years on, it is starting to look as though complacency has set in. Alarmingly, rates of new HIV infection are climbing. It is a very worrying trend, even if it comes from a comparatively low base. Under the stewardship of the previous government, the incidence of HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases rose sharply. The world-leading approach to HIV-AIDS pioneered by the former Labor government unfortunately, sadly and regrettably eroded under the Howard government. Despite allocating $9.8 million in the 2007-08 budget for a four-year sexual health campaign, little action was taken. I am pleased to say that, while the former Howard government did almost nothing to implement this program, the Rudd government will move ahead to ensure this program is implemented as quickly as possible. The neglect of this health issue by the previous government has been acknowledged by a number of different sources. HIV-AIDS remains a disease for which there is no cure at the moment, and I look forward to the day when there is a cure. It is vitally important we as a nation do everything we can to promote prevention. Simply saying no and having zero tolerance of drug use will not solve the problem. Those things alone cannot do it. The Rudd government understands the steps that need to be taken to protect Australians from the spread of the disease. Reducing the transmission of HIV, other blood-borne viruses and other sexually transmitted diseases is a key component of the Rudd government’s preventative health agenda. The Rudd government is committed to working in partnership with government and non-government organisations to refocus programs that will address rising rates of notification of HIV and AIDS. This will be done by strengthening the health system’s focus on preventative health, partnering with governments, researchers, clinicians and other community groups and undertaking an evaluation and review of the national HIV-AIDS strategy by the end of this year. The Rudd government will respond to this review. The Rudd government understands that more emphasis needs to be placed on prevention. There is no silver bullet to cure HIV-AIDS—I wish there were—but health promotion which supports people in changing their behaviour is one of the most effective tools. I commend the member for Riverina for her contribution. She is a champion of this cause and I thank her very much for representing Australia so well. I look forward to her future contribution internationally on behalf of our country. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—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. 5698 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Ripoll: That the House: notes that: urban planning is an essential part of dealing with Australia’s future growth and addresses important areas such as jobs, housing, infrastructure and sustainable transport; urban planning requires broad participation from all tiers of government and various sectors to help shape future directions and developments; urban planning fosters quality planning which will create sustainable Australian communities which produce social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits for all; and if the nation is to have an agenda for prosperity—both economic and social—we must search for long term solutions; and supports: positive initiatives by the current Government to address future growth such as the establishment of Infrastructure Australia; and policies, projects and initiatives that deliver long term solution for Australia’s future planning needs and not for each electoral cycle. 5698 20:10:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to move this motion here tonight and I look forward to the ideas raised by both sides of politics to help combat the very real issue of our ever-increasing urban stability problems. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world, with more than four out of five Australians living in urban communities. What is more, between 2001 and 2006, our capital cities contributed 78 per cent of the nation’s economic growth. But we should be under no illusion when it comes to the monumental task that is before us. The population boom in places such as Western Australia and my home state of Queensland has seen our major centres caught out in terms of providing the necessary infrastructure to keep up with the increase in demand for resources, housing and transport—but, mind you, not without some warning. This fact will no doubt leave the federal opposition thinking of what more could have been done over the past decade—the lost years for infrastructure—and I will be very interested in what they have to say on this motion tonight. The reality is that future planning will always be remembered as one of the great tasks not done by the previous, Howard government. They just did not want to deal with the exponential population growth and they had no plan for the future. Close to 12 years of inaction and neglect on this issue have created a number of very real and critical problems for the nation which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. An integral part of finding the solution must lie within the re-emerging concept of strategic urban planning. But the key point is that, before you can fix a problem, you must accept that it exists and then give your attention to it. Urban planning is an essential part of dealing with Australia’s future growth and addresses important areas such as jobs, housing infrastructure and sustainable transport. If the nation is to have an agenda for prosperity, both economic and social, we must search for long-term solutions. But we must also understand that, to achieve these goals, there needs to be a renewed focus and commitment to making this a significant policy issue across a range of key portfolios, which include transport, housing, employment participation and the environment, at a federal, state and local government level. This is important because urban planning has the potential to foster quality planning, which will create the new, sustainable communities of the future—the communities that will benefit socially, culturally and economically. We need governments working in partnership and towards a number of sustainable goals in order to see a substantial focal shift in levels of funding for essential urban infrastructure. This is now being done. It is being done by this government and it is being done through the COAG process. That is why I applaud the Australian government’s introduction of Infrastructure Australia and the recently announced $20 billion Building Australia Fund. I also want to congratulate the Australian government on the announcement of the Major Cities Unit to fill the gap between policy frameworks, funding mechanisms and infrastructure delivery. Today our major centres must deal with the complexity of government departments, all of which can have a direct impact on their economic, social and environmental performance. A more integrated approach is what is needed. We need to identify opportunities where federal leadership can make a difference to the prosperity of our cities and the wellbeing of their residents. In particular, we need to develop strong and productive partnerships with our major centres and Infrastructure Australia, which will be prioritising billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure around the country. The recently introduced Major Cities Unit, which operates within the infrastructure minister’s department, no doubt will be central to this relationship. I again applaud the minister for his leadership and vision in this area. I would now like to draw the attention of the House to the Prime Minister’s address to the ALP Queensland state conference over the weekend, especially when he mentioned that advanced infrastructure was critical to building a stronger economy. This continued commitment by the Rudd government to infrastructure has already led to the establishment of the $20 billion Building Australia Fund for future infrastructure needs and the groundbreaking Infrastructure Australia body. Infrastructure Australia’s immediate task will be to audit the nation’s infrastructure shortfalls and produce an infrastructure priority list to guide billions of dollars of public and private investment properly. Its infrastructure audit will be completed early next year, providing us with a national infrastructure priority list by March 2009. Infrastructure Australia will also review the extent to which governments can better facilitate infrastructure investment, including through public-private partnerships as well as better planning and approval processes. The task ahead of the government is considerable; I have no doubt of that. The OECD ranks Australia 20th out of 25 countries when it comes to investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of national income. For over a decade the previous government failed to act in the best interests of Australia with respect to infrastructure. This will not occur under the Rudd Labor government. This government has the policies, the projects, the vision and the initiatives that will deliver for Australia’s future planning needs. They are not based on an election cycle but on the national interest and on what is needed in our urban and major centre areas. The policies we have put forward are more than sound and I congratulate the Rudd government for putting them forward. 