2008-09-01 42 1 3 REPS 0 0 2008-09-01 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12.00 pm and read prayers. 6649 Miscellaneous 6649 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(h) and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 27 August 2008, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Calwell, Canning and Oxley. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 6649 Bills R3042 6649 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 6649 Bills R3043 6649 Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Dutton moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House recognises the impact on small business of the Government’s proposed changes to the ‘Birdsville Amendment’, and recognises that the Federal Court is the more appropriate Court to hear cases under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, and the House calls on the Government to abandon its proposed changes to the ‘Birdsville Amendment’ and to similarly abandon its plans to allow the Federal Magistrates Court to hear section 46 cases”. 6649 12:02:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I am pleased to have the opportunity to pick up where I left off last week. We are in this chamber to debate the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. It is really a change to the Birdsville amendment—a bill the coalition introduced less than a year ago. The Prime Minister seems to be living proof of the saying, ‘You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain,’ because changing the Birdsville amendment will certainly make him an enemy of Australia’s small business operators. The provisions of part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which include section 46, prohibit various trade practices that tend to prevent or lessen competition in an Australian market for goods and services. They lay down rules which, as interpreted by the courts from time to time, restrain anticompetitive behaviour and promote competition in the marketplace. The Birdsville amendment was introduced by the coalition to specifically address the issue of predatory pricing. It clearly states: A corporation that has a substantial share of the market must not supply or offer to supply goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods and services— for a prescribed purpose. The delineation between market share and market power is essential to how this bill works, especially in how it impacts on predatory pricing. The predatory pricing prohibition introduced by the Birdsville amendment can be considered to apply in a broader sense. The major reason for this is that it is applied to firms with a substantial share of the market rather than firms with substantial market power. The coalition feel this is crucial to protecting small business in this country and we want it given the chance to have some impact. It was enacted less than 12 months ago and we are yet to see it properly tested in the courts. It has not been in place long enough for it to be clear whether it needs changing or indeed how it needs changing. Sound economic policy is one thing but change for change’s sake is something we do not want to see, especially when small businesses are such a significant part of the economy and stand to be substantial losers. The Prime Minister spoke in July of last year, funnily enough, before he was elected, about helping small business. At that time, he said: There is no doubt that prosperous small businesses equal a prosperous economy. And the role of government policy is to support them, not to get in their way. Now he and his colleagues are asking us to support legislation that is going to not only make it more difficult for small businesses but possibly put many operators out of business. The idea behind the Howard government’s introduction of the Birdsville amendment was to bring a level of certainty to the Trade Practices Act. They say the only certainties in life are death and taxes. It is quite ironic, in this instance, as changing the threshold test from market share to market power will, along with the introduction of many new taxes by this government, spell certain death to many of the small businesses in Australia, particularly in my electorate of Pearce. Thirty per cent of Australia’s wealth comes from small business. More than 90 per cent of Australia’s businesses are small businesses and, as the Prime Minister pointed out last year, small business already employs half the private sector workforce—more than four million Australians—and this number continues to grow. Having said that, the coalition recognise the importance of having both diversity and balance in the marketplace. While we recognise the importance of promoting and encouraging the growth of small businesses, this should not be to the detriment of corporate Australia. Finding the balance between the two has always been a strength of the coalition and if Labor cannot manage this perhaps they should step aside. While Labor will be quick to point out how certain sections of the corporate sector were quick to voice their disapproval of the Birdsville amendment, it will no doubt ignore the support and praise it received from the very people who will benefit from the amendment—small businesses. The Motor Trades Association of Australia welcomed the introduction of this bill as it will allow small business operators to seek redress against predatory behaviour. The Australian Retailers Association also supported the bill because it distinguishes predatory pricing from legitimate competitive discounting, which was previously unclear. The Council of Small Business of Australia and the ACCC both gave their support to the bill that we had introduced. Apparently they can see its benefits, but the Prime Minister and the member for Lilley cannot. Small business owners have long claimed the pricing strategies of bigger competitors have been deliberately harming their trade, and I have seen firsthand evidence of this. Following the introduction of the Birdsville amendment, Michael Delaney from the Fair Trading Coalition told the ABC: There’s been a tendency to, in big business, to see it get ever larger and to capture more and more market share with the effect of driving out small businesses. Now this has been happening on a grand scale, particularly in grocery and in liquor and certainly in petrol. Despite cries for help, the ACCC has previously been powerless to stop alleged predatory pricing—selling below cost to intentionally harm or eliminate smaller rivals. Professor Allan Fels, the former Chair of the ACCC, said: It’s a bit like a murder case, if the commission steps in early and saves someone from being wiped out by predatory behaviour, then it’s very difficult to go to court and argue there’s been murder when the person’s still alive. And on the other hand, if they’ve been destroyed and you’ve got a dead body, dead men don’t talk. There’s no evidence you can take to court. Greg Hoy, finance editor for ABC news, then said: So for many years the pressure’s been on the Federal Government to give the market watchdog, the ACCC, the legal teeth to do something by bolstering the Trade Practices Act. I was shadow minister in this place in 1994, and recommendations were made then. It seems to have taken a long time to get to the point where we got good legislation in this place, only now to see it overturned. The Prime Minister and the Member for Lilley, I am sure, would agree healthy competition is absolutely vital for a strong economy. Competition increases efficiency, lowers prices for consumers, provides greater choice, encourages innovation and the uptake of new technology and lifts productivity. As the Prime Minister alluded in his speech from July of last year: Competition policy properly implemented also provides fairness. Properly implemented it levels the playing field for small business giving small business people the opportunity to compete with bigger players on fair terms. The clear imbalance in bargaining positions puts small business at risk of being treated unfairly. That is why the Trade Practices Act is so important – because it protects competition by stopping big business from abusing their power by driving competitors out of the market and prohibits unfair dealings with small business. Small business, consumers and the economy are the winners from strong competition laws, and this is why Labor has always supported laws to strengthen competition. Those were the Prime Minister’s own words. He then goes on to say how the then Howard government was ‘dragging its feet’ in this regard; however, by introducing the Birdsville amendment, the coalition government legislated for what the Prime Minister seems to be advocating in his speech of last July. On top of that, he now wants to change the Birdsville amendment to favour those with market power. The Prime Minister may be the most indecisive figure since Hamlet. Let us just hope his and the member for Lilley’s economic mismanagement does not have the same tragic outcome for the people of Australia—particularly small businesses—as it did for Denmark. Many proprietors in my electorate of Pearce are already feeling the negative impact. As a former small business owner as well as the former shadow minister for small business, I have maintained regular contact with small business owners and continue to take a great interest in what they have to say. They are the ones who are out there fighting to make a living. I recently conducted a small business survey, and many people had concerns about the amount of red tape that is being introduced by this government, particularly in the form of additional taxes. As the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for finance, competition policy and deregulation, said on the steps of Parliament House on Tuesday: The reality is that business and consumer confidence has plummeted under this Government over the last eight months and that really is compounding the international problems that are facing our economy at the moment as well. ‘Small business is petrified’ about where our $1.1 trillion economy is headed, he said. The Labor government clearly cannot manage issues of inflation, and it wants to heap further pressure on it with a new $2.5 billion tax on condensate from the North West Shelf of Western Australia. In light of confirmation from Woodside Petroleum last week that Labor’s $2.5 billion tax grab on condensate will be passed on to consumers, the Rudd government seems inclined to do whatever it wants, regardless of its impact on the businesses and families of Australia. This is again demonstrated by the government’s desire to shift from market share to market power, especially as many small businesses are concerned with the meaning of market power as defined by the High Court. Its narrow definition means the scope of the Birdsville amendment would make it harder for the ACCC to bring action against large businesses who engage in predatory pricing. Whether market share or market power is used as the threshold test, to be found guilty of predatory pricing a business would have to have priced their goods below cost with the intent of substantially damaging or eliminating competition. Unfortunately, this is not easy to prove in court—not that it seems to worry the Prime Minister. Maintaining his government’s white knight image is all that seems to matter at the moment. We the coalition believe the Birdsville amendment will be beneficial to small business in Australia but will not ultimately be detrimental to big business. This legislation works towards an environment where both can operate in harmony, and it deserves a chance to run its course. Let’s see how it plays out in action. Let’s see whether it does need any amendments and then take any necessary action. But my concern continues to be—and I know that many on our side of the House share this concern—that these practices have made life very difficult and at times tenuous for small business proprietors in Australia. I totally agree with the recommendation of the shadow minister for finance, competition policy and deregulation, the member for Dickson, that the coalition support the bill, with the exception of changes to the Birdsville amendment and the Federal Magistrates Court consideration of section 46 cases. 6652 12:15:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution to this important debate. Can I also welcome the school groups that are in the upper gallery today and another school group which is present in the parliament today, Wattawa Heights Public School from my electorate. Welcome to Canberra; welcome to Parliament House. I have to tell those school groups that this is not one of the most exciting debates that they will see in parliament today—that comes a little later, at 2 o’clock—but it is one of the most important, because the Trade Practices Act 1974 is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament has ever considered, and the amending legislation that we are considering today, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, is perhaps the most significant reform to that act in the last two decades. What it does is as follows. It strengthens predatory pricing to ensure that big companies cannot persistently sell goods at a loss to run their smaller competitors out of business, it abolishes the monetary thresholds for unconscionable conduct claims and it also helps small business by allowing them to litigate claims in the Federal Magistrates Court, meaning quicker and hopefully cheaper resolution of competition disputes. The bill also gives small business a guaranteed voice on the ACCC, requiring at least one ACCC deputy chairperson to have a small business background, and it clarifies the ACCC’s investigative powers. It is worth pointing out, and I acknowledge that the member for Pearce has done this, that small business has welcomed this legislation. Richard Evans, the Executive Director of the Australian Retailers Association, says it is: … very good news for smaller retailers. Tony Steven, the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, said the legislation would: … only help in the area of anticompetitive conduct. Michael Delaney of the Motor Traders Association said the bill offers: … retail motor traders and other small business operators long denied access to justice against unfair and anti-competitive behaviour. Small business is crucial to our economy. It employs more than 3½ million Australians and generates about 40 per cent of our GDP. To survive, it needs a fair and competitive environment, and that is what this bill is all about. So where does it fit in the history of competition policy in Australia? For the better part of the last century, Australian competition laws were well intentioned but frustrated by judicial interpretation. At the turn of the century, the Sherman act fostered a strong culture of competition in the United States. The 1906 attempt by this parliament to replicate it with the Australian Industries Preservation Act fell victim to constitutional challenge. The High Court’s decision in the Huddart Parker case in 1913 effectively gutted the act. The story of the revival of Australian competition law is the story of two Attorneys-General, two men who served that office with distinction and were both later appointed to the High Court. The first was Sir Garfield Barwick. While I think his advice to John Kerr in 1975 was pretty lousy, I think his advice to Robert Menzies in 1960 was spot on. He convinced the then Prime Minister that restricting the behaviour of monopolies was necessary, and that culminated in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1965. In the ‘Concrete Pipes’ case, the High Court judged that that was unconstitutional, but importantly it did overturn the majority opinion in Huddart Parker, opening the door for the Commonwealth to make a third attempt at competition policy. Enter Lionel Murphy. After the election of the Whitlam government in 1972, Murphy developed a new competition bill: the Trade Practices Act. As legal academic Russell Miller says, the: Impact on Australian business was enormous. In a few short, broadly expressed clauses, the Act prohibited contracts, arrangements or understanding in restraint of trade, monopolisation, resale price maintenance, price discrimination, and mergers likely to have an effect on competition. The Trade Practices Act was an integral part of the Keating government’s national competition policy, which in turn was part of the enormous structural reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s—reforms that set up the last decade of economic growth. The COAG process enabled the Keating government to drive its reform agenda. COAG proved a very effective vehicle for competition reform, and that is why this government is using COAG again as a vehicle for more reform, not just in competition but in water, health, housing and education, and in an area that is of specific concern to me—and, I know, to the member for Lindsay—the regulation of financial services and credit. In all of these areas, national leadership is necessary to drive real reform. There is still a lot of work to do to improve competition between big businesses and small businesses. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the supermarket. I will say more about the ACCC’s inquiry into grocery prices in a minute, but first I want to take a look at the predatory price changes that are in this bill. The bill beefs up protections against predatory pricing. In simple terms, predatory pricing is when a company consistently sells goods at a loss to force smaller competitors out of the market. Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act says that that is illegal. Applying this section, however, has proved more difficult. A number of recent court decisions have undermined its operation and you can almost feel the frustration of the ACCC when you read its 2003 annual report. In that report the commission said it had: … concerns about the application and effectiveness of the misuse of market power provision. The ACCC has reviewed a number of its investigations following the— Boral— judgement and discontinued some of these. In other words, the court’s decision in Boral made it impossible for the ACCC to act. I recognise that there have been a number of attempts to correct this since then. This bill amends subsection 46(1AA) to direct the court’s attention to a corporation’s market power rather than just their market share. I know there are differing opinions on this in the chamber but I think this the better approach because it recognises that the reality of a corporation’s power in a given market is not necessarily reflected by their market share. Professor Stephen Corones made this point in the Financial Review last week: ... having a substantial market share tells us nothing, or very little, about whether there is a problem that warrants regulation. In a sense, market share is meaningless: the key question is whether a firm, acting on its own, has discretionary power – whether it has to take into account the competitive reaction from other firms. In other words, it is market power that is the antithesis of competition. The bill also makes a number of other changes to section 46. It ensures that victims of predatory pricing do not need to prove that the predator has the ability to recoup their losses—one of the problems that was created in the High Court’s decision in Boral. It also implements the recommendation of the 2004 Senate inquiry into the trade practices legislation clarifying the meaning of ‘take advantage’ in section 46 to allow courts to widen the scope of this test in response to the High Court’s decision in Rural Press. The changes to the provisions prohibiting unconscionable conduct contained in section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act should also help small business. Unconscionability is a legal principle developed in the law of equity. One of the innovations of the original Trades Practices Act was to inject this equitable principle into statute. While the credit for this innovation rests with Lionel Murphy, the Howard government did extend its operation to small business through the addition of section 51AC in 1998. For that, they should be commended. This bill takes it one step further. It abolishes arbitrary monetary thresholds for actions brought under section 51AC, drawing the law’s attention to the wrongdoing rather than the regularly disputed question of whether monetary thresholds have been reached. I think that is a good thing. It will help to discourage unconscionable conduct between corporations and between businesses and their customers. As I mentioned earlier, the bill also assists small business by making it easier to litigate section 46 matters. Currently these matters must be heard in the Federal Court. This process is thorough, but it can also be pretty costly and slow. It is an unattractive legal avenue for small business. The bill extends the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court to section 46 matters, making it easier and cheaper for small businesses to pursue legal protection from anticompetitive behaviour. Taken together, these three reforms—changing the definition of market power, abolishing monetary thresholds for section 51AC matters and allowing easier access to legal remedies—represent a significant extension of the protection for small business under the Trade Practices Act. They do not protect small business from competition; they help ensure markets operate in a fair and more competitive way. As I said earlier, a lot of work is needed to improve competition in our supermarkets. The ACCC’s grocery inquiry identifies several areas where competition is not working as well as it should be. I note that the government has already acted on some of these fronts. Easing restrictions on foreign investment in the grocery industry is one of them, and this morning I noticed that the minister has foreshadowed changes to creeping acquisition laws; but today I want to focus on two other barriers to competition mentioned in that report. The first is restrictive covenants. These are agreements in commercial leases that restrict shopping centre landlords from bringing new tenants that might compete for business, usually other supermarkets or independent grocers. The effect of these restrictive covenants is obvious. If a supermarket can act in a virtual local monopoly, then customers will have no choice and will end up paying more for the shopping that they want to do. But the problem is deeper than that. The ACCC report says this: As well as acting as an impediment to entry into local areas, restrictive provisions in leases also act as a broader barrier to entry, particularly for independent chains, as access to prime sites across a range of locations is restricted, which serves to entrench the dominance of the MSCs both in localised areas and more broadly. These sorts of provisions are already prohibited under part IV of the Trade Practices Act if they have the purpose or effect of substantially reducing competition. I know Aldi complained bitterly about these in their evidence to the inquiry. The Shopping Centre Council have also said that they would like to see the back of them. The ACCC, I think, should be using section 47(4) and section 46 to challenge these covenants in leases. They are bad for shoppers, they are bad for small and independent grocers and, in the long run, they are bad for our economy. The ACCC’s report suggests that they are going to be looking at this in the future. In my view, if their attempts to crack down on these types of restrictive covenants fail in the court, we need to come back here and have a look at what changes are needed to strengthen their hand. The other issue raised in the ACCC’s report is planning and zoning laws. These laws play an important role in protecting local communities from overdevelopment and congestion and in ensuring the delivery of local communities. Their purpose is to protect the community interest. This is a good thing, but the system is often abused. Large commercial retailers like Woolworths and Coles ‘game’ the system to protect their own commercial interests. In evidence to the grocery inquiry, Woolworths admitted lodging 22 development objections since 2005. Often, they have little to do with planning issues that affect Woolworths; they are about protecting their market position. For example, the ACCC report describes the case of objections raised by Woolworths to an independent supermarket opening in the Appin area in New South Wales. The report states: Woolworths acknowledged that the grounds on which it had lodged the appeal—traffic and access, heritage, noise impact and overshading—had no impact on Woolworths. Rather, Woolworths acknowledged, the objection was lodged for the purpose of pursuing a commercial opportunity. What is clear is that a system that has been set up to protect the community interest is being abused by big companies like Woolworths to advance their own commercial interests. I think governments should respond with structural reform that stops these abuses of process from occurring and builds a more competitive market environment. Uniform planning laws are already on the COAG agenda and I understand the Assistant Treasurer has written to the Prime Minister to request COAG consider this in light of the ACCC report. This is important. Beating the abuses of the planning system is essential if we are going to make the grocery industry more competitive, and it requires national leadership. There are a few other amendments in this bill that are worthy of note. The bill ensures that at least one of the ACCC commissioners needs to have a background in small business. This is a good thing and it gives clear legislative purpose to the intention of the previous government. The bill also strengthens the ACCC’s powers, making it easier to obtain information, documents and evidence under section 155 of the act. This is another common-sense amendment and I think it is long overdue. There are many critics of the ACCC in this parliament, but I think we should all agree that we need to give the ACCC the powers to do their job, and these amendments do that. Thirty-four years old and Lionel Murphy’s Trade Practices Act is still a work in progress. There is always more work to do, but this bill represents a major step forward in the continual improvement of competition policy in this country. I hope it attracts the support that it deserves, both in the Senate and in the courts. If not, I guess we will be back here again, because small business and consumers deserve the support that the Trade Practices Act is designed to give them. I commend the bill to the House. 6656 12:30:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I endorse the coalition’s opposition to the proposed amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, known as the ‘Birdsville amendment’. These amendments seek to amend existing subsection 46(1AA) so that the terms ‘substantial market share’, ‘substantial period’ and ‘relevant cost’ are omitted and the wording of the subsection will be in the same terms as subsection 46(1). The proposed amendments are supposed to reduce uncertainty as to the act’s operation and to improve its ability to target anticompetitive unilateral conduct. The coalition introduced the Birdsville amendment in September 2007 and it has been in place for less than a year. Clearly this is not long enough for the amendment to have been tested properly in the courts, and the provisions have not been in place long enough for it to be clear why they might need to be changed. There have been 75 complaints to date; however, there have been no court cases yet. Effectively, the Birdsville amendment has not been tested through the courts. The breadth of submissions and the nature of the recommendations by the 2004 Senate committee reflected a level of frustration experienced by both business and the ACCC with the manner in which section 46 had been interpreted by the courts. As a consequence of those interpretations, the ACCC had not been able to successfully prosecute a number of corporations which it had considered had engaged in a misuse of market power. Therefore the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 was introduced into the Senate on 20 June 2007. The two subsections (1AA) and (1AB) included ‘substantial share of a market’ and became known as the Birdsville amendment. The subsections were significantly different from subsection 46(1), which provides: A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power … The Birdsville amendment prevents a company with a substantial market share from selling or offering to sell goods or services below cost for a sustained period of time for the purpose of: eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; or preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. The Labor government’s proposed amendment would change ‘market share’ to ‘market power’. The coalition opposes this amendment. Small business in particular is concerned that the meaning of ‘market power’ as defined by the High Court is too narrow. Labor’s amendment would further reduce the scope of the Birdsville amendment and make it harder for small businesses, via the ACCC, to bring an action against corporations or large businesses which engage in predatory pricing. The term ‘market share’ is also likely to be a simpler economic term for the courts to apply. Changes to the amendment will return a level of uncertainty to the Trade Practices Act to the detriment of small business, as the threshold test will change from ‘market share’ to ‘market power’. The definition of market power defined by the High Court following the Boral case in 2003 is a very high threshold, which essentially applies to only monopolists or near monopolists. The changes will also make it even more difficult for a small business to assess whether it has a case against a larger competitor for predatory pricing. Just imagine you are the corner store in a small community, or in Bunbury or Busselton in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia, and you need to bring a case against one of the two major supermarket chains in Australia or perhaps even Costco, that retailing giant planning to open in Australia. This is a company with annual sales of around US$65 billion. It would be a daunting prospect for any small business to bring a case in such a David and Goliath situation, particularly as a significant proportion of small businesses are family owned and run. Making the time, going through the process and finding the money to do so in such circumstances can be prohibitive for small business owners. ‘Market share’ as a definition in this instance would be critical to the small business. Regardless of the threshold test that is used, be it market share or market power, to be found guilty of predatory pricing a business would have to price their goods below cost with the intent of substantially damaging or eliminating competition. However, the Birdsville amendment does not stop legitimate and procompetitive discounting, as is claimed by some large business organisations. The amendment will only be triggered by below-cost pricing where that occurs over an extended period of time for an anticompetitive purpose. It should not stop any company from matching a competitor’s price, holding Christmas or any other clearance sales or sales to clear old stock at the end of the trading day. Customers will not miss out on this activity. Small business is the engine room of our economy. We understand very well that there are millions of people employed in small business—nearly half of the working population. There are approximately 2.5 million small businesses in Australia, representing 96 per cent of businesses, and there are over 13,000 local small businesses in my electorate of Forrest. A majority of these are family businesses, and I will not compromise those businesses or those families by agreeing to amendments that will in any way lessen their capacity to compete with the duopolies that are open for business in many areas. Given the importance of the small business sector and the fact that we know that numbers of small business actually increase competition in the marketplace to the benefit of consumers, the coalition will not support the government’s proposed amendments to the Birdsville amendment. This was enacted only at the end of 2007. I believe it needs time to work and to be tested through the judicial system. We want to ensure that small businesses are not forced out of the market by unfair competitive practices by much larger competitors. The only businesses that could be affected by the Birdsville amendment would be those who are engaging in predatory pricing or, in other words, selling goods below cost in order to substantially damage or eliminate their competition. Effectively, that is the misuse of market power through market share, which it is the intent of section 46 to deal with. If predatory pricing is allowed, consumers will ultimately pay higher prices due to a lessening of competition, with fewer businesses in the market. Small businesses will be forced to close, and families and communities will suffer. Predatory pricing occurs when a corporation prices a product below some measure of cost and it does so with the intention of driving a competitor out of the market. The corporation subsequently raises the price again in an attempt to recoup the losses it incurred as a result of its below cost conduct. This is referred to as ‘recoupment’. In effect, predatory pricing is an exclusionary tactic, because the corporation is actively seeking to exclude competitors for the product from the market in its pricing. This can be done in one of two ways: the corporation excludes an existing competitor from the market for the product because the competitor cannot match the below cost price that has been set, or, for a new competitor, the corporation sets the price so low that it deters anyone else from entering the market. The difficulty with predatory pricing is that, in some instances, it can appear to be a legitimate competitive behaviour because the existence of a price war is often an indicator of competition—as happened in the Boral case. I note a recent article by the Australian Financial Review’s chief political correspondent, David Crowe, who wrote of Associate Professor Zumbo’s comments that the Birdsville amendment protected small business without raising any risk that short-term or legitimate discounting practices could be considered predatory. Associate Professor Zumbo said that small business taking action under the law needed to prove that bigger rivals had substantial market share, priced their goods below cost, did so for a sustained period and did so for an anti-competitive purpose. I also note that the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia is concerned the changes will not improve the Birdsville amendment. Ken Henrick, CEO, recently stated to the Senate committee that NARGA was not entirely comfortable with a return to the concept of market power, largely because of the precedent set in the Boral case. In addition, this bill also seeks to extend the jurisdiction for section 46 cases to the Federal Magistrates Court and to remove the price threshold for unconscionable conduct. The coalition also does not support the proposal to allow the Federal Magistrates Court to hear section 46 cases. They are, of their nature, complex and usually long and unlikely to be beneficial to small businesses. Conducting the hearings in the Federal Magistrates Court will not necessarily make them less complex or shorter. In fact, section 46 cases can often end up in the High Court of Australia. The Federal Court of Australia has a well-developed competency and long experience in hearing such cases and is best placed in hear section 46 cases. The Law Council of Australia has expressed concern that the government’s amendments to enable section 46 cases to be dealt with by the Federal Magistrates Court will not have the effect of lowering costs and could, in fact, potentially increase them. I reiterate that the coalition opposes these changes to the Birdsville amendment in section 46. It has not had enough time to prove itself and be tested by the court system. The Birdsville amendment defines a company’s influence by its market share, not its market power. Market power is a more general concept that was too hard to prove. It also allows small business a fighting chance, and they should be provided with that continuing opportunity. Let me remind the House that it is the Labor government that have been inconsistent on this matter, as they unanimously supported the introduction of the Birdsville amendment last year. We have already seen a fall in business confidence since the election of the Rudd Labor government, and we have seen the government receive the worst rating of any government in Australia in the latest Sensis business index for small and medium enterprises. In fact, the report shows business confidence has fallen eight percentage points to reach 25 points, the lowest level since the survey began 15 years ago and less than half the level recorded at the same time last year We have also seen the introduction of the GroceryWatch website. On this website we see the Rudd government endorsing one of the two major supermarket chains as having the lowest prices in the vast majority of regions across Australia. However, Kevin Rudd has said that, to increase competition, there needs to be a greater number of retailers to challenge the two major supermarket chains. Yet his government has officially advised people to buy their groceries at one of the two major chains. This is nothing more than free promotion for the major supermarket retailers. The Assistant Treasurer was quoted in the West Australian on 26 June as saying: We’re not doing it for a price impact, we’re doing it to give people more information ... I would ask: what does this information on the GroceryWatch website actually deliver to people who live in regional Australia, who do not live close to one of these major supermarket chains? The site notes that basket prices for individual stores are not available. How does this help someone living in my electorate in the towns of Harvey or Augusta? For the $3.70 difference in price on what is termed a ‘basic staples’ basket when I checked the site on Saturday, someone in these towns would have to get in their car and drive to find them. With the current price of fuel, this would cost a lot more than the potential savings. I would ask again: how does this site help people in those small towns, and how does it encourage people to support small business in their small towns? These are the businesses that set up in areas that the major supermarket chains do not. These small supermarkets provide an invaluable service and support to the community. They provide prizes for local raffles and support the local sporting and community service organisations. How does recommending that people travel to shop at one of the major supermarket chains help regional small business, local people or their community? Today, former Woolworths boss, Reg Clairs, is quoted in the Australian as fearing for Australian’s food industry under the Coles-Woolworths duopoly and the growth of global manufacturers. He said he was concerned about the power at the top of the chain. Mr Clairs is quoted as saying: … there’s been a greater emphasis on the retailer taking charge of the supply chain … I am immensely worried about the ultimate destiny of a lot of food manufacturers in this country. And further: … ultimately, the global manufacturers will take the power base. I would add here that it will not only be food manufacturers who will be at risk; it will be our farmers, our growers, our small and local businesses and their communities. And they will continue to be at risk. Section 46 is about the misuse of market power, and anyone in small business is very aware of the challenges and issues involved in taking on a major corporation or a large business, firstly, in the marketplace itself and, secondly, in the courts through the Trade Practices Act. The Birdsville amendment was born out of the frustrations and community concerns that came to light in the inquiry of the former Senate Economics References Committee into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act in protecting small business. The concerns centred around the High Court’s interpretation of section 46 of not providing adequate protections to small business. The intention of the section was to provide a simpler test, a market share test that was easier to understand and litigate, rather than a market power test. I will not support any changes to the act which reduce the competitiveness of small businesses, increase their exposure to major corporations and increase the misuse of market power. As I said earlier, small businesses are a critical part of the economic and social fabric of many regional centres and towns right across Australia. The majority of these businesses are family owned and run. They are a major employer nationally. They are the cornerstone of our society and a critical player in strengthening competition in the marketplace. And let us not forget that a win for small business is a win for consumers every time. 6660 12:46:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —The aim of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is to improve the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection in relation to unfair pricing, abuse of market power and violation of consumer rights. The role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is to apply the act for the benefit of consumers everywhere in Australia, both urban and rural. The role of the ACCC is to administer and enforce particularly part IVA, anticompetitive behaviour; part V, consumer protection; and part IVA, unconscionable conduct in relation to commercial transactions and consumer dealings. I speak in support of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The Trade Practices Act 1974 was a wonderful groundbreaking law, an initiative of the Whitlam Labor government in the 1970s, after decades of inaction by conservative coalition governments. I am a bit less charitable to former Attorney-General Garfield Barwick, the then member for Blaxland. Certainly, there were plenty of opportunities during 23 years of coalition rule, from 1949 to 1972, to do something about this. But it took a Labor government, in 1974, to bring in the Trade Practices Act, which has made such a difference to the lives of individuals, small businesses and large corporations in this country, particularly in the areas of competition, fair trading and consumer protection. When I listen to speakers opposite, they often parade themselves as champions of free enterprise and a free market. I just do not think they get it when it comes to this sort of legislation. Their record seems always to socialise losses and privatise profits, and it is left to Labor governments to do the hard yakka when it comes to providing pro-market and pro-competition reform in the economy. It is Labor which has a proven record when it comes to these areas. All too often those opposite seem to side with big business—big oil companies, big tobacco companies, big liquor companies and big supermarkets. They seem to worship at the feet of oligopoly. They always side with big producers and forget consumers. In contrast, Labor governments strengthen the trade practices legislation. We did it in 1986; and we were the architects of National Competition Policy, which set the parameters for policy to enhance the economic performance of Australia in the last few decades. It was National Competition Policy which contributed to the strong economic experience that we have enjoyed. This bill is long overdue and is probably the most substantive legislative change in more than 20 years. The bill amends by schedule. It makes amendments to section 46 of the act, to enhance anticompetitive unilateral conduct. There will be a requirement that at least one of the deputy chairs of the ACCC has knowledge and experience in the area of small business. There is a significant amendment to section 51AC to extend protection against unconscionable conduct in business arrangements. Schedule 1 relates to the misuse by corporations of their power in the market. Section 46 amendments to the Trade Practices Act focus on promoting business competition and reducing anticompetitive behaviour of big business. It is a fact that competition reduces prices and that helps consumers—and it helps those people in my electorate. Oligopolies, even monopolies, allow big business to set prices, and consumers have to take it or leave it. Schedule 1 of the legislation deals with predatory pricing, the role of recoupment in predatory pricing litigation under section 46—and, in particular, clarifies the meaning of ‘take advantage’ for the purposes of section 46—and makes a wonderful reform in conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to matters under section 46. I am surprised that the member for Forrest opposes that conferral of jurisdiction, because it was the Howard coalition government which established the Federal Magistrates Court and kept on conferring jurisdiction after jurisdiction and enhancing, in an imperialistic way, the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court. And now, when they sit opposite, they oppose the extension of the jurisdiction. I cannot get it, because the Federal Magistrates Court has simpler procedures—justice can be done for people more expeditiously and the court proceedings themselves are less formal. Everything about that court is more user-friendly than lots of other courts in this country—certainly the supreme courts and the federal courts—so I just do not get why the coalition is opposed to the deferral of jurisdiction. What is the background to this legislation? The Senate referred to its Economics References Committee the issue of whether the Trade Practices Act adequately dealt with small business and protection from unconscionable conduct and the misuse of market power. The committee tabled its report on 1 March 2004. The report made 17 recommendations, including nine in relation to prohibitions against the misuse of market power. It was not about market share; it was about the misuse of market power. The former coalition government implemented some of those recommendations in relation to predatory pricing but failed on others. In 2007 the coalition government did not listen to and act upon the anxiety of business, nor of the ACCC, which expressed its views to the Senate inquiry concerning a range of matters—recruitment and predatory pricing litigation, the ‘take advantage’ term in section 46 and others. Instead, on 19 September 2007, the Howard government dropped the ball; they squibbed the issue. That is what they did when it comes to consumer protection—and still they do not get it. When we hear speeches by those opposite, it is clear that they still do not understand the difference. They just cannot get it. They just do not understand. The Birdsville amendment—the ‘Howard-Joyce amendment’—threw out all the principles in relation to the ban that applied on predatory pricing. Still they focused on market share, which is just one factor alone, rather than on the misuse of market power. The Birdsville amendment was made without any consultation with the business community—and they say they have such a great relationship with the business community! They did not contact the Treasury, they did not contact the ACCC and they passed the legislation just to satisfy Senator Joyce. Thank you, Senator Joyce, for what you have done—and I say that in a very ironic way. Let us have a look at what 2007 brought to us, and the folly of the Birdsville amendment. That section made an amendment to the legislation. This is what they did: section 46(1AA) purported to prohibit a corporation with a substantial share of the market from supplying, or offering to supply, goods and services for a sustained period at a price less than the relevant cost to the corporation of providing them. That is what it said: ‘market share’. It did not mention market power, despite the fact that the Senate report referred to it. So they looked at one aspect. They did not look at the fact that big corporations can take advantage of their power in the market. The new section 46(1AA) contains significant improvements, and there are provisions which do not exist in the current legislation. The new section 46(1AA) states that a corporation may still be found to have contravened the legislation even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred by supplying goods and services at a price less than cost. I think everyone in this House would agree that it is wrong for corporations to engage in this type of behaviour to prevent market entry by a competitor or to rid the market of a competitor in this way. The amendment we are bringing in today gives the Federal Magistrates Court guidance as to the factors which must be taken into consideration when a court looks at whether a corporation has taken advantage of its substantial degree of market power. The court may have regard to whether a corporation’s conduct was materially facilitated by its substantial degree of market power; whether the corporation engaged in that conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of market power; whether the corporation was likely to have engaged in that conduct if it lacked a substantial degree of market power; and whether the conduct was otherwise related to the corporation’s substantial degree of market power. Presently section 46 does not explicitly state whether it is necessary to prove recruitment in a case of predatory pricing. The amendment takes up the Senate inquiry recommendation to expressly state that it is not necessary to establish such a case. That Senate inquiry followed several cases which have been referred to. It also followed the Dawson review, which considered the use and scope of section 155 of the act. Soon after the Dawson review provided its report to the government, several important Trade Practices Act cases were considered by the courts. The High Court considered the application and interpretation of section 46 in Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v ACCC in 2003, commonly called the Boral case. There was also Rural Press Ltd v ACCC, commonly called the Rural Press case—and that was the 2003 decision. There were other cases discussed in the Federal Court. The full Federal Court considered the issue in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC in 2003 and in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v ACCC in 2003. All these cases raised questions about the adequacy of the legislation to protect small business from anticompetitive behaviour and conduct, including the misuse of market power. And guess what? The Howard coalition government ignored it all and the Birdsville amendment was enacted. What did Peter Armitage, head of competition and consumer protection at Blake Dawson Waldron, have to say concerning the Birdsville amendment? On 28 September 2007 he said: Make no mistake: this law is bad for consumers and bad for competition. The fact that there is no equivalent law in any other country in the OECD reflects their understanding that it is highly undesirable to chill the flames of competition and is no basis for thinking that the amendment is progressive or beneficial. But we have heard from the member for Forrest that the opposition are going to support the Birdsville amendment. What was substantial market share? In the current legislation there is no definition and there are no factors listed to give us guidance—as the amendments in relation to market power provide. It is just hopeless. It leaves it all up to the courts to decide—a complete abdication of legislative responsibility, courtesy of Senator Joyce. The new amendments rectify these omissions and clarify the ‘take advantage’ provision and recognise the reality of life for consumers and business—that it is market power, not market share, that counts. Market share is just the tool. It is just something that you can look at to identify whether or not corporations have market power. You have to look at a rigorous analysis of the economy, of the section, of the pricing policy and a host of other factors when you consider market power. To focus alone on market share is not good enough. What do other people say about the Birdsville amendment? Professor Alan Fels, the former chair of the ACCC, has also been highly critical of the Birdsville amendment, as has Bob Baxt, who is a former chairman of the Trade Practices Commission and is a partner in the law firm Freehills—a well-known and well-respected law firm which has been engaged by governments to do legal work on the behalf of governments. Bob Baxt said: The Birdsville amendment, which prohibits corporations with a substantial share of the market from engaging in predatory pricing for the purposes of damaging competition, is apparently based on a simplistic and unprincipled evaluation of how competition law should operate. …            …            … As the government has been previously advised by many, this is an inadequate guide for corporations to assess whether they are engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. He went on to say in his opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review of 19 September 2007: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has recently consistently said that market share will no longer be regarded as the most important or relevant factor in evaluating anti-competitive mergers. The commission correctly notes that, in assessing whether competition is lessened, other important issues include barriers to entry, countervailing power and related matters. …            …            … Far from protecting small businesses, this amendment— the Birdsville amendment— is likely to prove unwelcome to them as well as to others, as increased complexity will lead to litigation and lengthy appeals. Not only will the small business sector not enjoy any real success as a result of these amendments, but most importantly, consumers will suffer significantly as companies abandon any attempt to discount in situations where they have any degree of market share. A damning indictment indeed. The amendment contained in the bill that we are dealing with today—conferring jurisdiction and dealing with the reality of business experience and experience with consumers—is really important. In one sector alone it is important. The report of the ACCC inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries recommended a number of things, including unit pricing with a nationally consistent approach, changes to the zoning and planning laws to get rid of obstacles to supermarkets coming into shopping centres and changes to the horticultural code of conduct. The overview of that particular report said the bleeding obvious, that most Australians regularly visit supermarkets for their grocery needs, but then went on to say: As the average Australian household spends around 12 to 14 per cent of its after tax income on standard groceries, increasing prices for these goods have been strongly felt. The ACCC received 250 public submissions and a vast quantity of data, information and documents from supermarkets and other retailers, suppliers and groups for this inquiry. So, in one sector alone, consumers really feel the pinch when it comes to abuse of market power. When I do my grocery shopping, consumers talk to me about the fact that there are too few businesses in the market. There are also changes in this amendment legislation in relation to unconscionable conduct. Currently under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act, unconscionable conduct is proscribed in connection with the supply of goods or services to or the acquisition of the same from a corporation, and there are limits there when it comes to prices up to $10 million in terms of the supply of goods and services. The Senate inquiry recommended that the $10 million price limit be repealed. This bill abolishes the $10 million price threshold. This amendment will help to protect non-listed businesses engaged in business dealings exceeding $10 million. This bill will have a big impact in helping the people in my electorate. I do not live in an electorate where people are rich; the people in my electorate battle and struggle. It is a rural and regional seat. I know from my experience growing up in Ipswich that anything to help consumers will help the average person in my electorate. The consumers in my electorate do not have much opportunity to express themselves in the market on a day-to-day basis. When it comes to supermarkets, big producers and big suppliers are the ones who tend, in an oligopolistic way, to dictate the prices. Any amendments that will enhance the rights and roles of consumers in our society and improve competition and fair trading will help the people of Blair, and I strongly support this bill. It is an indictment on the previous coalition government that it took this government, the Rudd Labor government, to make these amendments, which are long overdue. 6664 13:07:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The big question this afternoon is: is there a difference between market power and market share? The member for Blair would have us believe, through diatribe and legalese, that indeed market power is the panacea for all evil and that the current market power test will sustain all corporate evil and provide the right and best thing for small business. May I remind the honourable member for Blair that history has proven otherwise, and by history he stands condemned. Labor says no, the market power test is sufficient; I contend very strongly that the market power test is not sufficient and that the market share test, that of the Birdsville amendment, needs to remain. Small business in this country employs almost 50 per cent of the nation’s workforce, and up to 50 per cent of these small businesses employ no-one. They are the engine room of the modern economy. Small business knows what it is to fight against large predatory competitors. They know what it is to battle daily to increase market share, feed their families and employ Australians—notwithstanding Labor’s recent budget of 134,000 unemployed; something, I contend, the Labor Party takes rather glibly. I speak on behalf of the hardworking men and women of my electorate of Fadden, the fastest-growing electorate in the nation and one of three Gold Coast seats. As this House knows only too well, those three seats of the Gold Coast are the small-business powerhouse of the nation. The Gold Coast has more small to medium-sized enterprises per capita than any commensurate city or area in the country. And small business says the market power test is not sufficient to protect it from predatory pricing from competitors. So, whilst I support elements of the bill, I cannot support a return to market power by removing the Birdsville amendment on market share, nor can I support the move to allow the Federal Magistrates Court to hear section 46 cases. Before understanding where we are to go in the future, it is important to understand where we have come from in the past. The provisions of part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which includes section 46, prohibit various trade practices that tend to prevent or lessen competition in an Australian market for goods and services. These provisions are at the heart of the Trade Practices Act. Since 1974 they have been instrumental in shaping the Australian economy. They lay down rules which, as interpreted by the courts from time to time, restrain anticompetitive behaviour and promote competition in the marketplace. The original form of section 46 of the TPA reflected provisions which went back to Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 in the United States and the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906. It was directed at a corporation operating independently using its market power against a competitor. Since that time, section 46 has been the subject of a number of formal inquiries and resultant amendments. Today, subsection 46(1) provides that: A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of: eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. Despite the amendments to section 46 over the years, there remain concerns that the section does not achieve its purpose of prohibiting the misuse of market power. The Review of competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act, the Dawson report, was released in April 2003. Its terms of reference were broadly cast, as there had not been a comprehensive review of the provisions since the Independent Committee of Inquiry into a National Competition Policy for Australia in 1993. After the Dawson committee had completed its consultations, a number of decisions about section 46 of the TPA were handed down by the full Federal Court and High Court. Of these, Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 215 CLR 374, the Boral case, raised a number of issues. However, the full weight of these judgements and decisions and the impacts they would have were not fully known; thus, the Dawson committee did not make any recommendations for change. The following year, the Senate Economics References Committee conducted an inquiry into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business, which detailed a number of concerns about the effectiveness of section 46 at that time; specifically: whether the TPA gives sufficient guidance as to what constitutes substantial power in a market; whether the TPA provides guidance as to what constitutes taking advantage of market power; whether there is protection against predatory pricing; whether a financial power test should be introduced; whether the TPA should proscribe the misuse of market power in a second market; whether there is sufficient protection against the use of co-ordinated market power; and whether an effects test should be included as an addition to or substitute for the current purpose test. These have been recurring themes in calls for an update to section 46; hence the coalition’s addition of the Birdsville amendment in 2007 to further protect business from predatory firms who have a substantial market share. The Birdsville amendment was introduced a year or so ago. It stops a company with a substantial market share from selling or offering to sell goods or services below cost for a sustained period of time for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation, or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation; preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any market. Some on the Labor benches will argue that the Birdsville amendment introduced considerable uncertainty into the law by introducing concepts of ‘substantial market share’, ‘sustained period’ and ‘relevant cost’, terms which had not been determined by the courts. May I refer my honourable Labor colleagues to the fact that, in the vast bulk of legislation in this House, terms will be defined by the courts from time to time and that waiting for the courts to determine the relevant meaning of phrases or words before enshrining them in legislation is farcical at best and perhaps a little stupid at worst. The bottom line is this: this amendment has not been in long enough for it to be properly tested in the courts in any way, shape or manner. Because the amendment is less than 12 months old, it clearly could not have any of the morose effects that are being suggested in such hyperbole from the Labor government or, indeed, from big business. The provisions have not been in long enough for it to be clear how they need to be changed. All law needs time to settle down, to shake out, and for its relevance to be judged by industry. In this case, 12 months is clearly not enough. The overwhelming question is: why would a company sell or offer to sell goods and services below cost for a sustained period of time if not to wipe out a competitor? The market share test simply says you cannot sell or offer to sell your goods and services at less than what you paid for them for a long period of time to knock out the bloke next door. And if you have got your goods and services for sale at a price less than what you paid for them for a sustained period of time, unless you have large market share, I would suggest very quickly you are heading for the bankruptcy courts. It is poor business practice to sell things for less than you bought things for, and the only reason you would do it for a sustained period of time is to knock out a competitor. This is not about sales over Christmas; this is not about a special to get customers through your front door; all of those things have a short duration attached to them. This is below-cost pricing for a sustained period of time. There is only one viable, economic reason why you would do that and that is to knock out your competitor, to put them out of business. I would have thought there would have been a term or a phrase or a concept that an economic conservative would understand, but clearly, in this form of government, I am vastly mistaken. The government wants to repeal the Birdsville amendment; it wants to get rid of the market share test and return to market power. Let me give the parliament a brief example. The Woolies and the Coles service stations have something like 16 to 17 per cent of service station locations, yet they control 80 per cent of the market. Their market power is 16 per cent of service stations; their market share is 80 per cent of fuel sold. The two concepts are different and needed. Labor’s amendment would reduce the scope of Birdsville and make it harder for the ACCC to bring action against large businesses who engage in some form of predatory pricing. Small business in particular, and especially in my electorate, is concerned that the meaning of market power, as defined by the High Court, is far too narrow. Market share is highly likely to be a simpler economic term for the courts to apply within their judgements. It is interesting to reflect upon the Boral case, as this has defined, more than any other case, what the market power test means. By way of history, Boral manufactures concrete masonry products—blocks, bricks, pavers. Boral, Pioneer, C&M, Rocla and Budget—five companies—all supply these products in the Melbourne marketplace. In the 1990s a price war broke out between manufacturers of these masonry products for the supply of products into Melbourne. By their nature, a price war is a good thing for consumers. The price war took place when the Victorian economy was in recession. Surprise, surprise—a Labor government at the helm! It had an adverse effect upon the commercial building industry and the level of demand for concrete masonry products. Boral and Pioneer cut the prices charged for concrete and masonry significantly and, in many cases during the war, Boral’s prices were less than their variable costs. In 1995 Rocla closed down all its Victorian masonry operations, followed in June 1996 by Budget, which stopped making concrete and masonry products. The ACCC alleged that between 1994 and 1996 Boral engaged in conduct that contravened section 46 of the TPA. In particular, the ACCC alleged that Boral reduced the prices— 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Between 1992 and 1999 it was a conservative government in Victoria. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—There is no point of order. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr ROBERT —Hence I referred to it as being in the early 1990s, when the Labor Party was actually in power, that the price war broke out. But I thank the parliamentary secretary for his grasp of history, as only a great Labor man could possibly understand. Referring to the Boral case in particular, the ACCC alleged that the conduct of Boral was designed to eliminate or substantially damage C&M and other competitors, including Rocla and Budget. The majority of the High Court, with Justice Kirby in dissent, decided that Boral had not breached section 46 of the TPA. Section 46 did not contain, at the time, any concerns or words regarding predatory pricing. Clearly this case demonstrates that market power by itself is not sufficient. If market power could not be attached to the Boral case—Boral being the size that it was at the time when the price war started, when the Labor Party of Victoria had destroyed the economy, causing Kennett to come back in and restore the economy to the sort of First World economy that it was—market power by itself was not sufficient, considering what had happened during that time. Birdsville will not stop legitimate and pro-competitive discounting, as is claimed by some large business organisations. The amendment will only be triggered by below-cost pricing, when that occurs, over an extended period of time for an anti-competitive purpose—an extended period of time; the period of time it took the Labor government in Victoria to almost wipe the economy out prior to the Kennett government. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Fadden will refer to the bill before the House. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr ROBERT —Birdsville will not stop pro-competitive discounting. It should not stop any company from matching a competitor’s price or from holding Christmas sales, any other clearance sales, or sales to clear old stock at the end of the trading day. The Birdsville amendment is designed to protect small business from predatory pricing over an extended period of time. It is a good amendment. It needs time to work its way out. It has the support of the small business community—a community that Labor is perhaps not listening to, as they are seeking to remove the market share test. Moving onto the Federal Magistrates Court, the coalition does not support the proposal to allow the Federal Magistrates Court to hear section 46 cases. Existing section 86(1) confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court in respect of any civil proceeding arising under the Trade Practices Act. Existing section 86(1A) confers an additional jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court under certain limited parts of the Trade Practices Act. During the Senate inquiry, submissions expressed concerns about the costs and delays associated with bringing section 46 matters, particularly for smaller businesses. If the costs associated with enforcing section 46 are prohibitively high, then it will not be effective in addressing anticompetitive conduct, no matter how well it is otherwise suited to doing so. Section 46 cases are, by their very nature, complex and are unlikely to be beneficial to small and medium business—that section of the economy that employs up to half of all Australian workers and that the coalition stands by, supports and defends. Section 46 cases often end up in the High Court. The Federal Court is best placed to hear section 46 cases because it contains most of the expertise pertaining to the TPA. It is unclear what this Labor government actually plan to do with the Magistrates Court. The jury is clearly out as to whether the court will remain or be subsumed. The government may abolish it, which may make the whole process completely useless. The coalition will stand up for small business. I will stand up for small business in the electorate of Fadden and for small business on the Gold Coast. The powerhouse that actually runs the economy is the small to medium enterprises. The coalition will stand up for it, and we will stand up for the Birdsville amendment. We will stand up for those hardworking men and women who, through incentive, through opportunity and through choice, go out to make a difference for their families. We will stand up for these people and will not support the government’s changes to these two elements of the TPA. 6668 13:25:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —It is nice to have rare times in parliament when you have a bit of rhyme whereby the member for Braddon follows the member for Fadden—which is very good. I notice we have a number of primary schools represented in the galleries. We say hello and welcome them to the parliament; they can see us in our dry activities today—but on very important legislation. I might add that students from Table Cape Primary School, from my electorate, are in the building at the moment. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet with them just now. It is a wonderful school and they come from a beautiful part of the north-west coast of Tassie. They have beautifully rich soil there, and I have always mentioned to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, that you can drop a toenail in the ground on Table Cape and grow a foot. It is a brilliant area and a brilliant school. Hence to the legislation before us, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This is a bill to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to improve its ability to promote competition and fair trading in Australian markets and to crack down on anticompetitive behaviour. The member for Fadden mentioned history, and the parliamentary secretary at the table, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, is very much a student of Australian political history. He well knows that the Australian Labor Party has a strong legacy of competition reforms, having been responsible for the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974 to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection. Labor made improvements to the act in 1986 and also instigated National Competition Policy and led on into the 1990s with it. Part IV of the Trade Practices Act promotes competition by prohibiting anticompetitive conduct. Section 46 of part IV prohibits unilateral anticompetitive conduct, most notably by prohibiting corporations from misusing substantial market power to harm or eliminate competitors or competition generally. Part IVA of the Trade Practices Act promotes fair trading by prohibiting unconscionable conduct. In particular, section 51AC of part IVA prohibits unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, a corporation. However, it is the government’s belief—and this is mirrored in the legislation—that a series of court decisions have undermined the operation of the act, in particular section 46. You may well remember, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, that in opposition we indicated that we would strengthen the Trade Practices Act to restore its original 1986 intention. Schedules 1 and 2 of this legislation promote competition in Australian markets by enhancing the prohibitions against anticompetitive unilateral conduct contained in the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the competition code. Schedule 3 makes additional amendments to the Trade Practices Act and to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Schedule 1 of the bill amends section 46—misuse of market power—to: address predatory pricing, clarify the role of recoupment in predatory pricing cases, clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’, and confer jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court for section 46 matters. Schedule 2 of the bill makes corresponding amendments to the version of section 46 found in the competition code, which is the version of section 46 that applies to all persons in the states and territories by virtue of application legislation in those jurisdictions. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Trade Practices Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to require that one of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s deputy chairpersons have knowledge of or experience in small business matters to repeal the thresholds for unconscionable conduct cases under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act and section 12CC of the ASIC Act and, finally, to clarify the ACCC’s information gathering powers under section 155. I would like to concentrate on some sections of those schedule amendments. I mentioned that the bill strengthens sections 46 and 51AC as part of the government’s ongoing commitment to improve Australia’s trade practices laws. As mentioned, it also includes several amendments that improve the ability of the Trade Practices Act to be effectively enforced. By making these amendments, the bill implements the government’s announcements of 28 April 2008 to strengthen the laws to promote fair competition. The measures contained in the bill were foreshadowed as opposition amendments to the Trade Practices Legislation Bill 2007. The amendments, however, were not adopted in the final version of that bill which was passed on 19 September 2007, despite many of them being recommended by the government’s own Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act, particularly in protecting small business. At the time, the government, then in opposition, noted that the amendments would be pursued following a change of government. Small business and consumers demand nothing less than an effective trade practices regime. Reforming the Trade Practices Act to bring it into the 21st century has been an article of faith for this government. The package which I mentioned and on which I would like to elaborate will ensure genuine competition for the benefit of consumers and small businesses. Predatory pricing hurts small businesses with the consumer paying the ultimate price. The previous government’s changes to the Trade Practices Act—to which the previous speaker, the member for Fadden, certainly alluded—most notably the Birdsville amendment, were a rushed job, put through without consultation in September 2007. Those changes have introduced confusion into the act. The government’s reforms will clarify this section of the act and, contrary to comments by members opposite, particularly the member for Pearce, strengthen its powers to identify anticompetitive behaviour. On advice from the ACCC, we have replaced the share of market test with the market power test because market power is a broader term which will capture anticompetitive behaviour from powerful businesses, whether that power comes from a high market share or any other source. The coalition have indicated they will be voting to keep the Birdsville amendment. The Birdsville amendment is not supported by the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, the former ACCC chair, or Mr Bob Baxt, who is a former chairman of the Trade Practices Commission. I would like to refer to some comments made by Bob Baxt in the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday, 19 September 2007. His opening comments were: It is a great pity that the government— the then Howard government— has chosen to ‘ride on the tail of political opportunism’ in agreeing to the self-styled ‘Birdsville amendment’ to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. After a fairly lengthy discussion about what he believed were the flaws in the Birdsville amendment, and I think it is well worth noting and perhaps contemplating his closing comments, he said: Far from protecting small business, this amendment is likely to prove unwelcome to them as well as to others, as increased complexity will lead to litigation and lengthy appeals. Not only will the small-business sector not enjoy any real success as a result of these amendments— most notably, the Birdsville amendment— but most importantly, consumers will suffer significantly as companies abandon any attempt to discount in situations where they have any degree of market share. This legislation, introduced in haste and apparently as a result (among other things) of the criticisms made on a certain radio station, will not serve the Australian business community well (business, but most particularly consumers). I would like to look at this Birdsville amendment, which was part of the former government’s legislation, and section 46(1AA). The present reference to market share has given rise to uncertainty and may reduce pro-competitive price competition in markets. The ACCC has publicly stated that section 46(1AA), as currently drafted, adds considerable confusion to the law and should be amended to clarify the protection it provides. The bill achieves this by aligning the Birdsville amendment with a longstanding prohibition in section 46(1). In particular, the bill amends section 46(1AA) to focus it on a corporation’s market power as opposed to its market share. The size of a firm including its market share will, however, remain a relevant factor in establishing a corporation’s market power for the purposes of the revised prohibition. Section 46(1AA) presently operates in relation to firms with ‘a substantial share of a market’. This is inconsistent with a longstanding prohibition in section 46(1), which operates in relation to firms with a substantial degree of market power. The bill amends section 46(1AA) to align its operation with the longstanding prohibition in section 46(1). This includes focusing its operation on market power as opposed to market share. The concept of market power allows the court to consider all the relevant characteristics of a market in determining whether a firm has acted anticompetitively. Such factors would include the size of a firm including its market share, as well as the size and number of its competitors. The concept of market power has been effective in targeting unilateral anticompetitive conduct. For example, in 2006 the Federal Court imposed penalties totalling $8.9 million on Safeway with respect to four breaches of section 46(1) and other anticompetitive conduct. This was despite Safeway having only around a 16 to 20 per cent share of the relevant market. I refer, as mentioned earlier, to a couple of other sections of our amendment. The bill amends the Trade Practices Act to require that at least one of the ACCC’s deputy chairpersons have knowledge of, or experience in, small business matters. Why the requirement for small business experience? There are a number of trade practices issues that tend to confront small businesses in particular. These include issues relating to collective bargaining, retail tenancy, franchising, unconscionable conduct and the misuse of market power. The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 amended the act to create a second deputy chairperson for the ACCC. As noted in the second reading speech to the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007, it was intended that this position be filled by a candidate with experience in small business matters. However, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 strangely did not include any legislative requirement to that effect. The government’s amendments now include a legislative requirement that a deputy chair of the ACCC have small business experience. The amendment ensures that small business has a prominent and permanent voice at the ACCC. The ability of parties to effectively pursue rightful claims is as important as having well-drafted laws. Concerns have been expressed about the costs and delays associated with bringing section 46 matters. If the costs associated with privately pursuing section 46 claims are prohibitively high, it will not be as effective in addressing anticompetitive conduct. This bill addresses these concerns by conferring jurisdiction over private matters arising under section 46 on the Federal Magistrates Court. By doing so, the bill improves access to justice for businesses in cases arising in appropriate circumstances under this important provision. In the little time remaining to me I would like to look at the argument that we present regarding whether the Federal Magistrates Court is an appropriate court to hear section 46 matters. We believe it is. The 2003 Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act in protecting small businesses considered that the Federal Magistrates Court had developed expertise in resolving issues without requiring the expense of a fully contested court case. It concluded that this expertise could resolve a substantial number of section 46 matters with cost savings to all sides. The Federal Magistrates Act 1999 permits the Federal Magistrates Court to transfer proceedings to the Federal Court when appropriate. Such a transfer may occur in complex and resource-demanding cases or where the amount being claimed is beyond the $750,000 jurisdictional limit of the Federal Magistrates Court. The 2003 Senate inquiry recommended that the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court be extended to enable it to deal with misuse of market powers, which relies on section 83 of the act. Section 83 allows parties to rely on findings of certain previous proceedings as prima facie evidence in an action for loss or damage. While a section 46 matter relying on section 83 of the act may be an example of an appropriate matter to be heard by the Federal Magistrates Court, there is no justification for so limiting its jurisdiction. In conclusion, the bill brought by the government to this House fulfils our commitments made in 2007, when this legislation was brought forward by the Howard government. The amendments we put forward strengthen the Trade Practices Act in its intentions to stop anticompetitive behaviour, to have fair trading and to have conscionable conduct. I recommend the government’s bill to the House. 6672 13:43:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I rise today to oppose the changes that the Labor government has proposed in the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 in relation to the Birdsville amendment in section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1999. The Birdsville amendment was introduced by the coalition government less than a year ago—after a long period of lobbying by a number of us on Capital Hill, in both this place and the other. It was introduced to ensure that small businesses had a fair go when major supermarkets and the like set up shop and made it very difficult for these small businesses to be as productive. Since the introduction of the Birdsville amendment, it has been no secret that it needs time to work and needs to be tested in the judicial system. We have to make sure that small businesses are not pushed out of the market by unfair, anticompetitive practices by much larger companies. I refer to a particular incident that took place in my electorate not so long ago. It has been the subject of some discussion by the ACCC and also NARGA, which is the body representing this particular small business. The situation, which was brought to the attention of the ACCC Chairman, two inquiry commissioners and a number of senior staff of the ACCC, was an example of what was believed to be an act of predatory pricing by Woolworths against a Supa IGA supermarket in Cootamundra, in my electorate, in the Riverina. There was a list of products that Woolworths Cootamundra was selling each week at prices considerably below Woolworths’ published statewide specials for those weeks—that is, Woolworths in Cootamundra were undercutting their own specials, which applied across their network in all other Woolworths stores in New South Wales. The reaction from the ACCC at the time was to reject the suggestion of predatory pricing, abuse of market power or whatever you would like to call it. The chairman suggested that it might have been in the interests of Metcash Ltd to give the independent some price support through this cycle, thereby subsidising the independent. And there were comments made that the chairman was cynical about suggestions the ACCC should act to stop such behaviour by Woolworths taking place. Some of the comments were that, if taken by the ACCC, this action would surely be to the advantage of the IGA independent. NARGA, in defence of their chain and the IGA in Cootamundra, pointed out that it could not be certain that Woolworths was selling below cost but they did know that Woolworths was selling below their own statewide specials and at an extremely low cost, and they indicated that the ACCC rightly had the necessary powers to investigate whether it was in fact below-cost pricing and therefore potentially predatory. Contact was made with the Cootamundra Supa IGA by the ACCC, but the ACCC basically said it would be really difficult to prove predatory pricing. There was no conversation in detail in relation to the allegation or the concerns that were being expressed by not only the owner of the Supa IGA but other people as well, and there was no great attempt to collect any information on the products or the period of time involved in this low pricing. I repeat: the pricing was below what was advertised right across New South Wales in every other Woolworths store. It did rate a mention, though, on page 538 of the grocery inquiry report. The ACCC said in relation to the Cootamundra allegation: The ACCC sought information from Woolworths about the pricing policies of its Cootamundra store and the costs of supplying the discounted products over the period of the promotion. Although the information provided suggests— everything always ‘suggests’ to the ACCC!— that Woolworths sold some of the relevant goods at below its cost of supply, the ACCC notes that this only occurred for a limited period, the purpose of which was to vigorously compete with a refurbished store reopening. The information did not suggest that the conduct was directed at or could have resulted in eliminating, or substantially damaging, the newly refurbished competitor. When the parliament passed the Birdsville amendment on predatory pricing, it was welcomed by many people—by me, Senator Ron Boswell, Senator Barnaby Joyce and those of us who had been trying to have this looked at and seen to since the integrity of the process had been undermined by the Boral case. It was a very important statement of principle. The parliament had really stated that the type of conduct that I have just referred to by Woolworths in Cootamundra was simply not acceptable. But it was also recognised that the courts would need to define some of the elements, including ‘substantial share of a market’ and ‘sustained period of time’; that a complainant would still require the ACCC to establish where there had been below-cost selling, because a complainant would have no access to the internal company information of an alleged predator; and, finally, that the courts would need to decide on ‘purpose’ in relation to injury or elimination of a competitor. The ACCC Chairman himself said in a news release on 12 October 2007: Inevitably, we will prosecute appropriate cases to test some of these questions before the court. However, it should be remembered that businesses which have suffered as the result of anti-competitive conduct of larger rivals can bring their own legal actions under the Act. It should not necessarily be assumed that the ACCC will be the first to bring forward such a case. It is equally conceivable that a private party could be the first mover in this area. In fact, historically, the majority of actions under section 46 have been taken by private litigants. Regardless, clarification from the courts on these issues will be welcome when it arrives. The news release went on to say: Mr Samuel said that the full implications of the changes would not be known until they had been properly tested by the courts … But now Mr Samuel is acting as the court. Is this a vote of no confidence from the member for Riverina in Mr Samuel? Sadly, sorrily, so it is. I for one have always stood up for the integrity of the Chairman of the ACCC, but I am sad to say that I can no longer stand up for that integrity. I have come up with every conceivable reason why the ACCC can do nothing about anything anymore. Here we have now—rather than an increase of rigour over those businesses to ensure their behaviour is not predatory and an abuse—a watering down of this section, and it is a crime to say the least. COSBOA is the Council of Small Business of Australia and represents those small businesses. I did note that someone from the government side of the House last week—I cannot recall who—indicated that COSBOA actually supports the removal of this principle. It does not. It clearly says in its press release of 27 August 2008: COSBOA believes that it should be the birth right of every Australian to have the opportunity to start their own business, and to succeed or fail on merit, without fear of being crushed by predatory tactics used by large corporations taking advantage of their greater market share or greater financial resources. Effective laws to prohibit Predatory Pricing are essential in fostering an entrepreneurial culture, which is vital to the future economic prosperity of the nation. It is a fact that those small businesses that make up rural and regional Australia in particular are always at the mercy of many issues and it is very difficult for them to represent their own needs. It is through COSBOA and many others that they can have some sense of justice. Basically, COSBOA is saying that the government’s proposed changes to the Trade Practices Act reinstate both the market power test and the take advantage test. In the past, these tests operated as an escape clause, not as a clause to sort out predatory pricing but as an escape clause for large corporations to hide behind to destroy competition with predatory pricing practices. Big business wants these terms reinstated into the Birdsville amendment because they know that their predatory pricing will not be captured under these tests as the High Court has very narrowly interpreted such concepts. This is the reason for the insertion of the Birdsville amendment to section 4: to give small businesses the opportunity to be able to function. COSBOA also supported the changes made by the former government to introduce a new test of market share for predatory prices cases to overcome the High Court’s narrow interpretation of the concepts of ‘market power’ and ‘take advantage’. COSBOA says that small business prefers the market share test as the market power test and take advantage test are just too difficult, and the federal government is not making these tests any simpler. COSBOA is not convinced that government’s proposed changes to reinstate these tests will strengthen the act in any way and is concerned that these changes would in fact weaken the act. So it is an absolute issue for that organisation that represents small businesses. We continue to go along in significant terms about the issues that are currently being faced and are related in many instances. There is no doubt that more competition brings down the prices for the consumer, whereas market centralisation allows the dominant players to exploit the consumer, the grower and the farmer. Less competition means higher fuel and grocery prices for consumers, and this all adds to inflation. Less competition means that farmers get less and less for their meat and their products, which would have dire consequences for the livelihoods of many. Our small businesses are an integral part of any economy, especially in rural and regional areas. In Australia in 2006, small businesses accounted for 58 per cent of the private sector jobs growth and generated an estimated 30 per cent of the nation’s economic production. In Australia small businesses employ around four million people, which represents over 45 per cent of the workforce, much of this workforce in rural and regional Australia. Our small businesses are the backbone of our local communities. They are always the first port of call to support our charities, especially when they are having fund-raising ventures and the like, and small businesses are always there to support other local clubs with sponsorship and donations. The small businesses in our rural communities are already doing it tough because they have often been set up solely as a support for those rural communities and they have come to depend on these consumers to purchase their products. It is a very courageous effort to set up a business. You often risk your family, your home and your possessions in order to provide your service and goods to the community and also to provide employment opportunities. What we have seen and what I have demonstrated here today is the fact that Mr Samuel has publicly said on many occasions that the ACCC’s role is to protect competition, not competitors. But I say to you, Mr Speaker, there is one issue here that cannot be denied: the ACCC’s protection of competition has been a resounding failure, more so in the last nine to 10 months than it ever has been before. It has been a resounding failure and an entirely new strategy is required. As I said, the ACCC report into our GroceryWatch was an absolute indictment on the fair go for the Australian person, on the fair go for the Australian business. I stand here in this House today to say I have no confidence in the ACCC; I have no confidence in the ACCC chairman; and I suspect that future businesses in Australia will be severely impacted upon as a result of what takes place in this House over the next few weeks in respect of this piece of legislation. 