5699 20:15:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak on this motion moved by the member for Oxley, who is a Queensland based member. His seat of Oxley is adjacent to the Ryan electorate, which I have the great honour of representing here in the parliament. When I first signed up to speak on this motion on behalf of the people of Ryan and the federal opposition, I thought that it would be a positive, optimistic and bipartisan motion minus the blame game. But then I came into the parliament and heard the member for Oxley straightaway launching himself into an attack on the previous government—that is, ‘The Howard government was responsible for everything that went wrong in Australia and everything that went wrong in Queensland.’ I am very disappointed. I say to the people of Ryan that, although the new Labor government has a Prime Minister from Queensland and we would have thought there would be much more for Queensland, unfortunately all the indicators so far are that the Prime Minister from Queensland is not going to deliver for Queensland. As I said, when I saw this motion I looked at the words and it talked about working together, an agenda for prosperity and long-term solutions, but the people of Ryan know that that is not the case with this government. I want to talk about Queensland, and the first thing I want to highlight for and remind the people of Queensland about, especially the people of Ryan, is that there has been a Labor government in Queensland for almost 20 uninterrupted years. We talk about the long term and about vision and planning; I would have thought that they would be planning well ahead. I am disappointed that the member for Oxley seems to be leaving the chamber and not listening to a critique of his motion, given that I am happy to speak on this motion on behalf of the people of Ryan in the spirit of bipartisanship. The Labor government in Queensland has been in power for nearly 20 years uninterrupted. When we talk about the long term, I want to draw the attention of the people in Ryan to Moggill Road. Moggill Road is a state road and it unfortunately has been brutally neglected by the Queensland Labor government. There is a great disconnect between council planning and infrastructure investment by the state government. In the suburbs of Bellbowrie and Moggill, indeed in all of the western suburbs of the Ryan electorate, the residents know that it takes almost an hour, or an hour and a half at times, to get from the far reaches of the Ryan electorate into the city. The problem is that Moggill Road is one giant car park. This motion talks about urban planning, dealing with Australia’s future growth, specifically infrastructure in Queensland, and broad participation from all tiers of government, but what do we have in Queensland? Now we have a Labor government here in Canberra and, lo and behold, there is talk in the Queensland press that the federal Labor government are not going to honour their commitment to a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. They were forced by the media to backtrack and to do a backflip because they knew full well that that was a tough ask for them to actually deliver. Now that they are in government, they are not going to deliver. We all know that there has been an explosion of growth in Queensland and some 4½ million residents are going to be living in Queensland by 2025-26. It is going to exceed the growth of Victoria, so we therefore have to plan ahead. No-one disputes that; that is a motherhood statement. The disappointing thing about this motion by the member for Oxley is that it has nice, fine, wonderfully crafted words. The first part of the motion is a motherhood statement which nobody could disagree with. But, when you see what is happening at the heart of the federal government with Labor in power, they are clearly not going to honour their commitment. On behalf of the people of Ryan, I would like to know what, as a Queensland based federal member, the member for Oxley will do. What will this Queensland based member of the federal government do to promote the interests of Queensland? What will he do for the people of Ryan? What will he do for Moggill Road, which is under the jurisdiction of a Labor government? We really want to know what he will do. We know that unfortunately a lot of money is being wasted by the Queensland government; it is going down the drain. I am just disappointed that clearly the Queensland government is not going to put the interests of Queensland first. It has again let down the people of Ryan and it has let down the people of Australia. Unfortunately, the $65 million in borrowing will just go down the chute. (Time expired) 5701 20:20:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I congratulate the member for Oxley for moving this motion on urban planning. I am deeply interested in the future of our cities and I am pleased to be able to contribute to debate on this topic. Questions about the appropriate role of government are central to any discussion about our cities. My view is that government must be involved in and must lead with the planning of our cities. In 1965 Gough Whitlam rightly said, ‘Urban planning necessarily means public planning.’ Governments do not merely have a role to play in urban planning; they have a duty to actively plan for the future of our cities. This extends to the federal government as well as to state and local governments. It is ironic that in modern Australia, where four-fifths of the population live in urban centres, the enduring images of our country are of the outback and wilderness. The Australia in which most of us live and work is better reflected in two large aerial photographs I have in my office. The first is an aerial shot of the Melbourne CBD and surrounding areas. Although changes to the inner city have dated the photograph, many features are recognisable—the centres of power, the major transport nodes, the inner urban residential areas and the major health, education and cultural institutions. The other is a photograph given to me by a high school in my electorate. It is also an aerial shot and it is focused on the school and the surrounding suburbs in south-east Melbourne—low-density housing, parks, local schools, a small shopping centre, residential streets and a number of major arterial routes. These two photographs illustrate what I think are some of the interesting features of our cities: the concentration of major institutions and centres of power in the inner city; the enormous changes that have taken place in the inner cities over the last 15 years and the relative stability of the established suburbs; the prosperity, security and seeming homogeneity of suburban areas; and the division between inner urban and outer suburban areas. More than most other areas of policy, urban planning calls for an active role from government because we have a collective interest in the form of our cities. Planning and other government activities provide the framework within which private decisions about land use can be made. All governments have legitimate policy objectives in areas like economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability. These objectives can be facilitated by the structure of our cities, or they can be undermined. The Commonwealth has substantial involvement already in a range of policy areas that raise questions of urban planning. Decisions about industry and innovation, migration, public transport, road funding and infrastructure policy and our response to climate change all affect the form of our cities. I am hoping for greater direct Commonwealth involvement in urban planning. To act as though urban planning is not a federal issue does not lessen federal implications; it simply results in poor policy outcomes. We have seen an example of this problem arise over the last five years with the housing affordability crisis. The crisis is real, it is happening and it is adversely affecting thousands of Australians. Home ownership remains a cherished aim for most Australians, yet today it is out of the reach of so many. The present crisis could have been ameliorated with acknowledgement and action by the Howard government. Instead, the Howard government had no response and it abolished the position of housing minister in 1996. In fact, there was little indication that the previous government made any decision with reference to the implications for our cities. In contrast, Labor has a long and proud tradition of Commonwealth involvement in urban affairs. Throughout the Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments, the Labor Party led the way. The Keating government had the Building Better Cities program, which was scrapped by the Howard government on coming to office. The recent announcement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government of the creation of a major cities unit in his department is part of this tradition of Labor policy on urban affairs, as is the establishment of Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund, which were announced in the budget. The Rudd Labor government is addressing the future needs of our cities and our economy. They are inextricably linked and to ignore this link, as the previous government did, is to fail in the responsibility of national leadership. 