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 and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 6675 Ministerial Arrangements 6675 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today as he is attending the Legacy Week launch and ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph in Sydney. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel will answer questions on his behalf. 6675 Miscellaneous 6675 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —On indulgence, I would like to note that Australia’s Paralympics team has left to compete in the Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games. At this year’s Paralympic Games in Beijing, Australia will take a total team of 170 athletes and 121 support staff—our biggest ever team to go to an away games. I was honoured to be at the announcement of the team in Parliament House on 29 July and to meet some of the athletes. The Paralympic Games is the pinnacle of sporting achievement for athletes with a disability, and Australia has a long and proud history at these games. In fact, Australia has participated in the Paralympic Summer Games ever since they commenced, back in Rome in 1960. We Australians take great pride in those who represent our country. We love to see our teams compete on the world stage. Not too many people get to reach the level of excellence where they can wear the national colours of Australia and compete against the best in the world in their chosen sport. The nation will be cheering our Paralympians on in Beijing when their competition starts next week. Our Paralympians inspire all Australians. The example they set goes an enormous way to motivating other Australians to get active, to participate in sport and to be the absolute best that they can. They are role models, not only as sports men and women but also as extraordinary individuals. We will be watching, we will be cheering and we will be proud of their every achievement. 6676 Miscellaneous 6676 14:02:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —On indulgence on another matter: last Thursday night in Denver, Colorado, Senator Barack Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party as the candidate for the upcoming US presidential election. I would like to congratulate Senator Obama on his nomination. I would like to note the significance of his nomination, not least because it took place on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I have a dream’ speech. His acceptance of the nomination was a milestone in US presidential election campaigns. We have an African American now as a presidential candidate for a major political party in the United States, more than 150 years after the Civil War. This week there will be another milestone. The Republican Party will hold its convention and Senator John McCain will accept his party’s nomination as presidential candidate. I want to offer my congratulations to Senator McCain on his imminent nomination. It is a great thing to watch the workings of one of the world’s great democracies. We wish both candidates well and both their parties well for the upcoming presidential election. It will be hard-fought. But whatever the outcome, should the Democrats or the Republicans prevail, Australia will have a great friend in this upcoming presidential election because our relationship—Australia and the United States—goes beyond the partisan divide; it is a relationship which has endured through the generations and will endure for the generations. 6676 Miscellaneous 6676 14:03:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —On indulgence, I join with the Prime Minister in cheering on our Paralympic team as it heads off to Beijing today for the commencement of the Paralympic Games on Saturday. We are sending 175 athletes, and behind every one of those men and women is a story of remarkable courage in the face of adversity, supported by the love of families, by administrators, trainers, doctors, physiotherapists and a variety of people who have made it possible for them to go to the Paralympics. Their sacrifices as Paralympians indeed are an inspiration to the entire nation, only a week after we welcomed back the Australian Olympic team. Their speed, their strength and their skills do not materialise overnight and are the product of years and years of hard work. These men and women exemplify the best of the Australian spirit. What each individual achieves is limited only by their own dreams and the extent of their effort, discipline and sacrifice. Australia consistently finishes in the top five sporting nations in the Paralympics. Let us hope that it is the same on this occasion. I join with the Prime Minister in wishing our Paralympic team all the very, very best in representing the finest ideals of being an Australian, the finest ideals of sport and the finest ideals of overcoming adversity in life to be your very, very best. 6677 Miscellaneous 6677 14:05:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —On indulgence, I join with the Prime Minister in recognising the importance of the United States democratic process and the election of Senator Barack Obama as the Democrat presidential candidate. I also recognise that Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, has chosen Sarah Palin as the first female Republican vice-presidential nominee and only the second ever female vice-presidential nominee, behind Geraldine Ferraro for the Democrats in 1984. Sarah Palin is a 44-year-old mother of five, including a son who will soon go to Iraq and a four-month-old son with Down syndrome. Both the presidential candidates have the very best interests of not only the United States but the world at stake, and both are very, very familiar with Australia and its strategic interests. In relation to the United States, I also express the concern that all Australia have for the possible impact of Hurricane Gustav as it sweeps across potentially five states in the United States, affecting up to 11½ million Americans and in particular the almost quarter of a million people in New Orleans who have already been evacuated. 6677 14:06:00 Questions Without Notice 6677 14:06:00 6677 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why are interest rates coming down when inflation is going up? 6677 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The Reserve Bank sets interest rates, and one of the things it sets interest rates on the basis of is the state of overall inflationary pressures in the economy. One of the things that the Reserve Bank is entirely mindful of is the extent to which those inflationary pressures have endured over time. If you look carefully at the minutes of the most recent Reserve Bank meeting, it has concluded that these inflationary pressures have continued for some time. Furthermore, it has noted, as I believe has the IMF recently, that there has also been a moderating influence brought to bear on fiscal policy through the right settings which have been adopted by the government through its management of the budget. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —For those who scoff opposite, I would draw their attention to the most recent statement to this effect by the International Monetary Fund. If you are able to bring your fiscal policy into balance with your monetary policy, and to ensure that you have got the right settings overall, you make the job of the Reserve Bank easier to bring down interest rates over time. That has been one of the core organising principles which we have sought to bring to bear in the debate on the economy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the key thing is that it is the Reserve Bank which sets rates. I note with interest, on that score, that the Leader of the Opposition had something to say to this effect this morning. He was disputing the proposition that the independence of the bank should be respected. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition began speaking about a particular requirement of the bank to bring in a 50 basis point decrease. A journalist said to the Leader of the Opposition: ‘You have made a case for 50. If you are Prime Minister, does that give you carte blanche to tell the Reserve Bank what you expect in terms of rate movements—cuts or increases in the future?’ Mr Nelson replied, ‘Well, the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the government of the day is obviously to make sure that we get the economic settings right, to talk up the Australian economy, not to talk the economy down, to speak responsibly about the inflationary challenge that we face.’ All fine and dandy. We go on. Journalist: ‘Would you like to see the Prime Minister say what you have said?’ That is calling on the bank for a 50 basis point decrease. Mr Nelson: ‘No, I’m not going to comment on that at all.’ Journalist: ‘But you’re the alternative Prime Minister as well. If Prime Minister, does that mean that you will tell the Reserve Bank what you expect in terms of rate movements?’ Answer: ‘No.’ So what we have is the Leader of the Opposition going out on the doors this morning, saying to the Reserve Bank that there should be a defined decrease of a particular quantum in the cash rate, while we on this side of the House respect the independence of the Reserve Bank. But then he is asked the key question: ‘You’ve said that as Leader of the Opposition. If you’re elected as Prime Minister, are you going to say that as well?’ He says no. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —It’s a different job. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The interjection says it is a different job. I hear constantly the Leader of the Opposition stand at the dispatch box and say he speaks as the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, and therefore his pronunciations on monetary policy are those of the alternative Prime Minister—that is, that the Reserve Bank should act in a particular way. What we now have is the new Nelson doctrine: what I say in opposition has nothing whatsoever to do with what I do in government. In other words, the overall dictum of those opposite is to say anything, to do anything, to promise anything in order to get themselves a headline. How can the Leader of the Opposition stand credibly in the parliament today and speak about responsible economic management when he goes out one morning and says, as Leader of the Liberal Party and as alternative Prime Minister, that the Reserve Bank should take a particular course of action on rates and, in the same breath, say that if he were Prime Minister he would not say that or do that? That is where we have got to with the Leader of the Opposition. The credibility of the Leader of the Opposition on this entire debate on interest rates—quite apart from how we have got to this position in the first place, given that we have had 10 interest rate rises in a row under the Liberal Party—collapsed on the doors this morning when he said, ‘I, Brendan Nelson, will be opportunistic and say what I like on this, but I, Brendan Nelson, as alternative Prime Minister, would not do this.’ The Leader of the Opposition does not know whether he is coming or going. 6678 6678 14:11:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is steering Australia through these tough global economic times? 6678 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As we know, in Australia we are facing tough global economic times. This is because we are dealing with the impact of the global financial crisis, the impact of changes in global credit markets and also the impact of falls on global stock exchanges. This, of course, has been compounded by the oil price hike and the food price hike, and the result is that we have seen across the world both business and consumer confidence take a pounding. You see that in the numbers generated out of the various OECD economies, where five of the seven economies have generated either zero or negative growth in the most recent quarter. These global economic challenges have been compounded for Australia by the domestic economic circumstances which this government inherited. To recap for those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —firstly, 20 Reserve Bank warnings—they do not like this; secondly, and on top of that, we had inflation running at a 16-year high when the government was elected; thirdly, we had 10 interest rate rises in a row, delivering us the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I am glad the member for Higgins has come to life, yet again, having been out on the town with some others on Friday night in Melbourne talking to a few folk. The cumulative impact of those interest rate changes over time—that is, 10 interest rate rises in a row— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The member for Higgins does not like this number—on a $247,000 average mortgage, means that we have a $400 a month interest rate hit as a result of the Costello interest rate regime—$100 a week. So if you calculate it on the basis of an average mortgage and the impact of 200 basis point increases in official interest rates—10 interest rate rises in a row—that is where it leads you. That is the practical consequence for working families—a Costello $400 a month interest rate hit or the Liberals’ $400 a month interest rate hit. The question that the parliament rightly asked itself is: what is the correct economic strategy in response to this? The first element is responsible economic management, and that is why we have brought down a $22 billion budget surplus. The second, of course, is to ensure that we have a program of comprehensive economic reform to deal with declining productivity growth in the Australian economy. These are the matters about which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have spoken in recent days—the productivity revolution and the education revolution which is necessary to fuel long-term skills growth. Then there is the challenge of nation building—and I will come back to that in a minute. And, of course, to assist working families, pensioners and carers on the way through this difficult period, there is our policy of a $55 billion Working Families Support Package and $7.5 billion to assist with extra payments to pensioners and carers. But the real challenge is how we take this entire economic agenda of the nation forward to deal with our real, long-term challenges: responsible economic management; acting on the productivity challenge for the education revolution; and implementing a program of nation building. This government stands proudly behind the fact that it is about to embark upon the single largest nation-building program in the Commonwealth’s history. We have committed ourselves to a $76 billion Infrastructure Investment Program focused on our roads, our rail, our ports, our communications and our other critical infrastructure. The government will be investing $26 billion in roads and rail infrastructure through 2008-09 to the end of the AusLink 2 period; $20 billion in infrastructure, through the Building Australia Fund, on transport and also on other key infrastructure priorities; up to $5 billion on a national high-speed broadband network; $15 billion in education infrastructure through the Education Investment Fund on trades training centres, computers in our classrooms and investing in our universities; and $11 billion in health and hospitals infrastructure as well. Beyond this national infrastructure plan for Australia, the biggest national infrastructure plan in the history of the Commonwealth, a $76 billion plan, we also look with keen interest to what the private sector is doing in the period ahead. If we look at the most recent capex data produced by the ABS, we see that there are significant plans out there in the private sector to boost their investment in capital outlays into the future as well. This is a significant plan. When we add what is canvassed in the capex data, we see businesses planning to invest more than $100 billion in 2008-09. The way ahead through these difficult economic times is to have a clear and positive plan—a clear and positive plan of responsible economic management, a clear and positive plan on productivity growth through an economic reform agenda anchored in the education revolution and, on top of that, a $76 billion nation-building plan for the future. This separates us out from those opposite, who, I fear, in recent days, have seen it to their political advantage to begin talking the economy down rather than coming up with a positive plan for the economy’s future. This government is about the economic future. Those opposite continue to revel in the past and are consoled by their inertia in the past as well. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could the Prime Minister assist me, in case I missed something, by tabling the speech he just read. It could not be confidential, surely. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Was the Prime Minister referring to notes? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Are the notes confidential? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Yes. 6680 Distinguished Visitors 6680 14:18:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 6680 Questions Without Notice 6680 6680 14:18:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer explain to the House why he is anticipating a fall in official interest rates when inflation is expected to rise to five per cent over the year to December and unemployment is expected to rise to 4.75 per cent? 6680 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the honourable member for his question, because this is a decision which is taken by the independent Reserve Bank. We on this side of the House respect the independence of the Reserve Bank. From day one, when we came to office, we did take responsibility for dealing with and tackling the inflation problem that was left to us by those opposite—16-year high inflation in October, November and December— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —which produced 10 interest rate rises in a row under the Liberal Party. But we put up our hand and said we would accept responsibility for dealing with it, and dealing with it we are. We are dealing with it through responsible economic management, by building a strong surplus, a $22 billion surplus, that those opposite want to vandalise. We are also dealing with it by attending to the capacity constraints that those opposite ignored for 12 long years, thereby putting further upward pressure on inflation. On top of that, now we have the worst global conditions in over 25 years. All of these things are taken into account by the Reserve Bank, but one thing we did in our budget was that we made room to move. We made room to move for the Reserve Bank. They will take their independent decision tomorrow. But of course, if those opposite had their way, there would be no room to move for the Reserve Bank, because they want to vandalise the surplus. Do they have one single coherent answer to the problem of inflation, to do something about inflation and interest rates? Of course they don’t. There is not one consistent economic policy coming from any of those opposite who pretend to know something about economic policy. I was talking here last week about the ‘Three Stooges’ on the other side. There was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth and the member for Higgins. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are asking very simple, factual questions. In this case, it was a factual question about official interest rates being likely to fall when inflation is expected to rise to five per cent over the year to December and unemployment is projected to rise. I ask you to bring the Treasurer back to the question that was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer knows the requirement to be relevant to the question. I will be listening very carefully. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I am dealing with inflation, I am dealing with interest rates and I am dealing with employment. The Leader of the Opposition was asked at the doors today whether, as Prime Minister, he would instruct the Reserve Bank governor to do what he had just advocated a couple of minutes earlier. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said at the doors in answer to the question, ‘If Prime Minister, does that mean you will tell the Reserve Bank what you expect in terms of rate movements?’ He answered, ‘No.’ He admitted that his policy in opposition is too irresponsible to be put in place in government. That is how irresponsible this Leader of the Opposition is. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer concluded? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, the Treasurer was asked a specific question about what he is doing about the economic challenges facing the nation. I ask that you bring him back to the question that was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The wording of the question asked the Treasurer to explain. The Treasurer will be very mindful of the question and make his answer relevant. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Certainly, Mr Speaker, and because it was a question about who was responsible for interest-rate movements, absolutely. And what we had this morning from the second stooge, the member for Wentworth, at the doors, was that he walked out there and said that the government was responsible for interest rates going up, and in the next breath he said that if they came down we would not be responsible. He cannot have it both ways. On top of that, we had the third stooge— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The member for Higgins had a blinder the other night, Mr Speaker. He suggested— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This is the third point of order that has been taken. He is incapable of answering this question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. The Treasurer will respond to the question and will bring his answer to a conclusion. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The member for Higgins suggested the other night that if he were still in government the financial crisis on world financial markets would not have happened. I mean, fair dinkum—they are gaga! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my right! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was defying your direction that he answer the question or sit down. I suggest he be sat down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Treasurer has the call and he will bring his response to a conclusion. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. The Rudd government is dealing with the most complex set of global economic circumstances in over 25 years. And on top of that we have inflation at 16-year highs, bequeathed to the people of Australia by those opposite. And we are doing everything in our power to put downward pressure on inflation and everything in our power to give the Reserve Bank room to move something which would not have happened if those opposite were on the front bench today. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I remind people, when I give the call to an individual it is not an invitation for everybody to speak. When we are having down time between individuals getting the call, that is also not a time for everybody to speak. 6682 6682 14:26:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Treasurer. What is the government doing at home to respond to the impacts of the slowing global economy? 6682 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —These are very serious issues for the country which were not taken seriously by those opposite when they were in power. They were not taken seriously at all—12 years of neglect. We are dealing with these issues, and we will not be deflected by their economic vandalism in the Senate as we deal with them, because this country is dealing with the most complex set of global economic factors in over 25 years— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —You can’t handle them! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Paterson! LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —You can’t handle them! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson is warned! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The largest developed economies are struggling to grow. The UK, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all recorded zero or negative growth in the three months to June. And this problem combined with the impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row, left to the country by those opposite, is slowing our economy. But there are grounds for optimism in all of this because we have a substantial budget surplus and, of course, as we have seen today from the latest figures from the bureau, commodity prices are also at a record high, and that is a good thing. And, as we saw from the capex figures the other day, business is continuing to invest. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we also have $40 billion put away in our investment funds to invest in the productive capacity of the future, to lift the productive capacity of the economy, and to deal with the inflationary challenges that this country faces. So what we will do is to control those things that are under the control of domestic governments. What that means is a disciplined fiscal policy. It also means investing in the productive capacity of the economy. Of course, that is more difficult when those opposite want to use the Senate to punch a hole in the budget surplus. But, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we on this side of the House are absolutely determined to invest in nation-building projects, to lift the productive capacity of the economy and our international competitiveness, because what we are battling here is 12 years of neglect from those opposite. But we have put up our hand to accept responsibility for fixing it, and we are putting in place a long-term strategy for the future. We will not make the same mistake that those opposite made. They celebrated prosperity but did nothing to achieve it into the future. 6683 6683 14:28:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why have real wages dropped by one per cent since the election of the Rudd government? 6683 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —If you look at the data contained in the budget papers, we projected that there would be a softening in employment in 2008-09, and therefore an increase in unemployment from 4.75 per cent. Furthermore, parallel to that, we also projected in the budget papers that there would be softening economic growth. As a consequence of that, we are dealing with softer and more challenging economic times. We have been upfront about that. We have not sought to be evasive about it; that is just the truth. Therefore, that has an effect on all working families. Because of the cost pressures I have run through before at the dispatch box, it also has an effect on, in particular, pensioners and carers, who are trying to make ends meet. What I also say to those opposite on the question of the employment conditions of working Australians is that the biggest impact over time on the take-home pay of working families is the industrial relations system under which people work. Therefore, noting that we have got softening global economic circumstances, and noting also that we have upwards revisions of unemployment—these are facts—I would ask those opposite: would workers who are, for example, in some of the businesses referred to by those opposite last week, where there have been closures and where people have lost their jobs, prefer an industrial relations system where redundancy payments were guaranteed or one where redundancy payments were signed away? I say that there is a fundamental difference between those opposite and those who stand as members of the government—the fundamental difference about which we fought the last election—which is that we believe, whatever circumstances a business finds itself in, people should have a right to proper redundancy payments. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was, ‘Why have real wages fallen by one per cent since the election of the Rudd government?’ It was not a question about employment; it was about real wages. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. 6683 6683 14:31:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline for the House how members of the public and the business community can put forward their ideas for infrastructure projects of national significance? 6683 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Longman for his question. Today Infrastructure Australia is releasing two discussion papers, the first on public-private partnerships and the second calling for submissions from the public and the business community on nationally significant infrastructure. Submissions will close on 15 October and it is indeed important that the community have input into this debate because infrastructure is vital to people’s everyday lives. Often it is not noticed until it does not work—until families are stuck in traffic jams or until people cannot get access to high-speed broadband. That is why infrastructure needs to be a national priority for nation building. That is why we built a surplus with a purpose. It is a surplus with a purpose in the short term: to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. It is a surplus with a purpose in the long term: to put aside $41 billion into nation-building funds. But you cannot actually put this money aside for long-term nation building if the surplus is diminished and if the surplus has a $6.2 billion hole drilled in it by those opposite. We must remember this: every single time that those representing the opposition in the Senate say no to a budget bill, they are saying no to proposals to unclog our ports. They are saying no to proposals to deal with urban congestion. They are saying no to proposals for better public transport. When you look at a budget, you actually have to look at priorities. For this government, our priority has been dealing with the pressures which we have been dealt—the 16-year high in inflation and the international circumstances of the credit squeeze and rising petrol prices—not only by producing a surplus but also by putting aside these funds for long-term nation building. But those opposite will in coming days have to make a decision about their priorities. For example, is it more important to maintain an industry start-up concession for condensate that came in 24 years ago or is it more important to deal with nation building, to deal with infrastructure and to deal with the capacity constraints that were identified by the Reserve Bank in 20 separate warnings? The people of Australia are interested in infrastructure and they will judge those opposite— HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —by how they react in the Senate — HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan should be very careful. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —over coming days, weeks and months. 6684 6684 14:35:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 Ms MARINO —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why has household wealth declined by more than five per cent since the election of the Rudd government? 6684 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —It is pretty interesting when it comes to the use of economic data by those opposite. I am reflecting on the question which was asked just before about wage growth. I am just talking to Business indicators, Australia— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —whether you are interested in this or not. Wages and salaries grew by 2.3 per cent in the June quarter. I thought they said something that was the reverse. Let us reflect carefully on the data which has put forth by those opposite. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. He is answering the last question. Could he come to this question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —So, consistent with reflections made by various members of the frontbench on questions posed by those opposite, we will always examine in due course the statistical underpinnings of the propositions being put at their dispatch box. I draw attention to one such inconsistency. On the question which has just been put, if you face what we have had in recent times—a global economic meltdown which has impacted on global stock exchanges and which, in turn, has impacted on the investments of shareholders—that obviously impacts on calculations of wealth. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —That follows as night follows day. If you look across the global economy, you see stock markets across the world with very large corrections heading south, whether it is in the United States, the United Kingdom or continental Europe. The flow-through impact that has on individuals’ overall wealth calculations is therefore automatic. The key question is: what is a credible strategy for the future? The credible strategy which this government advances is: (1) responsible economic management; (2) investing in long-term productivity growth; (3) ensuring that you have a plan for nation building, because that is essential to deal with long-term constraints on growth; and (4) that you assist also with the cost of living pressures being faced by working families— HWP Marino, Nola, MP Ms Marino —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I just wonder whether the Prime Minister would like me to read my question again. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening very carefully to the Prime Minister and he is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Therefore, the critical thing is that you have an economic strategy for the future, given the constraints which we inherited from the international economy, the challenges which we inherited from the domestic economy and the roll-through impact—the member for Forrest laughed to herself at the impact—of 10 interest rate rises in a row or Costello’s $400 a month interest rate hike for working families across Australia. If you want to know what impacts on overall wealth and overall prosperity for Australian families, think very carefully about the cumulative impact of the interest rate regime prosecuted by those opposite: 10 interest rate rises in a row—a $400 interest rate hike per month imposed on working families. I would suggest that those opposite get with the government’s economic agenda being proposed in the Senate and act responsibly with us in building long-term national infrastructure; hence our proposal that we put forward in the parliament today. Get with us on the challenge to boost long-term productivity growth and get out of the way in the Senate of a responsible budget surplus which provides this nation with a buffer for dealing with critical economic challenges which lie ahead. 6685 6685 14:39:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 Mr BRADBURY —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent movements in interest rates? 6685 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question. Yesterday, Wizard Home Loans announced that it would be cutting its standard variable home loan rate by 25 basis points and, of course, this will be welcome relief for those Australians who have a mortgage with Wizard. Wizard has thrown down the gauntlet to all of its competitors. I guess we expect, as all Australians expect, all banks to pass on, within a reasonable amount of time, in full, any official RBA interest rate cut. The government expects it, the people of Australia expect it and, in particular, those people who have been receiving interest rate rise after interest rate rise expect it. Something like 740,000 Australians have taken out their first home loan in the past 7½ years and those 740,000 Australians have never experienced an official cut in the RBA rate, so they most certainly will be expecting the banks to pass on any relief in full. Assistant Governor Lowe of the Reserve Bank has made it very clear; he has said that banks simply have no excuse at all for not following the official cash rate down. We do understand that families are doing it tough. We understand that 10 interest rate rises under those opposite, 12 interest rate rises in total, have put families under tremendous financial pressure. We also understand that we are not out of the woods here yet. That is why it is so important that banks do the right thing and follow the Reserve Bank decision down, if that is the way it goes when the announcement is made tomorrow. If the official rate does come down, it is important that banks pass it on in full so that families get the relief they deserve. 6686 6686 14:41:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 Mr FORREST —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it asks why inflation in Australia has increased by 1.5 percentage points since the election of the Rudd government. 6686 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Again the government has sought to be transparent with the Australian community—which we have been—through the budget papers by indicating that, when it comes to our CPI projections, those projections would increase over time before coming back into correction in 2009-10. Let me explain to the honourable member why CPI goes up. There are supply-side factors and there are demand-side factors. On the supply side, it is like this: problems with infrastructure bottlenecks and skills shortages produce a supply-side constraint in the economy, which produces an inflationary effect. That is economics 101. But that economics 101 was the subject of 20 separate warnings to those opposite through the Reserve Bank, each of which they comprehensively ignored. The impact over time of ignoring each of those warnings, year in, year out, is that spread over many years those inflationary pressures build, and that is precisely what has occurred. It is not just on infrastructure, but it is also on skills. I read through these warnings from the Reserve Bank again this morning; they make for quite stark reading. Time after time, year after year, the Reserve Bank was warning those opposite about the need to act on the skills shortages in the economy and to act also on other capacity constraints. If the honourable member wants to understand, therefore, why the government is so wedded to its strategy of a nation-building plan and an education revolution, it is because it goes to the heart of the inflation question which the honourable member has just posed. That is, if you are going to effectively deal with infrastructure bottlenecks, you do not just wave a hand and say ‘not my problem’; you do not just wave a hand over there and say ‘it’s a matter for the states’—or for the pixies at the bottom of the garden. No, it is something that you have to invest in and have a plan for doing. That is why the government stands behind its $76 billion national infrastructure plan, which I spoke about in answer to an earlier question. We do not believe that you can just be silent and idle on these questions; you need a plan of action and you need the funds to back it, which is what we have outlined in the most recent budget. Similarly, on the skills agenda, we have created Skills Australia in addition to Infrastructure Australia. We have created an $11 billion Education Investment Fund. We have radically increased the number of training places in the economy, in our eight to nine short months in office. The reason for doing so is that we have sought to act on these skills shortages, which form the other part of the inflation equation which the honourable member has spoken of. All of that is on the supply side. Then there is the demand side. As the honourable member for Melbourne, the Minister for Finance, has pointed out time after time at the dispatch box, the real rate at which public demand was increasing under the previous government was four to five per cent a year. This is a huge impact. In fact, if you look at where those numbers would go over time had we sustained expenditure increases of the order of magnitude which the government was running in 2007-08, it would have cost taxpayers an extra $23 billion. There was 5.2 per cent growth in outlays in the 2007-08 period, and we have brought that down to one per cent. Why is all this important? Had we been following the same reckless course of action of those opposite, we would have created a set of circumstances which would have made it much more difficult for the Reserve Bank to bring about a revision to the upwards movements in interest rates that we have seen in recent years. So my answer to the honourable member’s question is: here are two sets of supply-side factors which have helped to fuel inflation over a long period of time. One is infrastructure and one is skills shortages. We, the government, are acting on those. In our nine months in office, we have sought through concrete plans to begin to turn back 12 years of inaction on the part of those opposite. On the demand side of the economy, we have also sought to act not simply to fuel the fires, which those opposite did through their five per cent real increase in outlays last year, but to provide policy space for the Reserve Bank to act and also, therefore, to bring about downwards pressure on interest rates. That has driven the government’s overall economic agenda. That is how we have sought to tackle the inflation challenge. It is a challenge which will take some time to implement and to properly effect over time. But I say to the honourable member: it is far better to have a coherent strategy for dealing with a problem than to have 12 years of sweeping aside 20 successive warnings of the Reserve Bank that there was a problem. 6687 6687 14:46:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 Ms OWENS —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. What steps is the government taking to lift literacy and numeracy results of Australian students to boost long-term productivity? 6687 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and note her deep interest in all matters related to education, and particularly school education in her electorate. The more than decade of neglect of our education system by the Howard government is over, and not a moment too soon. I regret that I have to advise the House of some very disturbing statistics emerging from the National Report on Schooling in Australia 2007. These statistics show what happens when you have a national government that engages in more than a decade of neglect of education, as the Howard government did. For six of those long years the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had the education portfolio. This report shows that numeracy achievement across the years of primary school actually goes down—that is, the number of students who fail to meet adequate benchmarks increases the further that they go on in primary school. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I know it is going to be complicated for the member for O’Connor to understand, but if he would just try to stay with the program. Year 3 students are showing a result that 93.2 per cent of them are achieving the numeracy benchmark. By year 5 that falls to 89 per cent, and by year 7 it falls to 80.2 per cent. HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr Simpkins interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I think I am being asked: whose fault is it? You might want to have that conversation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the people who served as education ministers in the Liberal Party for the last six years. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister will ignore the interjections. The interjectors will cease. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —So, the number of students obtaining numeracy benchmarks— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. I did think the member from her side asked what the Rudd government was going to do about education. We have listened long enough to some issue of history. In fact, the issue of benchmarks that she refers to did not always exist. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question asked was about what steps the government was taking to lift literacy and numeracy. The Deputy Prime Minister will be relevant to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am pointing to the need to lift numeracy standards because we are seeing results like that. Then, having seen results like that, we are also advised of some of the things that would make a difference to numeracy attainment. The National Numeracy Review commissioned by the Council of Australian Governments and released in July this year concluded that the systematic teaching of numeracy in the early years of schooling, in maths lessons and in the wider curriculum, is essential to numeracy development. It went on to recommend that all jurisdictions should work towards a minimum of five hours per week of mathematics for students in all primary schools. That important piece of information is joined by new research from the United Kingdom in the form of the 2008 Independent Review of Mathematics Teaching in the Early Years Settings and Primary Schools. The United Kingdom report recommended that every primary school should have a specialist mathematics teacher. So there we have the problem defined: numeracy standards and the number of students obtaining benchmarks going down over their years in primary school. We have work which suggests that more focus on numeracy development and specialist teaching can make a difference in primary school. I am pleased to advise the House, and I am sure this will please the member for O’Connor, that the Rudd Labor government is responding to the lack of maths teachers in our schools. We made an election commitment, which we delivered in the recent budget, to halve HECS for people who got maths or science qualifications and then went teaching. On the weekend it was my pleasure to announce that we have expanded that program so that it also covers primary school teaching. If maths graduates from our universities in particular choose to go teaching, they will experience a 50 per cent HECS reduction. That can be worth $1,500 each year to them. This is part of dealing with the numeracy challenges that face this country when we are returning statistics like that. Of course, no one thing fixes this challenge entirely. It takes quality teaching. It takes quality schools. It takes a new focus on disadvantage. It takes a new focus on transparency. It takes a new investment in making sure that we have teachers in our schools who have the kinds of skills that we need to ensure that we see numeracy formation. The Rudd Labor government are engaged in a series of practical steps to make a difference for Australian students because we want to see a quality education for every Australian child. We want to see every Australian child able to read, able to write, able to count and able to do numbers. Unfortunately, the legacy of the former government’s neglect is that we do not see these standards in Australian schools. We are getting on with the job of fixing it and getting the basics right. 6689 6689 14:53:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why has the quarterly rate of economic growth halved since the election of your government? 6689 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Again, if you go to the budget forecasts, we indicated quite clearly that there would be a moderation of economic growth down to 2.75 per cent in the 2008-09 period, recovering to three per cent in the 2009-10 period. That is a fact. We acknowledge it and we said so at budget time. That is quite clear. The real debate here is what has caused it and what do you now do about it? Two sets of factors have caused it: one over which we have very little control—the state of the global economy. I went through those factors at some length in my earlier answers today in question time. The other set of factors is the cumulative effect of 10 interest rate rises in a row. Those opposite throw their hands in the air as if 10 interest rate rises in a row did not happen or they had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The member for Higgins is smirking up there, second from the back. He says, ‘Nothing to do with me.’ He would only claim responsibility for a good thing that happened and never claim responsibility for anything bad thing that may have happened. I say to the member for Higgins and those who have inherited his economic legacy on this question of interest rates: if you have bequeathed the people of Australia, working families, a $400 a month interest rate hike, that is not just a bit of loose change. That really affects your ability to balance the family budget. Costello’s $400 a month interest rate hike, the Liberals’ $400 a month interest rate hike, has a real effect not just on the cost of living but on the real economy over time. It actually slows the economy down. That is what has been happening. Interest rates went up year after year in the period that they were in office but without any clear strategy for creating the circumstances to enable the Reserve Bank to start heading in the other direction. That is why I say to the member for Higgins, following his very enjoyable evening last Friday, and the member for Wentworth, with whom he has such a convivial relationship, and the Leader of the Opposition, with whom they both have such a convivial relationship that the key thing is: do you have a strategy to deal with this challenge in the long term? In January this year we said, ‘Here is our five-point plan of attack on inflation. Here is our attitude to public demand in the economy. Here is our plan of attack on skills. Here is our plan of attack on the question of infrastructure.’ Each step of the way those opposite have ridiculed each element of this strategy. Those opposite gave us 10 interest rate rises in a row and now say they had nothing to do with it. We, the government, having been in for eight to nine months, have said, ‘Here is a strategy for dealing with these challenges for the long term.’ Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition and those who would support him, and even those on the benches opposite who do not support him: get with the government’s program in the Senate and allow the passage of the government’s financial bills so that not only will the budget surplus remain intact but we will have the capacity to make the investments in this government’s $76 billion national infrastructure plan, which is so much a part and parcel of dealing with the inflation challenge and dealing with Australia’s long-term productivity growth. 6690 6690 14:56:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 Ms HALL —My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House on Australia’s recent trade performance? 6690 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I thank the member for Shortland for her question. I can advise that the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the June quarter current account figures today and they show a current account deficit of $12.8 billion for the June quarter, compared to a deficit in the March quarter of $19.8 billion. This has come about despite the slowing global economic growth. In these figures we have seen a 20 per cent increase in our export earnings; some $9 billion growth in that offset by only a three per cent increase in what we have paid for our imports. These figures still at 4½ per cent of GDP indicate a very sizeable current account deficit, but it is the lowest current account deficit since the September quarter of 2002. Encouragingly, our external accounts are starting to move in the right direction. This is also the first quarterly trade surplus since the March quarter of 2002. Whilst these signs are encouraging, we still have a long way to go; but I am confident that we are going in the right direction. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have reminded the House that this is a government that inherited very high inflation. We also inherited an appalling trade performance from the previous government. This was a government that squandered the opportunity to sustain our export performance into the future. It was content to simply ride on the back of the resources boom. It was a government that recorded 72 consecutive monthly trade deficits. No previous government in Australia’s history presided over such a woeful trade performance. This had the cumulative effect of contributing to a record current account deficit of almost $67 billion for 2007, along with record foreign debt of close to $600 billion. This is the legacy that we inherited and that we are seeking to turn around. We started that task in the May budget with the commitments, which have been referred to constantly since then, to investment in Infrastructure Australia and investment in skills formation in this country. We also saw that budget increase the commitment to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. This week I will be receiving the Mortimer review, which will advise us on ensuring that our trade policy into the future becomes much more integrated as part of the broader economic policy. We have already commenced our commitment to the twin pillars approach of trade policy—trade liberalisation at the border and market reforms behind the border. I said last week in this House that I remain confident of the breakthrough in the Doha Round. Last week Australia negotiated and concluded with New Zealand the most comprehensive free trade agreement ever entered into by the ASEAN countries. This is Australia’s largest free trade agreement ever negotiated and, given the collective contribution of the ASEAN economies, they are Australia’s largest trading partner. This is good news. It is good news for underpinning these figures that point us in the right direction. We will leave no stone unturned in turning around the woeful trade performance of the previous government. 6691 6691 15:01:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs MOYLAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the expected reduction in the number of working families over the next year as a result of a slowdown that we did not have to have? 6691 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Consistent with the production of economic data and forecasts in the budget, you will see that again the forecast for unemployment is to rise to 4.75 per cent in 2008-09. Consistent with what I have said both about growth and about the CPI, and similarly with the unemployment data, the government has been transparent through the budget papers in the budget which the Treasurer brought down in May. I think what we see evident on the part of those opposite is a bit of a theme. We have had about six or seven questions now in question time—and what is the theme? The theme is talking the Australian economy down. What we have had from those opposite is a series of questions aimed at creating a negative sentiment and aimed at talking the economy down, and doing so pretty selectively against the available economic data. I said last Thursday, I think, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition in question time, ‘Why is it that those opposite in framing their questions do not bother to draw attention to, for example, the capital expenditure data which came out of the ABS last week?’ That capex data projected capital expenditure investment by Australian corporations of some $100 billion for the year ahead. That seems to be missing from the narrative of those opposite. What is also missing from the opposition’s narrative is the matters just referred to by the Minister for Trade. The Minister for Trade just went through what we have just had by way of the latest balance of payments and balance of trade statistics. A $559 million trade surplus in the June quarter 2008 was the first quarterly trade surplus in over six years. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked about people, about working families losing their jobs. Could he please come back to that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Surprisingly missing from the economic narrative of those opposite, which is about talking the Australian economy down, is any reference to capital expenditure data from last week, any reference to today’s balance of trade data or any reference to the fact that, in their period of office—if I recall the number correctly from the Minister for Trade—there were 72 consecutive monthly trade deficits. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean —No other government has done that! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —No other government in the history of the Commonwealth has knocked up 72 in a row. We all know the history of the trade balance and the trade cycle and we always know that for Australia this is a challenging set of circumstances— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. Could we have an answer about working families and jobs rather than more waffle. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —For those opposite, I responded specifically to the question of unemployment data at the beginning of my answer. Coming in right on cue is the member for Menzies, the author of Work Choices, the workers’ friend, he who presided over a set of industrial arrangements in this country which, based on their own survey data, meant that 89 per cent of AWAs surveyed by them resulted in one award condition less. Thirty-one per cent of those AWAs took away rest breaks, 49 per cent took away overtime loadings, 63 per cent took away incentive based payments and bonuses, 65 per cent removed penalty rates and 70 per cent took away shiftwork loadings. Despite the level of bleating from the member for Menzies, that is his contribution to working families. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. Perhaps the Prime Minister can add the 300,000 jobs that were created. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Menzies is warned. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It is quite clear that those opposite are not just ideologically committed to Work Choices but that, given half a chance, they would bring it back. Work Choices is etched deep into the heart and soul of those opposite, and they stand at the dispatch box and bleat about the concerns they now profess to have about the circumstances faced by working families. I say to those opposite—particularly to the ever-interjecting member for Curtin—that, when a person is facing the prospect of losing their job, one thing they would like is to have some certainty about redundancy payments. Redundancy payments are one of those things stripped away by the now very bored, very yawning member for Menzies, who regards this as trivial. The problem with those opposite is that their economic narrative not only is designed to talk the economy down; it also fails to deal equally and in a balanced fashion with the positive economic news that is out there. That concerns capital expenditure data, the data which was produced today on corporate profits and the data on the trade account, which the Minister for Trade referred to. What I would say for the period ahead is that this will be a period of great economic test and challenge, not only for our country but for other countries going forward. There are going to be bumps along the road. When you have the set of global economic circumstances that we face at present, that is unavoidable. The challenge is this: do you have a strategy of action for the future on this—and we have a clear-cut course of action—or do you have, as we do from those opposite, a simple strategy with one objective, which is to talk the economy down? In six questions from the opposition today there has not been a single reference to a policy, not a single reference to an alternative solution, not a single positive suggestion about anything. They have a simple strategy designed to talk the economy down and they hope that they get from themselves a cheap headline on the way through. 6692 6692 15:08:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 Mr RIPOLL —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline the very important results of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s systematic review of Qantas’s engineering and maintenance control? 6692 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —This government’s first priority in aviation is safety. Australia has a safety system that is second to none, with internationally respected agencies in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. These three agencies have independent oversight of aviation safety in Australia. On 3 August, the CEO of CASA, Bruce Byron, ordered a systematic safety review of Qantas. CASA’s review followed an incident on 25 July when a Qantas Boeing 747 flying from Hong Kong to Melbourne was forced to divert for a safe landing in Manila as a result of an explosion that tore a hole in the fuselage. This incident was followed by a number of incidents relating to maintenance of Qantas planes. To Qantas’s credit, and consistent with its absolute commitment to safety, Qantas was open with CASA and fully cooperated with it during this review. This afternoon CASA announced the result of its review of Qantas’s engineering and maintenance controls. CASA’s review did not find any direct link between recent incidents, including that on 25 July, nor did CASA find any increase in the monthly rate of incidents. CASA found that recent incidents were unrelated and that there was no apparent common cause. CASA has recommended that Qantas review its management structure to better align responsibility and accountability for safety. CASA has recommended that Qantas take action on a range of safety and maintenance issues. I am advised that CASA will now move to carry out two additional intensive audits of Qantas. The first audit will focus on Qantas’s 737, 747 and 767 fleet and involve a physical check of the planes as well as a check of maintenance documentation. The second audit will focus on Qantas’s maintenance systems and internal procedures relating to airworthiness directives. This ongoing action sends a signal to the aviation industry and to the travelling public that CASA and Qantas are very serious about maintaining Australia’s high safety standards. Australia can indeed be proud that we have a rigorous, world’s best practice safety regime and that Qantas is rightly regarded as an airline with a reputation for safety that is second to none. My No. 1 priority as the minister for transport will always be safety. The government will never be complacent about safety. 6693 6693 15:11:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it not the case that the Reserve Bank may lower interest rates because the economy is slowing sharply? Is it not also the case that, while inflation continues to rise under your government, Australians are losing their jobs in parallel with a massive collapse in business and consumer confidence? Prime Minister, in plain language, why are Australians worse off since the election of the Rudd government? 