5702 20:25:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise to speak on the motion regarding urban planning and the need for better urban planning for our major cities in particular. There are some elements in this motion that are quite credible and reasonable. But, if you are arguing that the government does things, including planning, better than the market, you should take a trip to Sydney and examine this thesis. The armies of departmental urban planners, with their restrictions and regulations, have produced quite a chaotic and difficult situation for people, particularly those living in outer metropolitan areas of Sydney. I would like to make a few suggestions to improve the wording of the motion. Point (1)(c) of the motion says ‘urban planning fosters quality planning’. I suggest ‘urban planning can foster quality planning but not always’. Where the motion says that urban planning produces good ‘social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits’, I suggest ‘urban planning can produce good social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits but not always’. When it comes to the government taking over all of the decision making on urban planning for our cities, in my view less can often mean more. States have planned too much and for too many requirements, and there are too many restrictions. The states that restricted and planned the most have lost development to rival states. I come from New South Wales, and two of the members sitting in the chamber tonight come from Queensland. No developer will tell you that they are looking to invest in properties for urban development in New South Wales at the moment. They are interested in Queensland and Victoria because of their better regulatory environments. Let us not kid ourselves about that. The contention in this motion that government always produces a better outcome because it has departments to look at things is one that neither the major developers in Australia nor many people in my electorate would accept. Indeed, the community in north-western Sydney has had to suffer through a very poor, ill-thought-out series of policies from the New South Wales state Labor government in the form of green zones. As part of a draft plan for the future of north-west Sydney and the north-west development area, the government, after very limited consultation, decided to impose green zones on the properties of the local residents in those areas. Restrictions were placed on private properties, limiting livestock and undermining their rural usage and the ability of residents to sell or develop their land. These restrictions have disadvantaged members of my community and significantly devalued these properties. The minister, Frank Sartor, was forced to back down in a very embarrassing and ugly episode once he realised the heat of the situation that he and his army of bureaucrats with their planning nightmare had created in north-west Sydney. We know that we have a housing affordability crisis. I and all of the major charities in my electorate can tell you that we have a rental affordability crisis. We need to develop more land for housing and rental stock. The north-west sector of Sydney provides great opportunity for this development. The minimum lot sizes of 20 hectares and 40 hectares, which apply in the northern part of my electorate and further out, need to change. We need to have smaller sized lots. We need to develop the area for housing. That would be a good urban plan. But the attempt to create green zones shows that many of our urban planning departments have become captives of the conservation movement. I was very fortunate to witness a planning expert present some criteria about planning overseas and in Australia. If you take a map of the entire continent of Australia and condense all of the urban land within it into a circle, you will see that it represents a very small circle on that map. So the contention that we are running out of land shows another planning failure by our urban planning areas in state government departments. People in my electorate of Mitchell would not contend that government does urban planning better than the market. There is a need for government to play a role in many areas of planning, but if you look at one of the fastest growing areas of Sydney, Mitchell, which I represent, and if you look at the failures of planning infrastructure— 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, the member is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The member will have leave to continue speaking when private members’ business is resumed. 5703 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 5703 5703 20:30:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to grieve for the people of Coomera and Upper Coomera in regard to the lack of road infrastructure and future planning for the Foxwell Road interchange in the electorate of Fadden. Fadden is the fastest growing electorate in the nation. The electorate includes the suburbs of Coomera, Upper Coomera, Pimpama and Ormeau, which especially exploded in population between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. There are currently six schools, with plans for a seventh, within a five-kilometre radius of the Foxwell Road interchange: Assisi Catholic College, Coomera Anglican College, Saint Stephen’s College, Coomera Springs State School, Coomera State School and Upper Coomera State College. The road is also used by residents in the community to access the M1 and by the tourist trade, as it is the designated exit to the world-renowned Dreamworld. I raise this issue as members of the Coomera Anglican College and Saint Stephen’s College parents and friends associations will meet this week to discuss the Foxwell Road interchange. The Foxwell Road interchange and the M1 are the primary responsibility of the Queensland Bligh Labor government. According to Minister Keech in an email on 19 June, the state Labor government in the 2008-09 budget has allocated a minuscule $5.26 million—of which $2 million is joint federal-state money from the last state budget—to this interchange as part of a total project cost of, apparently, $22 million. On the surface there appears to be a glimmer of hope that the parents and residents of the local community will get something they are looking for. Unfortunately, I have here the Department of Main Roads’ Road Implementation Program through to 2012 for the south coast hinterland and, whilst Main Roads have allocated a minuscule amount of funding within the budget to infrastructure needs, it has only been allocated to concept planning. There are no other funds actually in the implementation program cognisant of the government’s pledge of $22 million for some time after 2008. When asked about the timing, the same state minister replied, through her media adviser, that indeed it would be ‘some date after 2008’. This has left parents, residents and the community completely in the dark. The community are unable to extract a specific time frame for when a very serious problem, a confluence of traffic from six and soon seven schools as well as residents moving on the M1 and tourists going to Dreamworld, will be addressed. Concept planning for an almost identical interchange 16 kilometres south in the electorate of Moncrieff, the Nielsens Road interchange, began in 2002. Over six years, the Labor state member for Mudgeeraba touted that construction would begin, you guessed it, ‘soon’. Over that period of six years, all the state government did was demolish four houses in preparation. In February 2008, only four months ago, construction—hallelujah!—finally began on the upgrade. It was only through the hard work and persistence of community members like Ros Bates—and I acknowledge the federal member for Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, for his hard work—that a date for construction was set. The community at this interchange will have to wait until August 2009 for the Nielsens upgrade to be completed, presuming the project runs to schedule. That is nine long years—nine years of queueing down the M1, nine years of congested roundabouts and nine years of frustration for a local community with a Labor state government. The community in Coomera, in my electorate, is already at this point, and the concept-planning stage is due to start ‘sometime after 2008’, according to the state member’s office. If Main Roads starts concept planning in 2008, the best the local community can look forward to is completion by 2017, if the progress of the Nielsens Road interchange is any indication of what the Labor state government is capable—or should I say ‘incapable’—of. Currently, parents who live on Foxwell Road and make the journey across the highway overpass to drop their children at school must plan for a one-hour trip. This is a trip that, without congestion, takes no longer than 10 minutes. The Foxwell Road interchange consists of the Foxwell Road off ramp on the southbound side of the M1 and the Days Road off ramp on the northbound side. These roads are both connected by a highway overpass. Both roads are connected to roundabouts, and these roundabouts are fed by traffic from the M1. To add complication to the present situation, a service station centre feeds its exiting traffic to merge on the M1 off ramp. It is very much a case of: the M1 is connected to Foxwell Road; Foxwell Road is connected to the overpass; the overpass is connected to another roundabout; the roundabout is connected to six schools; six schools are connected to Days Road; and Days Road is connected to the M1. You can all sing along if you like—except there is nothing funny about the absolutely parlous state that the Labor state government has left Fadden in. Unfortunately, in the not-too-distant future, one could conceive of two or more cars being connected in a horrific accident if the present situation is not rectified. As I mentioned, six schools are presently fed from this interchange. Five of these schools have five-year growth projections: Assisi Catholic College, which currently has 700 enrolled students, will have an estimated 1,600 students by 2013; Coomera Anglican College, whose current population is 1,120, is estimated to have 1,300 by 2013; St Stephen’s College, which currently has 1,228 students, is estimated to have 1,500 by 2013; Coomera Springs, which currently has 200 students, is estimated to have 1,150 by 2013; and Coomera State School, which is currently at capacity with 860 students, but will grow by approximately 100 students each year and with minimum funding estimates that it will have over 950 students by 2013. That means that, on any given day, there are up to 4,100 students currently attending schools that feed from the Foxwell Road interchange. Over 4,000 children are trying to arrive and leave the same area at precisely the same time. These two roads are the only main roads the parents from these six schools can use to drop off and collect their kids. On any given day, the northbound off ramp that leads to Days Road is fully congested, leaving parents stranded and queuing—often at a complete standstill—down a 110 kilometres-per-hour lane of the M1. This congestion clearly creates a chain reaction. Most of the parents who use the southbound exit and Foxwell Road must cross the overpass to reach their destination. The overpass then becomes congested, forcing traffic to a standstill at the Foxwell Road roundabout. This in turn prevents traffic from the southbound exit from entering the roundabout. As a result, there are parents queuing down both the northbound and southbound lanes of the 110-kilometres-per-hour M1 motorway. In 2013, there will be over 7½ thousand students attending the abovementioned schools. That will be 7½ thousand students arriving in the area between 8 am and 9 am every weekday and 7½ thousand students trying to exit between 3 pm and 3.20 pm. What is farcical is that there are plans to build 60,000 homes at the end of Foxwell Road—as if there is not enough congestion already. Let’s throw 60,000 more homes, more cars, more people and another school into the mix and wonder why we have a continuing problem! Last year I had the pleasure of standing with the then Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile as he announced $455 million in federal road funding for the M1 from Nielsens Road, Nerang, to Stewart Road, Ormeau. The Foxwell Road interchange would fall between elements of that stretch of road. I have recently learnt that the $455 million of federal funding, which was dedicated to road projects in the region by the previous coalition government, and which was fought so hard for by the members for Moncrieff and McPherson, has been dumped by the current Labor government—surprise, surprise! Instead, the Labor government has reallocated the funding to be spent between Logan and Springwood. Could that area possibly be in Labor seats? It is an area that falls outside the fastest growing electorate in the nation—Fadden. I am calling on the Bligh and the Rudd Labor governments to honour the original funding of $455 million to the community and to allocate money to fix the Foxwell Road interchange now. The state government needs to act now in order to complete the necessary planning and start the project in a time frame that will minimise not only the impact on the local community in years to come but also the potential for major traffic accidents and possible loss of life. By 2013, the Foxwell Road interchange will be used by 60,000 homes, a planned shopping centre, commuters for the local train station and over 7,000 schoolchildren—all on one road interchange. The funding will provide a four-lane overpass and restructure the existing roundabouts to accommodate the extra lanes and the looming expectation of increased traffic. In addition it will provide a solution to the issue of traffic exiting from the service station located in the heart of the problem area. It is the fastest growing region of Australia. It needs action now. 5706 5706 20:40:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I rise to speak in the grievance debate tonight to indicate that last week in Wollongong a new report on youth unemployment in the Illawarra was publicly released at the Wollongong art gallery. The Illawarra Regional Information Service report, jointly funded between IRIS, BlueScope Steel and the Wollongong University, was developed to put some facts on the table about the extent of youth unemployment in the Illawarra. It finds that it is a complex problem involving education and training, transport, housing, government coordination, income support, drug and alcohol addiction and job creation. I do not have time in this debate to go through all the findings, but one finding did stand out significantly, and that was the comment that more jobs need to be created in the Illawarra for young people. Wollongong, in the heart of my electorate, is about 80 kilometres away from the Sydney CBD. It is less than one hour from Campbelltown, Ingleburn and Liverpool. Over the last 30 years, Wollongong and the Illawarra generally have tried to readjust to the new economic world. We are now largely a service based regional economy. Tourism, education and health are now the biggest employers in the region. In the mid-1980s the biggest employers were manufacturing and production, mainly in the steel and coal industry. Wollongong and the Illawarra have come through massive restructuring to reflect a new economic world. The Port Kembla steelworks is the most efficient steelworks in the Southern Hemisphere—so efficient that BlueScope Steel only a fortnight ago announced a massive investment in its new blast furnace. In 1982-83, BHP was planning to close down. The coal industry has sprung back to life, with new coalmines having been opened in recent years. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments over 13 years made massive investments in the University of Wollongong. It grew from an old college with demountable buildings under the Illawarra escarpment to a massive precinct of educational excellence. The Hawke and Keating governments provided public investment by constructing the Wollongong tax office in Burelli Street, the Navy hydrography office just across the road and the old Commonwealth office blocks next door to the current council administration building. Those governments made financial contributions to Wollongong and the Illawarra’s external transport links, including the F6 through my electorate. I have also spoken in this place regularly about the massive $140 million investment by the New South Wales government in the port of Port Kembla. This port will become a key destination for car imports—at least 250,000 each year—as well as container trade. The port will continue its existing bulk-handling tasks of shipping grain, coal and steel. While Commonwealth Labor governments contributed to the restructuring tasks of Wollongong, the Howard government ignored the region for over a decade. In 11 years the Howard government made no significant comparable investments in Wollongong. When it launched AusLink mark 1, it acknowledged the Sydney to Wollongong corridor in a single paragraph and allocated nothing to it. We were frozen out of AusLink for a full five years. I am pleased that the Rudd government recognises that the transport corridor in Wollongong is significant. I am particularly delighted that the 2008-09 budget allocated $300,000 to conduct a prefeasibility study into the potential to complete the Maldon-Dombarton rail line. I have already held informal discussions with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on the scope of the study. The department will meet with representatives of the Port Kembla Port Corporation later this month to finalise the terms of reference for the prefeasibility study, which I hope can be completed by the end of the year. The key point about the infrastructure requirements of Wollongong and the Illawarra is that the growth of Port Kembla will drive the infrastructure we need. The potential of completing the Maldon-Dumbarton rail link will provide a key trade corridor to the Western Sydney areas—areas like Minto, represented  by my colleague the honourable member for Werriwa. The port of Port Kembla can become a port of choice for Western Sydney manufacturers. We have the potential to develop a trade-coast link between the port of Port Kembla and Wollongong and the third largest economy in Australia, western and south-western Sydney. I have often stated in this place that the Wollongong-Sydney corridor is the largest commuter corridor in the country. At least 20,000 commuters leave Wollongong and other Illawarra suburbs to travel to the Sydney CBD every day and return each night. Indeed, a recent statistic which quite startled me was that 23 per cent of the working population in my electorate commute out of Wollongong to Sydney every day. It is like a tide going out and coming in each and every day. I have long held the view, having travelled that commuter corridor