6693 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Working families, pensioners and carers are under real financial pressure, and therefore it is important to have a consistent and comprehensive strategy for dealing with the pressures that they are under. One of the pressures faced by working families is the cumulative impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row. If you do the numbers on an average mortgage of something like $246,000 in total and the impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row, you will see that the flow-through effect is that the Liberals, as a consequence of their high interest rate policy, have given those working families $400 per month in interest rate hikes. That is a simple fact. When those opposite ask why we have real pressures on the cost of living for working families, that is a big fact: $400 per month. The other impact on many working families is how to deal with pressures like the increase in childcare costs that they face. That is why the government, consistent with its pre-election commitment, increased the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Those opposite said it is ridiculous. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —No, you are ridiculous. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —You’re ridiculous. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The member for North Sydney just interjected and said it is ridiculous that we have increased the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. They are the people who are out of touch with the basic needs of working families, including the need for us to make sure the childcare tax rebate keeps pace with the extraordinary costs which those families are bearing, with higher interest payments off the back of the rises I described before, higher childcare costs and other costs which families face. The government, in response to these challenges, has sought to do at least three or four sets of things, one of which is to deal with the extraordinary pressure on inflation and interest rates which has existed in the economy over a long period. The absolutely killing effects which those 10 interest rate rises have had on working families seeking to balance their family budgets have been huge. That is why we have taken this agenda as the absolute core priority of the government—so that we could create a set of policy circumstances to make room for the Reserve Bank to start moving in the other direction. That is point 1. Point 2— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Members opposite laugh again at the impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row. I would say that $400 a month—Costello’s $400 a month interest rate hike for working families—is no laughing matter, other than for the Liberal Party. Through the budget we have also sought to honour our pre-election commitments on tax. The taxation reductions that we brought about through the budget, totalling some $44 billion, are designed to assist families under pressure. Added to that are the additional family support payments—I refer to the childcare tax rebate—and also the education tax refund, which parents are requested to begin collecting receipts for this year so that claim-back can occur from 1 July next year. These are significant initiatives, together with the $7.5 billion that we have allocated for additional payments for pensioners and carers. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the setting of interest rates. The Reserve Bank independently does that, consistent with the economic policy settings of the government of the day through fiscal policy. That is why we have acted responsibly in that direction. I again return the Leader of the Opposition to his extraordinary statement on the doors today. How could he go out on the doors and—presumably trying to make a big headline for himself tomorrow—call for a 50 basis point adjustment and then, in answer to the first question, ‘If you were Prime Minister, would you make that call on the government?’ say no? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a question about why Australians are worse off since the election of his government. He was not asked about anyone else’s government, just his own. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Therefore, in terms of the response to the real cost of living challenges which are being faced by working families, pensioners and carers, the government’s strategy is clear. What is not clear is the strategy of those opposite. They had one foray into policy this week, and that was to go out on the doors, through the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, and say that the Reserve Bank should bring about a 50 basis point cut tomorrow. And then in the next breath, when asked whether that would be his position as Prime Minister of Australia if he were so elected, he of course said it would not be. What does that say? It says that the alternative government—as they describe themselves—have a view that the policies they put forward in opposition are far too reckless to be implemented in government. That is what they are saying. I would suggest to those opposite that if there is an alternative explanation for what the Leader of the Opposition meant on the doors this morning, everyone sitting here in this chamber is all ears. Frankly, if you go out and say, as the alternative Prime Minister, ‘I am calling for a 50 basis point cut,’ and then ‘I am not calling for a 50 basis point cut,’ the world would like to know the reason. 6695 6695 15:18:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 Mrs IRWIN —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the status of Australia’s civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia? 6695 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for Fowler for her question. There has been a safeguards agreement in place with Russia since 1990 for the limited use of Australian uranium, and that agreement continues in force. Last year, under the previous government, Australia entered into negotiations to complete a new bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the Russian Federation. That new agreement was signed in September 2007, during the APEC summit in Sydney, by the previous government. It was tabled in the parliament by this government in May of this year. The agreement is currently before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Indeed, the committee had one of its four public hearings on the agreement in Canberra this morning. The government believes that the agreement meets Australia’s longstanding safeguards requirements and promotes the highest international standards in this area, including involvement and oversight by the international regulator, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The government will, of course, be interested in the views of the committee and will consider the committee’s report and take that into account. But, once the committee has reported on the agreement, the government will then move to consider ratification of the agreement and the government will make a decision on ratification at the appropriate time. I make clear to the House, as I have publicly stated today, and as government officials have stated privately to the Russian Ambassador to Australia, that when considering ratification the government will take into account not just the merits of the agreement but recent and ongoing events in Georgia and the state of Australia’s bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. Members will recall that last week I detailed to the House the government’s view so far as events in Georgia are concerned. I relayed those views to the Russian ambassador subsequent to that advice to the House. Without repeating them, all of those points remain current. And, as I have indicated today, at my instruction officials of the government have relayed to the Russian ambassador that, when the government come to consider ratification of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the Russian Federation, we will take into account not just the merits of the agreement but events which have occurred in Georgia, ongoing events in Georgia, and the state of Australia’s bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. 6695 6695 15:21:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. With urea prices hitting record highs over the weekend and the drought continuing to wreak havoc across Australia, does the Prime Minister agree with Australian of the Year Lee Kernaghan that he has abandoned the bush and farming families? 6696 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —On the question of fertiliser prices, this is something that the government has been presented with by farming groups right across Australia. Fertiliser prices have gone through the roof, and it is a huge impost in terms of your ability to earn a quid out of the family farm. It is a challenge which both the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and I have been presented with in meeting after meeting. I would also say to the honourable member for Maranoa that these representations did not begin in December last year. If he were honest about it, he would know that the problem with the cost of fertiliser has been around for a long, long, long time. My understanding is—and I would look for guidance here from the minister for agriculture—that there is a committee involving Senator Heffernan and others who are looking at this matter and they will be very mindful of recommendations which come forward in terms of future action. Recently at the Pacific Islands Forum I actually raised these matters with the President of Nauru—Nauru, as you know, being a continued source of significant superphosphate in terms of international and regional fertiliser supplies—and what could be done on the supply side out of that small country vis-a-vis some of the problems that exist in global fertiliser markets. I will not for a minute pretend that the prospects coming out of that meeting had any immediate solution to the problem but I have to say that this is a dialogue that we intend to now pursue with— An opposition member—That’s the important thing for you, isn’t it—you are talking about it? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would say to the honourable gentleman interjecting that the problem of fertiliser prices did not begin on 24 November last year. For those opposite who are seeking to say that for 12 years they were out there at the forefront of rearrangements of the global fertiliser market to ensure a better deal for Australian farmers, I do not think that he is being fair dinkum about it. I do not think the honourable member for Maranoa—who I have got a bit of a soft spot for—believes in his heart of hearts that it is a fair dinkum question. He knows as well as I do that the fertiliser price has been a problem for a long, long time. This government will do what it can within its powers to assist farmers who are dealing with this challenge. It is a real problem in terms of on-farm costs. It is something that the minister has been engaged in dialogue with the NFF and others on. Let me assure the House that any practical measures that can be undertaken by government to draw these pressures off working farmers who are dealing not only with the ravages of— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It is true. Are those opposite assuming that farmers do not work? We assume they do work—and they work very hard. They are among the best and most effective farmers in the world, and when it comes to standing up for their interests and their rights, including making the economic policy settings of Australia more conducive to interest rates heading down than going up, we will stand up for the farmers of Australia any day. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr Bruce Scott —Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister’s answer, but he failed to respond to my question in relation to Lee Kernaghan, the Australian of the Year. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Maranoa knows that that is not a point of order. The member for Maranoa will desist from those sorts of things. 6697 6697 15:25:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on work done during the parliamentary recess to develop the agriculture, fisheries and forestry portfolio? 6697 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the honourable member for Bass for the question. I will refer to some of the work with respect to sustainability and the building of export markets, but I think I should first mention that I did have the chance during the break to catch up with the member for Maranoa in his own electorate. We gathered together because Lee Kernaghan was visiting. The member for Maranoa would remember very, very well what Lee Kernaghan had to say about the work of the government in the electorate of Maranoa. He will remember very well what the Australian of the Year had to say on those issues and the support that he gave for the review of drought policy that this government is undertaking. Make no mistake: the current position on drought policy that is being adopted by this government is identical to the drought policy that was adopted by the previous government. Not only that but the assessments are being done by a panel, the members of which are all appointees of the previous government who have had their terms extended. In the face of that, there is no doubt that, even though it has always had bipartisan support, it is true that we have not been able to get drought policy in a good enough state for the needs of rural Australia. There is no doubt about that. The Leader of the Nationals has said that in this very place. That is why the policy is being reviewed, that is why I made the comments that I made in the seat of Maranoa—the third time I have managed to visit that seat since I got this job—and that is why the government supports Lee Kernaghan’s concerns that drought policy needs to be reviewed. It is also true that during the break I had a chance to look at some of the sustainability issues with respect to our fisheries and forestry, including in Tasmania. I met with some of the key fishing operators out of the electorate of Bass and, in South Australia, from Arno Bay and Elliston, with some of the key aquaculture operators there, trying to find a path through to be able to continue to increase production without causing sustainability to have a hit. Also, with respect to forestry, in addition to Tasmania, where we were able to deal with the production side of the responsible end of that, I visited both Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, where we do have real concerns about working with those governments in combating illegal logging. Over the break I was also able to deal with some of the export issues regarding the export of wheat, horticulture and, in particular, the live trade. I would like to take this opportunity, given that I have been to Riverwood Station, Kilto Station and Lamboo Station—an Indigenous-run cattle station in the north of Western Australia—and then had a look at some of the feedlots in Indonesia where that trade goes, to reaffirm the support of this government for the live trade and to reaffirm in this place, for the first time that I have had the opportunity to do so, that the live trade does occupy an important role in this nation. We expect world’s best practice. The sector has been delivering that, and it continues to have the support of the government. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the minister for agriculture to table the diary of his travel arrangements so that we can all see the places he has been on his ‘Lonely Planet guide to agriculture’! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. 6698 6698 15:30:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Consistent with his commitment to transparency of government, will the Prime Minister immediately release the urgent advice his government received on 18 June in relation to immediate steps that can be taken to provide water to the people of the Coorong and Murray lower lakes, where there is an unfolding economic, environmental and social tragedy? 6698 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am unaware of the document to which the honourable gentleman refers. That is my honest answer. I think all members of this House would be united in their concern for the problems of the lower lakes. That is why I went there with Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, to have extensive discussions with those in the lower lakes about the particular challenges which they face. The government’s response to that has been on multiple levels. The first is this: for the first time in the Commonwealth’s history the buyback of water entitlements will commence. Those opposite talked about it all the time but did not spend a brass razoo on it. We have actually gone ahead with it and so far we have expended $50 million to purchase back entitlements, from memory, of some 37 gigalitres from the system. This is a small start but a necessary start. Subsequent to that, at the cabinet meeting in Adelaide, the government agreed to the release of further significant funds for the purchase of entitlements across the Murray-Darling system. That is one part of the challenge. The other part of the challenge is what you do to improve the overall efficiency of the irrigation systems which currently draw water out of the Murray-Darling system. Apart from the fact that the water has been overallocated to hell over the last 100 years, these irrigation systems are often antiques in their own right. One of the figures we have been presented with suggests that there is something like a 30 per cent leakage from these irrigation systems as they pump water from the river system onto farm properties. That is obviously a practical area where we can work. That is why, again, in the first few meetings of the Council of Australian Governments, the government have allocated literally billions of dollars in programs to the states for the improvement of irrigation systems applying to farm properties across the system. The third thing we have done is this: through the Council of Australian Governments, we have created a single Murray-Darling Basin authority. This has been talked about, again, for many months and for many years by those opposite but was never brought to fruition. At the first meetings of the Council of Australian Governments, we were able to bring about agreement on the establishment of this authority. Why is that important? For the first time in the history of the Murray-Darling Basin, we have therefore a single authority empowered to create a basin-wide plan for the proper use of the resource. In the past, that was Balkanised across the various states and territories of Australia and could no longer be sustained. These are practical steps forward. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Not taken by you. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Those opposite again interject in the most partisan of fashions. Honourable members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I rest my case. I would have thought that the Murray-Darling should exist as a challenge beyond partisan politics. I would have thought the entire nation wanted to see politicians cease squabbling about the Murray-Darling— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —What about Brumby? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —and get on with a practical plan of action to do something about the Murray-Darling, to make sure that we can actually look the next generation of Australians squarely in the eye and say, ‘We did all that was physically possible to save this most threatened, challenged and pressured of river systems.’ 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —What about Brumby two years ago? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition reflect very carefully on when the crisis in the Murray and the flow-through of waters actually began. Is he again suggesting—consistent with the question from the member for Maranoa last time round, who now returns to the chamber—that this problem mysteriously erupted on 24 November last year? I would say to the honourable members opposite, including the Leader of the National Party, how much did the Leader of the National Party authorise in payments to buy back water entitlements from the system? A big, fat zero. We saw 12 years of systematic inaction on a river system under gross challenge, delivered off the back of climate change and record low inflows, year after year after year. Those opposite, led by the ‘Captain of the Cow Cockies’, have the audacity to come into this parliament and say, ‘Why haven’t you fixed this problem in nine months?’ I think the people of Australia would ask those opposite to get real with this. We have a plan of action when it comes to the Murray-Darling. We have achieved more in our first nine months in office than those opposite achieved in 12 years. We will prosecute this program of action. It is a practical course of action and our first point of reference is what can be practically done to save the lower lakes. 6699 6699 15:35:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 Mr GIBBONS —My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. What action is the government taking to promote competition in Australia’s grocery industry? 6699 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr BOWEN —We all know that vigorous competition means a better deal for consumers. People battling for our dollar as consumers means that all consumers will be better off. In relation to groceries, this was confirmed in the recent ACCC report, which found: Australian consumers would significantly benefit if Coles and Woolworths faced more competitive threats that encouraged more aggressive pricing strategies. At the last election, the Labor Party promised to clarify and enhance the powers of the ACCC to deal with incremental or creeping acquisitions—something the previous government declined to do. Today, I can update the House on the implementation of that important election commitment. Incremental acquisitions are purchases by a large firm of small outlets which might not lead to competition concerns in and of themselves but over time when taken together do lead to competition concerns. The Trade Practices Act, as it is currently devised, does not give the ACCC the proper legal framework to intervene in these instances. Today, I have released a discussion paper which outlines two options for legislation—action which those opposite failed to take over 12 years—which are the aggregation model or the model for a new power under the Trade Practices Act. This is an election commitment and this government will implement the legislation. Those opposite failed to do anything on this over 12 years. The new law will apply across the economy, not just in relation to groceries and supermarkets but across the economy, wherever the ACCC believes that creeping acquisitions are a problem. It may be the childcare industry or the supermarket industry or any other industry where creeping acquisitions are a problem. This reform is not about protecting small business in itself; it is about protecting consumers to ensure vigorous competition so that consumers can benefit from small business and big business competing against each other and so that one player does not swallow up small players in an anticompetitive way. This is part of our suite of competition policy reforms that we have embraced since the election: freeing up the foreign investment laws so that more retailers can compete for the Australian consumer’s dollar; using COAG to ensure that the planning system promotes competition and does not inhibit competition; and introducing jail terms for serious cartel conduct, which the ACCC called for 15 times and the member for Higgins ignored every time and reneged on his commitment to implement. These are the biggest reforms to the Trade Practices Act in 25 years to do with predatory pricing, which I envisage will pass the House later today. These are reforms that we are moving on with alacrity because they are long overdue and because Australian consumers will be the winners from them. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, could you please ask the Prime Minister to attend a jargon management course. I think it might help the conduct of the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah will resume his seat. Are there any legitimate questions to the Speaker? 6700 Personal Explanations 6700 15:39:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I proceed on the basis of misinformation from a Defence Force source published in articles by Glenn Milne in the Brisbane Sunday Mail, the Adelaide Sunday Mail, the Sydney Sunday Telegraph and possibly other Murdoch papers. Although Mr Milne gave me the courtesy of commenting, there are a number of misrepresentations. The misrepresentations relate to a bipartisan ADF parliamentary deployment during which time was spent on HMAS Stuart in the northern Persian Gulf. The first misrepresentation in all papers is that I insisted on using the ship’s satellite phone system—almost a demand. There was no insistence; the truth is that I asked politely to use the phone and permission was immediately given. The second misrepresentation in the Sunday Telegraph and the Adelaide Sunday Mail is that my calls deprived sailors of precious satellite time to talk with loved ones. The fact is that I am advised that my calls and those of another member did not deprive sailors of any calls. The next inaccuracy is a claim in all papers that I divulged key information regarding the location and operations of the ship and that in doing so I put the lives of Australian sailors at risk. This is not the case and I distinctly recall saying, on a call, that I could not say where I was for security reasons. The fact is that everyone, including the Iranians and possible hostile forces, knew exactly where HMAS Stuart was as part of Australia’s contribution to gulf security and protection of Iraqi oil platforms. We have been there for these purposes since the early 1990s. While I may have mentioned that I had visited an oil platform, and with the benefit of hindsight it probably would have been better if I had not, there is no way that as a result the lives of Australian sailors were placed at risk. The next misrepresentation is an implied suggestion that the sailors on HMAS Stuart were put at similar risk to that of British patrol boat sailors taken into custody a year earlier. Given the differences in the sizes and respective locations of the two vessels, this comparison is ludicrous. The fifth misrepresentation in all papers is that the delegation was read the riot act by an intelligence officer on the ship. This is not the case. There was a routine briefing by the intelligence officer, as occurs with all delegations. Naturally, security was discussed but no riot act was read. The delegation also had other routine briefings with other officers. The last misrepresentation that I want to rebut is in relation to a claim that a planned boarding of a tanker had been abandoned as a result of my phone calls. I do not believe this to be true. We were permitted to observe the boarding of an Iraqi boat from an American patrol boat at very close quarters so that we could see the professionalism of Australian sailors. I understand that it was not possible for us to board the Iraqi boat for security reasons not associated with any calls I made. I applaud our Australian sailors and I thank the House for listening to this explanation. 