myself for seven years, that a portion of these employees can and should be working either in Wollongong offices or from their own homes. This would require affordable, accessible broadband platforms, which are key to ensuring that outcome. But there are also nearly 5,000 people who travel from Sydney to Wollongong each day to work, so people flow in both directions. They use the main Illawarra rail line and the Picton Road. These workers have been dubbed the ‘countercommuters’ by demographer Bernard Salt, from KPMG. He said in an article in the Illawarra Mercury on 16 May 2008: Perhaps this is showing a maturing of the Sydney relationship with Wollongong and Sydneysiders are embracing work opportunities Wollongong has to offer … All of these trends—the expansion of the port, the stable commuter corridor to Sydney from Wollongong and the discovery of the nearly 5,000-strong countercommuters—will continue to place pressure on the transport infrastructure in Wollongong and its links to Sydney. It is because of these pressures not only in my region but across other vital centres in Australia that the government has established Infrastructure Australia, the $20 billion Building Australia Fund and the Major Cities Unit in the department. I am pleased that in Wollongong stakeholders are starting to again discuss the infrastructure needs that will link Wollongong to Sydney and south-western Sydney. The Property Council of Australia, Illawarra chapter, recently hosted a luncheon to discuss a major report that it has commissioned on infrastructure. I have been involved in discussions with the Illawarra Business Chamber recently on the most important transport infrastructure that Wollongong needs, and I understand they will be cohosting and convening a Regional Development Australia Illawarra task force to begin that task of developing a strong case for those vital transport connections. My message to Wollongong stakeholders over recent months has been that it is essential to do the hard work of developing the case for transport infrastructure investment for the region. That means fully developed arguments with comprehensive data in support of the region’s claims for government funding and investments. It also means that—if it is desired that there be Commonwealth involvement in projects—we as a region will be working through Regional Development Australia, Illawarra, as the coordinating Commonwealth agency in Wollongong. I am essentially calling for an end to what can be an easy and lazy process by some stakeholders of issuing a press release on a Sunday announcing a wish list, which may well garner them a headline in the local media the next day but which adds nothing to the task of making the case for government investment in infrastructure. All stakeholders will admit to having done this at one stage or another. The business community in Wollongong would never invest money into any project on the basis of a smartly worded press release, so why should they expect the government to do likewise? It is time for all stakeholders—businesses, unions and community groups—to work together to prioritise the projects that should meet the important national objectives. Those are: reducing the congestion of our cities; adding to the productivity, business and job creation opportunities in our regions; maintaining crucial freight links with Sydney; and developing a close link with the $80 billion economy of western and south-western Sydney. Wollongong and the Illawarra have restructured. We are well into the process of diversifying the region’s economy. In my very first speech in this place, I outlined to the House how we had been resilient in the face of change arising from the 1980s restructuring of our coal and steel industries and that we had in fact achieved great outcomes. We must continue that task in a professional and coordinated manner. This calls for not only government but also private sector investment in the economic capacity of Wollongong and the Illawarra. Everybody should be singing from the same song sheet. We should have an argument for infrastructure founded on a solid case and solid data so that we can then legitimately ask for our share of national investment and once again see a federal Labor government that will take up the call to invest in our region. To take me back to where I started, on the report on youth unemployment: this is the only way to ensure that more of the jobs that are needed will be created in the Illawarra for our young people in the future. 5708 5708 20:50:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I want to acknowledge the member for Cunningham and her contribution. I was born in Wollongong Hospital and still have some family down in Wollongong. Part of my family still commutes out of Wollongong every day of every week, so those matters raised by the member for Cunningham are important. I would like to draw attention to my grievance for the electorate of Mitchell: the ongoing issue of toll roads. Tolls are a significant burden on families and a consistently acknowledged public issue for the residents and commuters in my electorate. Firstly, let me record my support for public-private partnerships and government encouraging private capital into infrastructure and investment. Properly done, public-private partnerships deliver quality infrastructure. They deliver a commercial benefit and they deliver a good outcome for the consumer. In the case of toll roads, value is returned to the motorist in the saving of time—which can be spent with the family or for private purposes—less wear and tear on a car, lower running costs and lower expenses. A good example of what I am talking about is the properly functioning government funded toll project, the M7. This project was funded and implemented by the Howard government and has provided a great benefit to the people of Western Sydney and my community. As one of the local federal members whose electorates surround this project, I can confirm to the House that I get virtually no complaints about the toll or the operation of the M7 motorway. People using this motorway pay a reasonably priced toll and they receive a benefit in return, which they value. That is the way it should work in a public-private partnership. There should be value to the consumer in return for the fee that they pay. Public-private partnerships and government funded infrastructure can work. They are not problems in themselves. They can be seen to work. Indeed, from the feedback I get, they are seen to work. However, a person’s access to travel from their home to work should be a critical priority for any government, Liberal or Labor, and the member for Cunningham was recently talking about that same issue. In particular, government needs to show concern and empathy for those who live in the outlying suburbs of major cities and our regions and areas where public transport is in urgent need of upgrade and assistance. In my electorate of Mitchell, there is no rail line to the north-west of Sydney, and this is a major problem for people in my area. I have recorded it here before and I will say it again: my electorate of Mitchell has the highest rate of car ownership of any electorate in Australia—70.2 per cent of my households have two or more cars. That is a direct result of government not funding public transport infrastructure in my electorate. Why do people have so many cars? It is because there is no other choice. It is not because they do not want to use public transport and it is not because they are not prepared to pay the cost, sacrifice the time or put themselves on a train. The reason is that government has failed to provide them with an acceptable alternative—indeed, any alternative. Sadly, governments at a state level have looked more to the capacity for votes from any potential infrastructure upgrade rather than to providing alternative solutions to those problems. If we are going to be serious about climate change and get real about transport solutions, it is not acceptable for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to say we have to get real about car ownership when there is no public transport alternative for many parts of Australia. We have to deliver an alternative. In Sydney, in New South Wales, this has never been more the case. On many days, members of my electorate of Mitchell are stuck in traffic jams on the M2 motorway or they are crammed into buses with standing room only for the trip to the city to work. In the budget, the federal Labor government funded studies into an alternative western metro link from Parramatta to the city rather than from Parramatta to the outer suburbs of our region, where it is most heavily needed. Indeed, it only takes 20 minutes to get from the inner city to the Sydney CBD and it takes sometimes an hour and 40 minutes to go the same route from my electorate of Mitchell to the Sydney CBD. Let us be clear here on what we are talking about. The residents of my electorate are not complaining about the tolls from our district to the city for the sake of complaining; they are pointing out that they pay these tolls—they pay numerous tolls—and do not receive value in return. Let us contrast the point. I do not receive complaints about the M7 and its operation, because it is a reasonable toll and you get the value. However, when you pay the toll on a motorway and you do not get the value and you are still stuck in traffic and the state government of New South Wales closes publicly owned roads to force people onto those tollways and infrastructure, you have got a problem and I think you have a reasonable basis for complaint. There have been a series of what I describe as very bad episodes in public transport infrastructure provision with the private sector in New South Wales in particular. We had the cross-city tunnel—a scandalous situation where a government department, the Roads and Traffic Authority, accepted in the order of $100 million from the motorway operator in return for closing 20 or 30 public roads. These are publicly owned roads, paid for by the taxpayer over generations, and I do not believe it is acceptable—and indeed the people of New South Wales did not find it acceptable—that a government department could receive a payment to close those roads and force people to use these elements of new infrastructure. In the case of the Lane Cove tunnel, we had repeat of this, with Epping Road—paid for and funded by the taxpayer. They are publicly owned roads and the government closed the lanes in order to force people to use the tollway which has been built in the Lane Cove tunnel. The cross-city tunnel operator has already collapsed and the Lane Cove tunnel, from all reliable reports, is also in some measure of financial trouble. The New South Wales government is giving a bad name to public-private partnerships and private owners of capital for infrastructure. Not only have the residents in my electorate been forced to use these motorways by direct state government policy but the choice to use a non-toll road has also been taken away from them. Consider that motorists in my electorate pay $16.90 a day, $84.50 a week, $330 a month or $4,056 a year. They have a big stake in this. Let me specify what happens to a typical person going from my electorate to the city. Firstly, they will struggle on local roads, overloaded with traffic, and fight the traffic just to get to the M2. Then, on reaching the motorway, they will crawl along. At some points they will move at a reasonable pace but, more often than not, it will be agonisingly slow or they will stop-start for most of the trip. For this service that is barely quicker than travelling on an alternative route they will pay a toll. When they get to the Lane Cove tunnel, if they take the option of exiting, they will be stuck in enormous traffic because the state government has shut the lanes on the publicly funded roads and made it impassable. Therefore, they choose the Lane Cove tunnel—really, you have no choice on that—and they pay another toll. After struggling through that traffic and paying two tolls, they reach the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is another case in point—a contract with the people which was: we will build the Sydney Harbour Bridge and you will pay it off through your tolls. Well, the Sydney Harbour Bridge was paid off by the people of New South Wales a number of years ago now. The New South Wales state government decided arbitrarily, without reference to the people, to continue the tolling of the Sydney Harbour Bridge not only after the Harbour Bridge had been funded but also after the harbour tunnel had been funded by the tolls on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. This is an outrageous abuse of people in New South Wales. That is publicly owned infrastructure and, once it has been paid, it ought to be returned to public ownership. If you live in the north-west of Sydney, you are penalised for where you live and who you are. If you travel both ways in a day, it is worse and tolls are doubled. If you live somewhere else in Sydney, you have access to a cash-back scheme and you have access to public transport. But you have no choice in my electorate of Mitchell. There is no rail line, the buses are overloaded and they are private operators in the main. The state government built a transit way from Rouse Hill to Parramatta—and I applaud them for that. But, when I have approached them about access for the private bus companies onto that transit way—which is for buses only and is only used five per cent of the day by buses—do you think I get any answer from them about this? Even for a fee, they are not willing to allow private bus companies when there is a massive demand for people to use buses. What kind of transport policy and what kind of planning are we engaging in here? It is a real grievance in my electorate. It is a real grievance of people and they are right to complain about it. They are not complaining that they have to pay tolls; they are prepared to pay tolls where they receive value for that toll, as in the case of the M7. They are prepared to have great infrastructure and to pay it off, but, in return, governments have an obligation to fund essential infrastructure in essential areas, regardless of the votes of that area, and to return assets—publicly funded roads and publicly funded infrastructure—to public ownership when they say they will, which should be the case with the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. On behalf of my electorate I record those grievances on the very severe situation with tolling from my electorate to the city and from the city to my electorate. 5711 5711 21:00:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the grievance debate about a particularly sad event. On occasions like this I do not know what the right words are but I do know that no words would be wrong, so I stand here tonight unsure of the right words, a little nervously, a little awkwardly—a little gauche—and very, very sadly to talk about the deaths that occurred across the road from the Gold Coast Convention Centre on Saturday, 21 June. I stand here tonight to honour the two men whose lives were tragically cut short on Saturday morning. Chris Gear, 36, and Steve Sayer, 52, fell to their deaths on a Gold Coast construction site at the newly completed Meriton Pegasus apartment complex at Broadbeach. For those listening who are not from the south-east corner of Queensland, I can tell you that the site is between the Conrad Jupiters Casino and one of the Gold Coast’s most beautiful beaches. Hundreds of thousands of tourists would drive past this once innocuous spot every year. When these two men, Chris Gear and Steve Sayer, went off to work on Saturday morning it was like every other day. I was at the Gold Coast, like so many other Labor Party members who were attending the annual state conference across the road, and 21 June was another beautiful day in paradise—a crispish, clear morning with plenty of promise. But in another way 21 June was a dark day. In the Southern Hemisphere 21 June is the winter solstice. Culturally we think of this as the shortest day of the year or the longest night of the year. We use the term ‘solstice’ for the whole day, even though the solstice actually takes but a second. ‘Solstice’ derives from the Latin root ‘sol’ meaning ‘sun’, as in solar panels, and ‘sistit’ meaning ‘to stand still’, so the term ‘winter solstice’ means ‘when the sun stands still in winter’. On the morning of 21 June the whole world stood still for Chris Gear and Steve Sayer. Their world ended and the world of their friends and families and workmates was also horribly changed forever. In fact, the members for Bonner and Dawson and many other members who were at the Labor Party conference heard or saw the crash. Sadly I report to the House that I am advised by the union that several witnesses from, on and near the work site saw Chris and Steve slide off an outdoor swinging stage that left them dangling from their safety harnesses before the whole platform collapsed and these two poor men fell 26 storeys to their death. Chris and Steve were experienced high-rise construction workers but they had no warning of the peril they faced that morning. My brothers who work in the construction industry tell me that a little bit of healthy respect is not uncommon amongst those who work on high-rises, particularly those who work on the outside, but Chris and Steve would have swallowed their respectable fear for the sake of their families’ livelihood. These same families and their workmates are anxious to know what happened. How could a normal day at work go so horribly wrong? But I must say that it is in the face of this kind of tragedy and adversity that we see the best of our construction unions. Michael Ravbar, General Secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and his deputy, Jason Stein, and many other CFMEU officials, organisers and delegates were on site immediately—as soon as they knew—to offer counselling to the grieving workmates and to see what was going on. The CFMEU and the BLF were instrumental in raising money for the families of the deceased men. They passed the bucket around at the ALP state conference and raised over $5,000 on the Sunday for the grieving families. No doubt today, on building sites all over Queensland and maybe even all over Australia, construction workers would have dug deep into their pockets for these grieving families. Construction workers might be tough men and women when it comes to protecting their rights, but they are soft touches when it comes to looking after their own. They are surely one of the most generous groups of people you will ever find in Australia. My brother David has told me that there is an intention on the work sites, especially on the Gold Coast, for normal workers to donate a day’s wages to the families of the deceased. The CFMEU are working with the appropriate authorities in Queensland to inspect the Broadbeach building site in search of answers to ensure that this kind of workplace accident never happens again. The union will work with the occupational health and safety inspectors to make sure that the sun will never again stand still in similar circumstances. The CFMEU has played a strong role in the industry’s immediate ban of the swing-stage scaffolds in Queensland. They will remain banned until everybody is completely satisfied that these swing-stages are safe. Obviously, all safety-minded employers and employees would agree that this is an appropriate response amid these heartbreaking circumstances. This ban will mostly impact building in Queensland’s south-east, where the majority of high-rise constructions are taking place and, obviously, where the majority of the population is. However, a few building sites in booming Cairns and Townsville might also be affected. This tragedy has also caused my family to relive the pain of a building accident that I spoke about in the House on Wednesday, 18 June—last week. This was an accident that also occurred on the Gold Coast, just down the road from Broadbeach, about 10 metres over the border in New South Wales. I have two brothers, Mark and David, currently working in the construction industry. One of them, David, was just about to pull the hoist rope in the crane across the road from the accident site on the afternoon of the deaths on the weekend. In fact, David had pulled down his company’s crane from the actual accident site just two weeks beforehand. As I say, I have two brothers currently working in the construction industry. But I have another brother who used to be in the industry, Tim. It was Tim who was particularly disturbed to hear about the deaths of Chris and Steve on Saturday. Tim is a barman now, but he used to work in the construction industry. He was working on the Twin Towns Services Club on 29 November 1996 when a crane collapsed and killed the two men standing right alongside of him, Rod and Wayne. And the ponder weight from the crane landed on Tim and wrecked his back. So, while 29 November is a long way from the winter solstice—in fact, it is getting pretty close to the summer solstice—for Tim, it was a day when the sun stood still. And, for years afterwards, Tim’s life stood still. Thankfully, he is getting himself back together now, but the long, dark days will never really disappear. Cranes, like swing-stages, are commonplace on building sites. They are not supposed to collapse. The accidents that claimed Rod and Wayne and Chris and Steve, and so many other workers throughout Australia, highlight the fact that Australians still face danger every day when they turn up to toil in work sites all around the country. That is why thousands of construction workers in Queensland have taken action today to support these grieving families. Construction workers and the CFMEU are concerned about failing safety standards on work sites. For all good employers in the sector—and there are many of them—there is no greater priority than providing adequate, world-class workplace safety standards for all employees. Unfortunately, this message is not getting through to every single employer. There are too many Rods and Waynes and Chrises and Steves dying in workplace accidents. Australian Safety and Compensation Council figures show a five per cent increase in building site accidents since 1997-98. In 1997-98, there were 37 fatalities and 13,955 non-fatal accidents on building sites around Australia. However, statistics for 2004-05, which are the latest available statistics, show there were 31 fatalities and 14,724 non-fatal accidents—nearly 1,000 more non-fatal accidents. I have been advised in recent times that the increase in reportable incidents in some parts of Australia, in some building sites, has been closer to 30 per cent. And many workers have told me that some of the responsibility for a new health and safety climate on building sites rests firmly with the previous government. I will quote from the CFMEU Construction and General Safety Newsletter, Issue 14 from October 2007. In that newsletter, the National Occupational Health and Safety Officer, Martin Kingham, says: The responsibility for any increase in death and injuries of construction workers sits squarely on the shoulders of the Howard Government. Its punishing construction laws and the ABCC—which took effect in 2005—bar unions from taking an active role in policing safety on the job. I am not going to pursue that line. I do not think this is the appropriate time. However, I do want to refer to one particular story from Henry Lawson in the brief time I have left to speak. It is one of my favourite short stories, called ‘The union buries its dead’. It was written in the 1890s—incidentally, at the time the Australian Labor Party was formed. It is one of the blackest and bleakest of his stories. I will not have time to quote from it, but I will say this: the construction unions, like so many other unions, are sick of burying their dead. 5713 5713 21:10:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I wish to express my deep concern about science in this country. Every government acknowledges the importance of science in today’s and tomorrow’s increasingly technologically dependent world. From the Labor Party we have had the usual empty slogans: ‘clever country’ and ‘evidenced based policy’. It is interesting to note that evidence based policy was first mentioned in Hansard by one Mark Latham. However, when the glib reassurances are brushed away, what is exposed is a scientific community being compromised by the short-sighted policies of those who know little to nothing about scientific research methods. The recent budget is a classic example of this government’s determination to financially starve the bodies capable of providing hard data for policies and the scientific and technical expertise to take Australia well into the post-industrial era. In fact, the word ‘science’ is not even mentioned in this year’s budget. There has been a reduction in funding for the science sector from 2.63 per cent to 2.56 per cent of total government expenditure. Under the budget measure of so-called responsible economic management, the CSIRO will suffer a cut of $9.486 million in 2008-09, followed by similar amounts over the next three years, to a total of $39,813,000 over the full period. CSIRO’s staffing will drop from 5,700 to an estimated 5,615 in the year ahead. If the budget cut is combined with the $23.6 million cut under the increased efficiency dividend, CSIRO faces a loss of $63 million over the next four years. The actual losses to science are in the closure of a horticultural research lab near Mildura, with the loss of up to 30 jobs, and a beef research laboratory at Rockhampton. The move was denounced by the CSIRO Staff Association, which said that work at the two laboratories contributed to Australia’s food quality and security. You would think that would be very important in this day and age. CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Jeff Garrett conceded the cuts would have an ‘adverse impact on research’. The President of the CSIRO Staff Association, Michael Borgas, said closing the laboratory at Merbein, near Mildura, would hurt the local horticultural industry. Virtually the entire Australian dried grape industry relies on CSIRO clones and varieties. Dr Borgas described the closures as ‘lazy, knee-jerk management’ and attacked the budget cuts. The federal opposition was also scathing, with my colleague Senator Eric Abetz highlighting yet another Rudd broken promise. He said: Labor promised to revitalise the CSIRO, but have done the complete opposite. Annual appropriations for ANSTO will fall from $185 million in 2007 to $174 million, but cash reserves will increase net resourcing by almost 46 per cent. ANSTO loses $7.315 million under ‘responsible economic management’ and a further $11.3 million out of the former nuclear collaborative research program. Shortly after the budget, ANSTO announced a restructure and the confirmed loss of around 80 staff in the future. Nuclear physicist Professor Leslie Kemeny said in relation to the ANSTO budget cuts that this federal government appears opposed to nuclear technology and the prospect of nuclear power. He is not telling us anything new there. He said: It does seem to me that nuclear has been pushed to one side. It hasn’t been mentioned in the Budget, and some of our top scientists were appalled at the fact that nuclear did not get a mention in the Budget. Professor Ken Baldwin of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies is concerned that these cuts ‘represent a reduction in our scientific capacity in the country’. He said: We’re particularly concerned about the effect that this might have on rural and regional areas— in other words, the areas that Labor does not give a damn about. Under Labor, ANSTO now stands for ‘Anti-Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’. Of course, it is not just science but all sorts of innovation that is hitting the budget skids. In a terminal case of ‘it’s Howard so we hate it’ petulance, Labor has already dumped the very successful Commercial Ready scheme. In short, national leaders in science and technology are coming out and decrying the Labor government’s slash-and-burn budget, which could do irreparable harm to Australia’s future. The future is science and technology, not glib slogans. The Labor Party has long put outdated and irresponsible ideology ahead of the wellbeing of our country, and its intransigent opposition to nuclear power, reflected in the ANSTO cuts, is even criticised by senior Labor figures. Former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr has called for a debate on the benefits and risks of nuclear power as an alternative energy source, saying that he wants the merits of nuclear power canvassed. He said: ... the world’s got to debate whether uranium-derived power is more dangerous than coal. Coal is looking very dangerous. Mr Carr said a new energy source needs to be found because alternative power sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen are not yet viable options. He said: You can have a wind farm across all of outback New South Wales. It’d kill every Kookaburra, but it wouldn’t provide the base-load power we need. And yet the very organisation that could drive this valuable source of power is being cut back. Science is dead; long live political correctness. With the Australian Research Council the government did its well-worn pea and thimble trick, with an initial budget measure provision of $10.7 million set to substantially rise in the subsequent three years to reach $326.2 million in total over the full period. At the same time the new government has cancelled the Research Quality Framework management program and redirected funds to an Excellence in Research for Australia Initiative. There is also an allocation of $209 million over four years to double the number of APAs for masters in research students. That is a good initiative; however, there is no increase in the value of scholarships for students, despite claims that the support level is set too low. The National Nanotechnology Strategy established by the Howard government in 2007 will cease next year. This will save the government $11.7 million. This is another vendetta against Howard that is typical of Labor and is a scientific and economic disaster. Mike Ford of the Institute of Nanoscale Technology at the University of Technology, Sydney, said the cut was short-sighted because: ... there’s no doubt Europe, the US and Japan are putting a lot of money into these types of initiatives, and we’re going to fall behind. Nanotechnology is already worth more than US$40 billion globally and could reach US$1 trillion by 2020, according to a government report. The OECD describes its applications in materials manufacturing, computer chips, medical diagnosis and health care, energy, biotechnology, space exploration and security. But the ACTU is against nanotechnology, isn’t it? So we see the two forms of technology most likely to improve our future, nanotechnology and nuclear energy, being thrown into the bin by this ideologically driven bunch of troglodytes and luddites. No area of government is safe from a Rudd review. These programs are working well but are now subject to, or victims of, yet another of this bloodless bureaucrat’s relentless ream of reviews. Just to add the icing to the keep-the-facts-out-of-politics cake, the Australian Bureau of Statistics had a $22 million cut. As far as the evidence based policy goes, there is no evidence of it. Which technical or research body did the government consult before blowing millions of taxpayers’ dollars on the hybrid Toyota Camry? This was supposed to be an energy-saving and emissions-lessening exercise that would also provide jobs—excellent, except the scientific facts do not bear this out. The evidence shows that the policy decision would not give any environmental gains at all. There have been many other decisions made for show and photo ops rather than good policy based on sound evidence—the alcopops tax hike and, worst of all and most ridiculous, the politics of envy behind means-testing the solar panel rebate. We now know that the solar tax rebate cut was just a cynical pre-election promise which was amended and then gutted. That is how many Australians feel about this policy dishonesty—angry and gutted. The evidence clearly shows that this government is totally ideologically driven, and hopes for the smarter, cleaner, richer, advanced technology Australia have been dealt a cruel blow by this backward-looking budget. (Time expired) 5716 5716 21:20:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —by leave—In the speech in the grievance debate that I just heard from the member for Tangney, he mentioned that science and nuclear were not mentioned in the budget. I would point out to him that they were not mentioned in the budget reply speech either. His pronouncement that science is dead is probably, to quote someone, a little premature. I assure him that he can take some joy this evening in the fact that I know that he actually is very committed to the investment in science and the importance of science to our future. Whilst I appreciated the entertainment of his speech, I think he might look at the scientific bases of some of his accusations. I think they are little on the exaggerated side. I want to make the point that, for the 11½ or 12 years of the Howard government, we actually did see a winding back of the percentage of the gross domestic product that was spent on education across all levels. One of the things that caused me a great deal of concern for many years as I watched my two sons go through the schooling system—and they have now gone through, sadly—was that, for our young people going out into a modern workforce, the computer literacy and ICT skills they had would be critically important and that applied not only to those who might be going into the IT sector itself but also to those undertaking trade training. I always give this example. If you get a plumber out to the house, in the front seat of their ute will be a laptop computer on which they will be doing their ordering and invoicing. Those skills are critically important in a world where the service sector and the trades are increasingly also computer based. There are very few jobs these days where, if you are not computer literate, you can still manage to flourish. This is particularly so with the growth of the independent contracting sector and the small family based business sector. Therefore, I was very pleased over a week ago to announce at a local level that there were 3,258 computers allocated to local high schools in the Illawarra region under the National Secondary School Computer Fund. This was particularly welcomed by the high schools in my area. I want to put the numbers on the record so that people can see what a significant investment this is: Bulli High School, 223 computers; Corrimal High School, 90 computers; Figtree High School, 255 computers; Edmund Rice College, 151 computers; Keira High School, 187 computers; Smiths Hill High School, 209 computers; Woonona High School, 201 computers; Wollongong High School, 249 computers; Para Meadows—a school that deals with children with a disability—five computers; and the Elonera Montessori School, three computers. That is a total of 1,573 computers, which will mean that young people in my area from years 9 to 12 will have a real opportunity to learn not only computer based skills in a well-resourced computer room but also the myriad other wonderful things across the curriculum that they can do on computers. I met some students while I was there. One group were learning design skills. They were designing layouts of the school and buildings. Another group were doing their online yearbook. The yearbook such that I have in the dusty old cupboard in my study has been transformed. With an online yearbook, you can watch the video of the school swimming carnival and interviews they did with visiting students from Korea. There is a bloopers section, which I imagine the teachers would dread somewhat—with old, candid snapshots of colleagues who are much of an age, taken from our old black-and-white, roneographed yearbooks. It is truly amazing. There are two very disparate areas—one journalism and reporting and the other architecture, design and town planning—in the one classroom, and the kids are really engaged. That is the difference that these computers can make, and they are particularly important in our high schools. They will be very welcome. It is highly commendable that Kevin Rudd, as a new Prime Minister, recognised that this was an important commitment to bringing our kids into the 21st century. My sons went to school with backpacks that just about pulled them over—loaded up with old-fashioned textbooks. It is something that will never be repeated in their life experience. I want to see in the future all our kids working on computers and accessing information in a way that will relate to their life after school. It is an excellent program and I welcome the first rollout. 5717 5717 21:26:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —On indulgence, I would like to correct the parliamentary record. On 19 June I spoke about a project of some significance to my electorate, the Callide-A oxy-fuel demonstration project in Biloela. I advised the House that this important project received $206 million in public funding. In fact, it received $50 million. The $206 million figure is the amount of funding this project has received from both public and private sources. Debate adjourned. 5717 21:27:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.27 pm