6701 Ministerial Statements 6701 6701 15:43:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —by leave—The Rudd government believes that the key to addressing the barriers to obtaining employment experienced by many Australian job seekers is to provide them with the vocational skills and other means necessary to find and keep a job. We recognise that this is crucial, not only to the wellbeing of those Australians who are looking for work but to improve the economic and social circumstances of their families and of their communities. It is also critical to our future productivity growth and the economic prosperity of the country. Given the ageing of our population we need to lift the total number of people participating in the workforce, and we need to invest in improving the skills of Australian workers. This is vital to employers and to the economy as a whole if we are to remain internationally competitive. The Job Network established by the previous government a decade ago has not and cannot meet these objectives. Over the last 10 years, skill shortages have worsened, dramatically hampering productivity and growth. Projections by the Centre for the Economics of Education and Training at Monash University suggest that unless something is done, in the area of VET-qualified workers, we could be looking at a shortfall of up to 240,000 workers by 2016. Over the last 10 years many thousands of job seekers have become increasingly detached from the labour force. The Job Network has failed disadvantaged job seekers who have needed assistance to overcome barriers to employment and to gain the skills that employers need. This is starkly illustrated by the proportion of people on unemployment benefits for more than five years, which has increased from one in 10 in 1999 to almost one in four today—an increase from 74,000 people in 1999 to more than 105,000 people now. It is unforgivable that these job seekers and their families have been denied economic and social opportunities and the dignity that comes with having a decent job. This adds up to a powerful case for change. This month, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will release a $3.9 billion request for tender to deliver fundamentally reformed employment services from 1 July 2009. These new services are the result of extensive consultations with job seekers, employers, peak welfare and community organisations and employment service providers. Consultations that commenced in January this year have assisted us to understand why the existing system isn’t delivering and what needs to be done to fix it. The current system was criticised during the consultations for being a one-size-fits-all, time based approach. Job seekers were described as part of a production line—each receiving the same assistance as everyone else, regardless of their individual needs. Under the new employment services, each job seeker will be placed by Centrelink into one of four streams, where they will receive a level of assistance commensurate with their level of disadvantage, and tailored to their individual needs. Importantly they will be able to receive assistance at a time better suited to their needs, not after some pre-ordained fixed period. Job seekers presently have to negotiate a bureaucratic maze, ‘bouncing around’ between Centrelink and multiple providers of different programs. Many employers have also told us they find the maze of programs confusing and don’t understand how the Job Network system works. The new employment services system replaces seven separate programs with a more integrated service. Under the new arrangements employment services will be a one-stop shop for job seekers and employers. This will also have benefits for those who deliver employment services. Providers have complained about time-consuming processes and weighty administrative burdens. The new employment services will achieve significant efficiencies by having a single contract, a simplified fee and outcome structure, and a single performance management framework instead of the multitude of arrangements under the current system. Further benefits will be obtained from reduced manual processing, and simplified acquittal processes for service fees and most purchases from the Employment Pathway Fund. Cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary administration is not an abstract goal. It will free up providers to spend more time focusing on the help that job seekers need. Job seekers with entrenched disadvantage fared worst under the current system. Take the case of a person suffering from depression and multiple health issues who is at risk of homelessness and has a history of unemployment. Under the current system, this person could be among the 27,000 disadvantaged job seekers waiting for up to two years to receive assistance through the Personal Support Program. When such a job seeker does get into the program, there is a real danger that they will be effectively ‘parked’. In fact their provider is paid whether or not the job seeker is assisted to find employment. This is not so much a reflection upon the performance of the providers; it is a criticism of the contractual shackles imposed by the previous government. Under the new employment services the same job seeker would begin to receive tailored assistance from the day they walk through their provider’s door. Employment service providers will now be able to work with job seekers to develop an individually tailored employment pathway plan, supported by a flexible pool of funds. Compared to the underutilised job seeker account, providers will be able to use the Employment Pathway Fund to address barriers to employment for more job seekers with a wider range of training and other services able to be purchased. For example, in addition to training, a provider will be able to purchase non-vocational services, such as mental health support services, counselling and rehabilitation services. The employment pathway plan and the fund will enable providers to work creatively to identify the best combination of skills development, work experience, personal support and other assistance a particular job seeker needs to find sustainable employment. Sustainable employment is crucial. Many job seekers have been churning in and out of employment services and are not receiving the assistance necessary to leave unemployment behind for good. This is reflected in departmental research which shows that almost half the people on benefits in 2001 were still unemployed in 2007. For young women with little education the situation was even worse—three in four were on benefits in 2001 and still on benefits in 2007. This is a consequence of the previous government’s narrow approach, an approach not supported by international evidence. The OECD, in its Employment Outlook 2007, suggested that an approach like this ‘involves risk that job seekers may have to accept jobs too quickly, resulting in lower wages or more rapid return to unemployment’. Earlier, in its 2005 Employment Outlook the OECD endorses intensive employment services, individual case management and mixed strategies. The Rudd government recognises the importance of both training and work experience in helping job seekers achieve sustainable employment. Job seekers accessing the new employment services will be able to participate in training when it is judged to be most helpful to them, and will have access to an extra 238,000 opportunities to receive training as part of the Productivity Places Program, with the government investing $880 million over five years. Training will also support self-employment opportunities, with the Productivity Places Program providing up to 18,900 business training places over three years to support small-business start-ups in areas of skills shortage, and by disadvantaged and Indigenous job seekers. And, unlike the previous system, where there was little incentive to place job seekers in training, providers will be rewarded for placing job seekers in employment after they have completed accredited training. They will also be rewarded for placing job seekers into apprenticeships in areas of skill shortages. Training through the Productivity Places Program will be driven by employer demand, with Skills Australia analysing emerging skills needs and demands across industry sectors, and identifying the training gaps required to be filled. The government is also addressing the issue raised by ACCI in its submission to the review of employment services that: Better linkages with employers and the needs of business and industry will assist employment service providers and job seekers to better tailor training. This new focus on what employers need will be a hallmark of the reformed employment services. To encourage employment service providers to better understand the needs of employers and to genuinely help them find the workers they need, providers will receive increased fees when they work with an employer and place a job seeker in a job with that employer. Further, as ACCI reflected in consultations: ... some Job Network providers do not have sufficient specialised industry knowledge to make a satisfactory placement so opportunities for real employment outcomes in industry are lost. In response, the government has committed $6 million over three years to fund employer brokers. These brokers will work across employment services and training providers to meet the needs of individual employers, or groups of employers within specific industries. Employer brokers will need to demonstrate an ability to provide real assistance to employers facing skill or labour shortages. Importantly, for employers, the new system is focused on developing a work culture. Work experience will support the greater acquisition of work readiness skills that employers need, but do not get from the present system. Training and work experience will be able to occur at the same time, and will be an integral part of the overall plan for a job seeker’s future. Consistent with the greater flexibility in the new employment services, providers and job seekers will have a much wider range of work experience options to choose from, although it is expected that the largest number of job seekers will continue to undertake their work experience through Work for the Dole activities that are combined with skills acquisition and focused on the job seeker ultimately getting work beyond the dole. We are also creating a more work-like ‘No Show No Pay’ compliance model to replace the ineffective regime designed and implemented by our predecessors. The current compliance regime is an unproductive failure. Since the current rules were introduced in July 2006, more than 350,000 people have failed to meet their requirements and more than 50,000 job seekers have had an eight-week non-payment penalty imposed. Rather than encouraging job seekers to find and maintain employment, the compliance system has resulted in many of the most vulnerable job seekers disengaging completely. This is counterproductive and results in enormous costs to the individuals concerned, their communities and the nation. The new employment services will be supported by a fairer and more effective compliance system designed to secure participation and engagement. Job seekers will lose a day’s income support for every day they fail to attend a required activity without a reasonable excuse, just as they would in the workforce. The government recognises that while most job seekers do the right thing, those who do not must face consequences. This is why we are retaining the eight-week non-payment penalty for persistently and wilfully non-compliant job seekers. However, job seekers will be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and, if they participate in an intensive activity, can have their income support reinstated. The previous government may have been content to sit back with a counterproductive compliance system, but this government will keep working in partnership with stakeholders to improve employment services and to help the most disadvantaged job seekers obtain and retain employment. To support this goal, providers will be encouraged to develop new and better practices through a $41 million Innovation Fund. This will allow the development of place based solutions to address barriers to employment for groups of highly disadvantaged job seekers. One of the particular objectives of the innovation projects will be to assist highly disadvantaged Indigenous job seekers as part of the government’s commitment to halving the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment outcomes by 2020. Employment services will also improve access to the small business program, NEIS, for Indigenous job seekers and provide increased funding for those Indigenous job seekers living in remote areas. Equally importantly, the government is considering how to reform the CDEP and Indigenous Employment Program as part of a broader Indigenous economic development strategy. These reforms will complement the bold commitment to the Australian Employment Covenant that will ask corporate Australia to guarantee 50,000 jobs for training-ready Indigenous Australians. I am also reforming Disability Employment Services with a review of the Disability Employment Network and Vocational Rehabilitation Services. This will be informed in part by the National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy which I am presently working on with Parliamentary Secretary Shorten. This strategy will ensure a coordinated, national approach to deal with the barriers that people with disability and/or mental illness face in finding and keeping work. The new employment service will provide a tailored, individualised response to each job seeker. It will focus on the most disadvantaged job seekers neglected by the previous government. It will emphasise training and work experience. It will deliver the work-ready job seekers employers need. For too long job seekers, employers and providers have had to endure a complex and rigid employment service structure. The Rudd government is determined that this will not continue. The government recognises that work, along with family and community, gives meaning to life. It creates opportunities for financial independence and personal fulfilment and benefits for local communities, regions and the broader economy. Families and communities are more prosperous and cohesive when those who can work are working. I look forward to working with employers, job seekers and employment providers in the lead-up to the implementation of the new employment services, employment services that will support job seekers to gain and sustain employment and employers to fill vacancies with the skilled workers they need. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Boothby to speak. Leave granted. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Dr Southcott speaking for a period not exceeding sixteen minutes. Question agreed to. 6705 16:00:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this ministerial statement on the reform of employment services. I want to start by looking back, and then I wish to look forward. Looking back at last year, what were some of the important measurements of employment and unemployment? The unemployment rate fell to 4.2 per cent. That was at that time the lowest level of unemployment since November 1974. It was its lowest level in a generation; it was the lowest unemployment rate in over 33 years. We had a participation rate over 65 per cent. That was then the highest ever participation rate. There were more people working in Australia than ever before. Since 2002, employment growth has been 2½ per cent, which has created about 250,000 jobs a year. Last month, the latest Statement on monetary policy from the Reserve Bank predicted that average employment growth over the next 12 months will slow to less than one-third of what it was over the last five or six years—that is, to three-quarters of a per cent. This has led analysts to conclude that 100,000 Australians are likely to lose their jobs over the next 12 months. The budget, which came down in May, had already forecast that Australia would lose 134,000 jobs over the next 12 months. The Job Network was a fundamental reform of employment services undertaken by the Howard government. Unemployment was 8.1 per cent when the Howard government replaced the inefficient Commonwealth Employment Service with a privatised Job Network on 1 July 1998. We saw unemployment fall from 8.1 per cent to four per cent under the Job Network. There was an aside in the budget estimates about the name of the new Job Network; the departmental people did say that there will be a name change. I was disappointed not to find out what the new Job Network will be called, but we do have one suggestion from the Labor side. Victorian Labor Senator Gavin Marshall has suggested ‘Commonwealth Employment Service’ may be a name you want to consider, minister. That is a suggestion from your own side. The Job Network saw the introduction of a work based welfare system focused on a work-first approach. A privatised employment services model which assessed and rewarded performance based on the achievement of outcomes allowed for a competitive market and offered greater choice for job seekers. Australia really pioneered this area of employment services. There is enormous interest around the world in how Australia has delivered a very cost-effective employment services system. Mutual obligation, known best in the community through signature programs such as Work for the Dole, has been very important in allowing people to give something back, in building a work culture, in learning workplace skills and in building a sense of self-esteem. The track record of the Job Network speaks for itself. The most recent net impact study in 2006 indicates that the suite of services offered by the Job Network is comparable or exceeds the level of high-performing programs internationally. In particular, Job Search Training delivered a net employment impact of 11.2 per cent; one-on-one Customised Assistance delivered a net employment impact of 10.1 per cent; Work for the Dole achieved a net employment impact of 7.3 per cent; and Mutual Obligation achieved a net employment impact of 8.2 per cent. All four of those programs achieved a high level of net employment impacts. It remains to be seen whether the replacement employment services model will be able to sustain these employment outcomes and employment impacts. When we examine the 2008 budget and the new employment services model, we see that there will be 134,000 fewer people in the labour force over the next 12 months. Based on the Reserve Bank’s forecast, 100,000 Australians are likely to lose their jobs over the next 12 months. At the same time that we have information that there will be a lot more job seekers requiring employment services, the government are providing $279 million less for employment services over the three years of this contract. This is the equation: there will be more job seekers and less money to help them find a job. The new employment services model was designed in an entirely different economic environment to the one we face only six months later. It was designed at a time when labour growth was strong, when unemployment was at its lowest in 33 years and when the economic outlook was still positive. As we know from the Reserve Bank’s latest Statement on monetary policy, the outlook now is far less rosy. With predictions that upwards of 100,000 Australians are set to lose their jobs within the next 12 months, the new employment services model falls well short of offering these workers early intervention and appropriate support. This is one of the key departures from the Job Network: there is a much lesser emphasis on early intervention under Labor’s proposed employment services model. Under the new model, job seekers will be streamed into one of four streams. Those with recent work experience are most likely to be streamed into stream 1. The exposure draft released by the government indicates that 53 per cent of new job seekers will be referred for stream 1 services. What does that mean? The services offered to job seekers in stream 1 will be little more than assistance in writing a resume and provision of a brief overview of local labour market conditions. There is no incentive for employment service providers to get those job seekers back into work quickly. What we see is that only 12.8 per cent of the funding available will be spent on that 53 per cent of job seekers, which is more than half the total number of job seekers; and only 27.4 per cent of funding for employment services is allocated for people in stream 1 and stream 2 taken together—people who are judged less needy—which is 77 per cent of job seekers. So the second simple equation is that three-quarters of job seekers will be receiving one-quarter of the funding for employment services. Early intervention is very important in getting people back into a job as quickly as possible. Given that we are now facing a climate of job insecurity, a big risk is being taken by decreasing early intervention with employment services. At a time when 100,000 workers are set to lose their jobs, the new employment services model shows a remarkable lack of foresight and inflexibility. When we look at compliance—this has been a very important part of what we did through Work for the Dole—under the new model, we see that mutual obligation has been substantially watered down. Under Labor’s proposed new model, job seekers will not have to undertake Work for the Dole until they have had a minimum of 12 to 18 months assistance from an employment services provider. At present, job seekers undertake Work for the Dole or another mutual obligation activity after six months, as Work for the Dole gives job seekers a work-life like experience and it can give them the skills that they need to engage or re-engage in the labour market. The compliance regime has been further weakened by the Rudd Labor government, with the Minister for Employment Participation and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations writing to employment service providers requesting an end to the participation reporting of non-compliant job seekers. Employment service providers have been written to and have been asked not to breach people who do not attend interviews, who do not attend meetings with their employment service providers, who do not attend work experience placements and who do not attend Work for the Dole. These measures were only introduced by the Howard government to respond to a growing concern with deliberate work avoidance. Under the new regime, we may well see the revival of the dole bludger. When we look at the integration in the employment services model, we support, in principle, the integration of the seven programs into the one contract. Ultimately, had we been re-elected last year, this is something that we would have considered, although the opposition believes that an argument can be made in favour of keeping the Personal Support Program and the Job Placement Employment and Training Program, JPET, separate, because they are different in nature from the other five programs; these are more in the nature of pre-employment programs that are targeted at people who are victims of domestic violence, who are homeless, who have mental health issues—those who have a number of barriers to employment and who need a lot of help to get them into the position of being ready to go into an employment program. Still on the topic of the Personal Support Program, it needs to be said that, whilst the minister in his statement did point out that 27,000 job seekers remain on the waiting list for this program, the government did nothing in the last budget to alleviate this. Under the former coalition government, the 2007 budget provided funding for an additional 2,000 places. It was open to the government to do this in the 2008 budget, but they did not. The Productivity Places Program is Labor’s new training program to provide training for people outside the workforce. It also provides upskilling for existing workers but, as we are considering employment services, I will leave ‘upskilling’ for another day. The Productivity Places Program has been troubled since its inception. From the outset, it was plagued with delays and an inability by the federal government to get the states and territories to sign up to it. We have had reports that some of the best training providers have not tendered for this program. We have also had reports from employers who are still sceptical of the value of the Productivity Places Program. So I think the jury is still out on the Productivity Places Program. I think there are some teething problems that the government needs to address with a remedial program. It would be a very cynical exercise if this program were about providing only increased qualifications without enhancing people’s ability to get a job from it. The opposition support the concept of employer brokers; we think it is a good idea. We believe that greater involvement of employers in the area of employment services is positive and should be welcomed. Having said that, I would say also that employer brokers, as conceived in this model, represents $6 million of a $3.7 billion employment services contract. It is just a little bit that has been tacked on to the top. It is not integral to the model. It is a good idea, but it is really a very small part of and not central to the whole model. In summary, this employment services model has some good parts, which the opposition supports. We think the integration and rationalisation of several programs is a good idea, as is the idea of employer brokers and the innovation fund; we had a similar fund under Job Network. However, our concern is that, when 100,000 workers are likely to lose their jobs over the next 12 months, we believe that the government is moving to a model which will have poorer employment outcomes. The opposition would like to see the modelling of the projected employment outcomes to be satisfied that this replacement is as good as the Job Network was in finding job seekers a job. One demonstration of this is that three-quarters of job seekers will now be receiving only a quarter of the assistance that they received previously in finding a job. Also, we believe that the Productivity Places Program was poorly conceived. It has been poorly implemented; it will not work as it has been presently conceived; and it needs some remedial work done to it very quickly. In conclusion, the government is planning to spend less money on employment services—$279 million less—over the three-year employment services contract at a time when unemployment is projected to rise. The opposition does not think that is a good idea. Surely more will be spent on employment services as we see the number of jobless and job seekers rise. 6708 Bills R3043 6708 Debate resumed. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 6708 16:16:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is a very important and major piece of legislation. It will go a long way to creating a truly competitive economy and business sector. The reforms contained in the bill are long overdue. It has taken the election of a Rudd government and its strength and foresight to see these changes implemented. This attitude is contrary to that of the opposition, which always espouses that it is somehow the true friend of small business. But, historically, it always seems that Labor governments make the great reforms and do the work necessary to ensure that small businesses can thrive in this country. Once again, we are in that position. And, once again, that is why we are moving these legislative changes. As members in the House have come to realise, it has only been Labor governments that have driven competition policy and that have sought to continuously reform, improve and clarify key components in the act so as to foster better promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection. These concepts work hand in hand and are important for the future of our economy, for the prosperity of small businesses and for the fair treatment of all consumers. This bill sends a clear message to the business community that the government is committed to providing them with a competitive and fair environment. It also provides business with an environment that works in the good economic times as well as in the more challenging and difficult economic times. Let me put this commitment into some context. The Australian Labor Party was responsible for the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974—let us not forget that. It was Labor that made substantial improvements to the act in 1986, as well as instigating National Competition Policy in the early 1990s. These have all been very important steps toward providing the right economic environment to ensure that small businesses, the backbone of this country, have had the right equipment and tools to carry on with their business. Let us remember that, when it comes to any kind of major competition reform in this sector, the Labor Party has been the driving force. Today’s bill looks to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 and to clarify a number of terms—in particular, the term ‘take advantage’. The bill also seeks to address problems of predatory pricing which relate to the prohibition of misuse of market power in section 46 of the act. The bill will also extend the jurisdiction for section 46 cases to the Federal Magistrates Court. Where the previous government has failed over the past decade to act on important parts of the Trade Practices Act and for the business environment, we are now acting. The proposed amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act are predominantly aimed at promoting competition in the industry and at cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour by powerful businesses. It is the Rudd’s government intention to continue to stand up for small business and defend them from predatory pricing. What is predatory pricing? Basically, it is when a company sets its prices at a sufficiently low level with the purpose of damaging or forcing a competitor to withdraw from the market. This in turn leaves the company with less competition. It can then disregard market forces, raise prices, exploit consumers and, over time, drive those other businesses out of business. Price cutting or underselling competitors is another form of advantage taken by predatory practices. However, price cutting is not always necessarily predatory pricing. Larger businesses that are able to legitimately use their size to reduce their costs and the prices at which they sell their products to consumers are acting in a pro-competitive way. So we should be careful to make a distinction. There are genuine businesses, large and small, that are fair, open and competitive in the market. They compete properly and try to drive down costs and provide better services to consumers. Then there are predatory businesses which act only to get rid of their competition and in a manner that ensures that, over a period of time, they will be either the only competitors or amongst a small group of competitors that can control prices and, in the end, exploit the market. Businesses that exploit market power to eliminate or damage competitors are anticompetitive and that is a misuse of the market power that they enjoy. These are not the only major changes that the government is proposing in this bill. There is also a significant need to give small businesses a permanent voice within the ACCC and to simplify the process of prosecuting businesses which engage in anticompetitive behaviour. They are important factors which ensure that our regulatory watchdog, our competition watchdog—the ACCC—actually has the right advice, the right people and the right environment itself to ensure that these practices do not go on. This will ensure they have a representative voice on their own team. It is high time that small business had a seat at the table. They have been waiting for a long time. We are going to give them that seat at the table and we are going to give them the voice they deserve. With these reforms, and a requirement for at least one of the ACCC deputy chairpeople to have small business expertise, small business will now have a permanent voice within the ACCC. Giving small business a permanent voice within the ACCC will improve the understanding of the special circumstances and difficulties confronted by small businesses every day when dealing with anticompetitive behaviour by more powerful businesses than their own. So far we have debated the merits of the proposed amendments and identified the necessity for a number of things. If anything, the debate has been going on for too long. There is no better time to act than the present, which is what we are doing. We want to ensure that victims of predatory pricing will not need to prove that the predator has the ability to recoup losses after participating in an anticompetitive, below-cost pricing strategy. This is an important factor in trying to address the after effects of what happens when large businesses take on uncompetitive predatory pricing strategies. We want to clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ in section 46. That will address specific concerns raised by business and the ACCC. At present, the meaning of that term has prevented section 46 from capturing anticompetitive behaviour. It is important to define, clarify and give more weight to the definition of ‘take advantage’ so that it is not just included in the act but serves a useful purpose which can be properly used to not only prevent and deter anticompetitive behaviour but give the ACCC the power to act within the terms of the law, if need be. I would also like to indulge the House for a brief moment and talk about the previous government’s approach to competition policy and the mess they ultimately created. I am sure that people here recall what happened with the two-track process for predatory pricing. It was a process developed under the previous government and it caused considerable confusion amongst businesses because they focused on fundamentally different concepts of market share and market power. It is time we removed the unnecessary uncertainty that has arisen following the two-track process for predatory pricing. I recall at the time that the ACCC voiced particular concern about this scenario. That is why we need to act to provide clarity and certainty for the business community. It is the least we can do in providing the right regulatory environment to ensure that they can get on with their business of acting in good faith. While speaking about the ACCC, it is important that we also give our consumer watchdog the powers it needs to assist those who will require its continued support. These reforms will provide the ACCC with new information-gathering powers, which will enable it to fully investigate suspected breaches of the law—something that I know has been a complaint of many small businesses in the past when they have tried to take action through this particular process. The government will also extend the reach of the ACCC by removing the arbitrary monetary threshold currently applicable to allegations of unconscionable conduct, enhancing the protection of small business from transactions involving such things as undue influence. Again, that is a very important part and it will remove an obstacle to ensure that the letter of the law not only can be met but also can be followed through. The process is not only about having it codified or written in law but also about following through with the action needed so that those who participate in the system actually understand that the law has weight and that action can be taken. These amendments will deal with predatory pricing while allowing businesses to engage in genuine competition and discounting, to the benefit of consumers. It is an important step forward and one which is long overdue, and one that I know that all businesses around the country should be more than satisfied with. Small business certainly will be satisfied because it will offer them more protection and more genuine competition in the market, but also it will give some certainty to the way any large business operates with its own competitors—large business against large business. So this is a win-win legislative amendment for all those in business. I have mentioned that these reforms are long overdue—and they are. That is not because the previous government did not know about the underlying problems within the act; it is because they decided that it just was not important enough, not high enough on the agenda, and that it was not a priority in the 12 years they were in government. During question time today, we heard opposition members asking questions such as, ‘What have you done in the past nine months?’ and I just kept thinking, ‘What did you do over the past 12 years on some really fundamental, important key factors to ensure that small business had a fair, competitive environment and could get on with its job?’ I recall small business screaming out for assistance and for clarification—for the ACCC powers to be enhanced to ensure that they could have some assistance and support when they needed it. But those calls fell on deaf ears. The former government, the now opposition, completely ignored all those calls for significant reform. I suspect that was because, while they mouthed the words that they are the friends of small business, in the end they are not; they are the friends of the big end of town. I will have more to say about that in a moment. I also believe that the previous government lost touch with the broader constituency—the mum and dad investors, the families that invest not only their time and energy but also their hearts and souls into running a small business, a family business, and into making a major investment. All they are seeking is a fair go, a competitive environment, a chance to operate, a chance to create jobs and a chance to return something to their own family. It is the Rudd government’s fundamental belief that competition policy is at the core of a good economic agenda. This government believes that being pro-business and pro-competition delivers the best results for consumers. Those opposite simply do not have the same concerns for consumers or for small business. At every opportunity they side with the big end of town. In opposition we decided that we would strengthen the Trade Practices Act to restore its original 1986 intention. I think that is important to note. Those opposite, when they were in government, ignored those key reforms and amendments on a number of occasions quite deliberately. Members might recall sitting here in 2004 for the review of the Senate Economics References Committee. That committee conducted a review entitled The effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business, which detailed a number of concerns about the effectiveness of section 46 at that time. So, when I say they ignored it, it was not just a case of them ignoring it because they did not have the information at hand or because they were not informed. In fact, there were committee reports and recommendations that specifically directed the then government to these particular issues that needed to be addressed. One of those issues, which remains today—although not for much longer—was whether the Trade Practices Act gave sufficient guidance as to what constitutes ‘substantial power in a market’. The report also focused on whether the Trade Practices Act provided sufficient guidance as to what constitutes ‘taking advantage of market power’. It also referred to whether the Trade Practices Act provided sufficient protection against predatory pricing or whether the financial power test should be introduced. It went further to say that there should be an examination to proscribe the misuse of market power in a second market. It examined whether the Trade Practices Act provided sufficient protection against the use of coordinated market power and also whether an effects test should be included as an addition to or substitute for the current purpose test. These were all very good outcomes of a good committee and a good committee report, but they were ignored by the Howard-Costello government. I am sure people have picked up that there seems to be a recurring theme—whether in this debate on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill, in debates on other bills and in questions during question time today or as a theme that has evolved over the past nine months. Let me give people a small indication of how that theme might read, and maybe they will tune in to what I am getting at. When we talk in this place about schemes like a Fuelwatch scheme to give consumers some choice and some information—very much like the Fuelwatch scheme which the big end of town, the big oil companies, run very privately for themselves—and when we try to extend that sort of scheme to the ordinary consumer, to give them some choice and some market power of their own, we see the opposition backing big oil. That is the recurring theme. When we try to talk about GroceryWatch, about grocery pricing, about competition in shopping and groceries and about national pricing schemes, the opposition ridicule us. When we try to look after the consumer, when we try to give them some market power back in terms of the prices they pay for their shopping goods, again we see the opposition siding with the big end of town. When we talk about industrial relations law in this place and we look at trying to redress some issues of balance, we see the opposition siding with the big end of town again. The theme continues and continues. When we talk about interest rates and banks, about passing on interest rate savings, putting downward pressure on inflation, and about putting as much pressure as we can in this place on the banks to pass on interest rate cuts, what do we see the opposition do? They actually back the big banks in keeping interest rates high. When it comes to the Medicare surcharge levy, a levy which has not changed in almost a decade, when we see about moving that levy upwards to save consumers money, what do we see the opposition doing? We see them backing the private insurance companies, backing the big end of town to make sure they reap more rewards. When we see a rebate exemption scheme for condensate off the Western Australian shelf—an exemption on a tax that has been in place for about 25 years—and when we are in a position where we can remove that fairly and pass on those savings to consumers, again we see the opposition backing the big oil end of town and saying that the exemption should remain in place and that the taxpayer should forfeit the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be coming their way. It is a recurring theme and one that people can spend some time thinking about in terms of the changes we are making to support small business and to make sure there is proper competitive behaviour and that we are doing the job that has not been done for the past 12 years. While we support the changes that we have indicated in this amendment bill, there is more to be done and more that we will continue to do. Labor has a strong legacy of competition reforms, having been responsible for the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974. We will continue to do that—to look after and enhance the welfare of all Australians through the promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection. Interestingly, it is not just us saying it; it is also the peak bodies. They are saying that they are overwhelmingly in favour of our reforms and our moves. They are saying that it is long overdue and they are saying ‘thank God’ that we are doing it. They support Labor’s stance. For example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chief Executive, Peter Anderson, has stated that it will be easier for small business and the ACCC to take action where there is predatory pricing. The Motor Trades Association of Australia also welcomes the moves, as does the Australian Retailers Association and a number of other distinguished bodies, including the Council of Small Business of Australia, who give similar support to the amendments proposed in this bill. The ACCC also think that these moves will be profound and will give them more ability to protect small business and ensure there is more competition. This bill strengthens section 46 and section 51A(6), and I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired) 6713 16:37:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I have looked at the wording of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which was—let us not beat around the bush—the subject of a fight to secure some action from the previous government on the issue of Woolworths and Coles. This place amazes me. If we added up the number of studies we have done on the water resources of Northern Australia we would find that about $300 million has gone up in smoke. There were two $40 million studies that I know of, and absolutely nothing has happened. We just finished another inquiry, with the ACCC coming out and making the motherhood statement that it would be nice if we could get more competition. It was good of it to say that; I believe in motherhood too. As I said in the debate on the MPI, the head of the ACCC, in a most extraordinary statement, said there has been no increase in the difference between what the farmer gets paid and what Woolworths and Coles charge. He said that in the report and in the national media. This is the only country in the world that has allowed more than 30 per cent of its food retailing business to go into the hands of two companies. Those who have read Fair market or market failure?, the 1999 report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, which included members of all parties, including the Australian Democrats, will know that the report mentioned six other countries and there was not one that came near Australia. The next closest was Britain. In the other four or five countries mentioned there was something like 45 per cent market share. We had 68 per cent held by just two corporations. The report effectively gave us another round of motherhood statements and another round of ineffectual proposals. I went to that committee and I had numerous discussions with the Queensland National Party senator and Senator Chris Schacht. Everyone on that committee knew that there were only three things that you could do. The first was capping and divestment, which was effectively what Theodore Roosevelt did to Rockefeller, and he became so famous that his face went up on Mount Rushmore. Capping and divestment was what NARGA, the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia, requested. The second was to make really tight laws inside the ACCC’s portfolio of enabling legislation. I was there when Senator Schacht put the three proposals up. The committee knew that there were three proposals and proceeded to make a recommendation that it do absolutely nothing. We have a farmer committing suicide every four days because they are being paid nothing. I went to a meeting of one of the leading farmers’ representative groups in the north. There were 15 farmers at the meeting. They had asked along the acting local mayor because they all wanted subdivisions; in other words, they all wanted to get out of farming—yet this was one of the most active groups in Australia. I have been to Swan Hill and Shepparton. I know they are all getting out. Farming in this country is simply closing down. I met with the prominent economist Mark McGovern and a senior journalist here at Parliament House, and Mr McGovern said: ‘I know the best argument to use with the Prime Minister. He is worried about ethanol, for example, because it may result in food shortages in the world. Food shortages are imminent throughout the world, and the countries that will be worst off when food shortages come will be those that cannot feed themselves now. Australia, of course, will be in that category.’ Mr Deputy Speaker, I keep saying this here and no-one seems to be interested. They do not really care whether or not Australia can feed itself. The last time I did the sums, I worked out that within nine years this country will be a net importer of food. This government was elected on the basis of collective bargaining. The only thing this government has done since it was elected is to remove from the wheat farmers the right to collectively bargain. If the Labor Party is a party of principle, I am rather curious to know what the principle is. It can hardly be collective bargaining. The unions are now finding out that maybe this government does not believe in collective bargaining. Certainly its attitude towards the farmers would indicate that. The only thing we can say about the other mob is that they make no secret of the fact that they are totally opposed to collective bargaining. And obviously they do not read many history books, because they always accuse me of wanting to go back to the 1960s. I say, ‘It’s a hell of a lot better than going back to the 1860s.’ Laissez-faire capitalism is a phenomenon from a century ago. For those who do not read history books, little six-year-old children with dog collars went down into the coalmines on all fours. That was a result of that sort of approach. England was the most successful slave-trading nation on earth, and that was a result of those sorts of laws. Half of the Matabele tribe was slaughtered in Africa to make Cecil Rhodes rich, and that was a result of those laws. If you believe in free markets, what happened in India? What happened in Africa? A hundred thousand people died in the Boer War—28,000 women and children—under the free market policies. If you say you want free markets, then have a look at what happened in the world when we had that situation previously. As I have said on many occasions to trade union groups throughout Australia when I have addressed their meetings from time to time: what will happen to you is what happened to the farmers. I will not go into all of the deregulations; I will simply say what happened in dairy. What happened was that we all went, under collective bargaining, to a tribunal. Some objective people—judges and those sorts of people—decided what was a fair thing for farmers to be paid, what was a fair thing for the retailers to be paid and what was a fair thing for the consumers to pay. We went into collective bargaining and it was decided what was a fair deal. It was decided that consumers should pay around $1.15 a litre, I think it was, for milk. The farmers got around 58c a litre for milk, and the rest of the consumer dollar was taken by the people in between. That was a fair thing. Within four weeks of deregulation, my farmers got a letter in the mail that said, ‘As a result of deregulation, you will no longer get 58c. Now you will get 39c.’ That is not a free market. That is the operation of an oligopolistic marketplace. That bears no relationship. Does no-one here have any economics training? If you have a market where, the minute you deregulate, the price goes down 30 per cent, then clearly you do not understand what you are talking about if you say that we have now achieved a free market for milk. Clearly we have not. Clearly there is a total elasticity of demand if the situation is that you suddenly move from 58c a litre down to 39c a litre. For the consumers, it went from about $1.15 up to about $1.80 over the next two or three years. Didn’t Woolworths and Coles have Christmastime! If you multiply that by the litreage in Australia, that is a thousand million dollars of extra profit that went into the pockets of those people—as a result of actions taken by this place. I came in here last week and I brought five of the most common grocery items that I could find. If you were to ask anyone to name the most common items, they would probably include beef—and we could not get pricing on beef; that is very complicated—but apart from beef they would say ‘sugar, milk and potatoes’. These are just ordinary, average items. On each item there was a 320 per cent mark-up! Heavens, when it was a fair thing in dairying it was less than 100 per cent. It was about 60 or 70 per cent mark-up; it was most certainly less than 100 per cent. Now there is a 300 per cent mark-up. Does anyone think it is fair that little Mrs Housewife out there, who is desperately trying to make ends meet, should be paying this sort of figure? Let me come back to the bill. I do not want to disparage the good senator. God bless him for getting something through: his Birdsville amendment. God bless him for trying. But at the end of the day it is a fairly pathetic sort of effort if that is the best that the last government could do. It was passed 12 months ago and in that period of time Woolworths, in their report this year, claim that they have increased their market share by 10 per cent. So much for the effectiveness of the Birdsville amendment. But God bless the senator from Queensland for at least trying. That is what we have until we get serious in this place, pass some serious legislation and there is an effort to try and get a fair share in the marketplace. There is no question about the 80 per cent that Woolworths and Coles hold. There is no question about that. ACNeilsen did a series of surveys, and in 1991 they found that Coles and Woolworths had 50.5 per cent of the market. When the inquiry was undertaken, an interparty inquiry, in 1998, the inquiry unanimously agreed that, whether you looked at the ACNeilsen survey or whether you looked at the ABS survey or whether you looked at the survey the committee did themselves, you came up with between 64 and 68 per cent of the market. So it had grown from 50.5 to 68 per cent in the space of seven years. Without going into all the CPIs and allowing for GDP growth and all of those things, that works out to about 2½ per cent growth a year. A very interesting story in itself is why the ACNielsen series was discontinued. I rang up certain people who published it and they said that it had been discontinued because ACNielsen refused to do it anymore. I said, ‘Why?’ and was told, ‘We wanted it done, but there are obviously forces at work which have said that they won’t continue the series.’ But you know that it is two per cent a year. If Woolworths are out there claiming that they have had 10 per cent market growth, it is not as if they are denying that they have that share of the marketplace—though when they are under attack they will of course deny it. But wouldn’t someone in the ACCC or someone in the government say, ‘Hey, listen. In 2002 you told us that the growth in your market share was 11 per cent, Mr Woolworths, and you tell us this year that it is 10 per cent market growth.’ I have not checked the years in between, but I will bet London to a brick that they will make similar claims for the years in between. So they are telling one thing to their shareholders and they are telling another thing to people in this place. It will be rather interesting to see when this place actually decides to stop them. They have taken over all the service stations and they have taken over all the liquor outlets. In fact, you cannot get a job in this country unless you work for them—and unless you work for peanuts as well. God help those people game enough to get out there in the marketplace and have a go. In my home town they closed both the florist shops. I think they closed five butcher shops in Charters Towers. And then we have the corner store. The state government in Queensland—those wonderful friends of the poor—the ALP government in Queensland, have announced that they are considering open trading hours. So all the corner stores will close. So much for the poor people who do not have cars and cannot drive to the shopping centre. Too bad for them! Too bad for the little single mother with three or four kids whose husband has walked out on her. Too bad for her. She cannot afford a car. She will just have to walk or get a taxi to go to the shopping centre. But this place here does not seem to worry about any of those people. This place does not worry about the farmers, with a suicide being committed every four days. It does not worry about poor little Mrs Housewife with food costs skyrocketing through the roof. It does not worry about them. It does not worry about the pensioners who no longer have their corner store. Every single move this place has made has been in the interests of Woolworths and Coles. That was true of the last mob and it appears that it is true of this mob. This legislation purports to make it easier for government to restrain Woolworths and Coles. That is not my opinion. I have had a look at the Birdsville amendment and I have had a look at the proposal here, and I will be voting against the proposal here. I will be putting my money on the Birdsville amendment. But I do not do that because it is effective. Clearly, it is not effective. Clearly, its effectiveness can be read in the annual report of Woolworths, where they have claimed they have another 10 per cent market share. And then we have the question of what happens if you go to unlimited trading hours and if you own all of the service stations, which Woolworths and Coles effectively do. They have bought 1,100 outlets. I say to young people, ‘Don’t look at the class of politician you’ve got now—please don’t look at them—because you will be disheartened, you will be cynical, you’ll be hateful and you will cut yourself off and alienate yourself from the system. Remember that, once upon a time, there were people in this place who had guts.’ Once upon a time, there was a man called Doug Anthony who stood up in this place and said, ‘Mr Shell and Mr BP, you will be limited.’ He and the much maligned Malcolm Fraser stood up in this place and took the oil companies head on and said, ‘You will be restricted to 400 outlets.’ So I say to young people, ‘Don’t look at what you’ve got now—cowardly, spineless people who come in here and serve the interests of big corporations and couldn’t care less how many people commit suicide in Australia or how many little mothers go hungry because they can’t afford to buy enough food for their kids. Look at the great men who were once in this place who had the courage to stand up on these issues and did not fight about some obscure wording in a piece of legislation that won’t make any different to anything.’ We should come into this place and do things that seriously need to be done. Before you go to bed at night or when you get on your knees and say your prayers to the good Lord up there, all of you should ask yourselves whether, by continuing to support the growth of these people, you have done the right thing in this place. In all conscience—unless you are a self-deceived person—you will have to say to yourself, ‘I have not done the right thing by the people of Australia; in fact, I have done terrible things by the people of Australia.’ (Time expired) 6717 16:58:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The purpose of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as section 2 of the act makes clear, is to ‘enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection’. This bill, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which I support, will further that purpose by restoring the intended effect of the provision of the act which prohibits various trade practices that are anticompetitive conduct. That provision, section 46, has been undermined in recent years by a series of court decisions, which I will go to. Before doing so, though, it is worth recalling that the Trade Practices Act was introduced in 1974 by a Labor government, under Prime Minister Whitlam, and substantially improved by another Labor government, the Hawke government, in 1986. Labor also introduced, in a similar vein, the National Competition Policy in the 1990s. Labor has a very longstanding commitment to promoting competition. It is also worth remembering that the 1986 amendments— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —It has gone from 50.5 per cent under you to 82 per cent, and you are telling me that you have done a wonderful job! 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The honourable member for Kennedy should know that interjections are disorderly. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —I will start the sentence again. It is also worth remembering that the 1986 amendments were also focused on section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, the subject of this amending bill. The 1986 amendments deleted the requirement of control so that, instead of applying to corporations which were ‘in a position to substantially control a market’, the prohibition was to apply to corporations that have a ‘substantial degree of power in the market’. The House will note that the 1986 amendments, like this bill, were focused on ensuring that the Trade Practices Act is an effective deterrent to anticompetitive conduct. The member for Kennedy asks rhetorically what principle Labor stands for, and I would have thought that this bill makes clear that in this area of economic regulation Labor stands for the principles of competition, of deterring anticompetitive conduct and of eliminating unfair trade practices like predatory pricing. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to ask him if he thinks 85 per cent of the market is fair. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kennedy should not address the Deputy Speaker in that way. If he wants to take a point of order he can, but he has made his contribution to the debate. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —Labor’s commitment to the principle of competition has played a very large part in the strong economic performance of our country over the last decade and more, and it is a commitment which is reflected not only in the Trade Practices Act introduced by Labor in 1974 and strengthened by Labor in 1986 but also in the many structural economic reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments. This bill contains amendments which are very long overdue. That is a familiar theme that we have heard in this parliament all through this year, where we bring to the parliament legislation that has been overdue for several years because the former government simply did not do the jobs that it was meant to do, particularly the kind of overhaul that from time to time is needed for major pieces of legislation like the Trade Practices Act. The amendments are intended to deal with an approach to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act taken by the High Court in several decisions which has produced a very narrow interpretation that has dramatically reduced the effectiveness of the section. I refer, of course, to the decisions of the court in Melway Publishing Pty Ltd v Robert Hicks Pty Ltd, a 2001 decision; Boral Besser Masonry Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a February 2003 decision; and Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a decision handed down by the High Court in December 2003. Justice Kirby was in dissent in these decisions, and in characteristically clear language His Honour identified the problem with the approach of the majority. In the third of these cases, the Rural Press case, Justice Kirby said: This is the third recent decision of this Court (Melway and Boral Besser Masonry … being the other two) in which a majority has adopted an unduly narrow view of s. 46 of the Act. In effect, it has held, in each case, that the established large degree of market power enjoyed by the impugned corporation was merely incidental or coincidental to the anti-competitive consequences found to have occurred. Notwithstanding the proof of market power, the Court has held that the impugned corporations did not directly or indirectly ‘take advantage’ of that power to the disadvantage of competition in the market. In my view, the approach taken by the majority is insufficiently attentive to the object of the Act to protect and uphold market competition. It is unduly protective of the depredations of the corporations concerned. It is unrealistic, bordering on ethereal, when the corporate conduct is viewed in its commercial and practical setting. The outcome cripples the effectiveness of s. 46 of the Act. It undermines this Court’s earlier and more realistic decision in Queensland Wire. The victims are Australian consumers and the competitors who seek to engage in competitive conduct in a naive faith in the protection of the Act. Section 46 might just as well not have been enacted for cases like these where its operation is sorely needed to achieve the purposes of the Act. Judicial lightning strikes thrice. A novel doctrine of innocent coincidence prevails. Effective anti-competitive threats can be made without the redress which s. 46 appears to promise. Once again I dissent. I am pleased that by these amendments the well-expressed and powerful dissent of Justice Kirby—a long time ago now, in 2003—is finally being acted on. Following these three High Court decisions, the Senate Economics References Committee in 2004 conducted a review entitled The effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business. The review detailed several important concerns about the effectiveness of section 46. Relevantly to this bill, the review looked at whether the Trade Practices Act provides sufficient guidance as to what constitutes taking advantage of market power and whether the Trade Practices Act provides sufficient protection against so-called predatory pricing. The Senate committee received detailed submissions and recommendations from the ACCC and many business groups, who were all concerned about the narrowness of the approach of the High Court and how that had undermined what was intended to be the effect of section 46. On the ‘taking advantage of market power’, the Senate committee expressed great concern about the High Court’s interpretation, particularly in the Rural Press decision, in which the High Court had defined ‘take advantage’ very narrowly, by holding that a test of whether the company had taken advantage of its market power was whether it could have acted in that way in the absence of market power. This ‘could’ test looks at physical or business capacity rather than rationale or intent. It seems to produce a situation where corporations may use their market power to engage in proscribed conduct with impunity as long as they could also undertake that conduct in the absence of such power. It is worth recalling what the former government’s response to the Senate committee’s recommendations was. What was the response of the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins? The Senate committee recommended in no uncertain terms that there should be a declaratory provision outlining the elements of ‘take advantage’ for the purpose of section 46 and, at length, indicated what the contents of that declaratory provision might be. I will not take up the time of the House by going through it, but the Senate committee indicated that the provision should refer to such matters as whether the conduct of the corporation was materially facilitated by its substantial degree of market power, looking also at the intention of the corporation. The response of the government was this, in bald terms: The government does not accept this recommendation. It is not accepted that the interpretation of ‘take advantage’ requires any statutory clarification. On the other matter relevant to this bill, the Senate committee made some very clear recommendations about predatory pricing. The Senate committee recommended that the act be amended to provide that, without limiting section 46, in determining whether a corporation has breached section 46, the courts may have regard to the capacity of the corporation to sell a good or service below its variable cost. It also recommended that the act be amended so that, where the form of proscribed behaviour alleged under section 46 is predatory pricing, it is not necessary to demonstrate a capacity to subsequently recoup the losses experienced as a result of that predatory pricing strategy. This question of the degree to which recoupment, or potential recoupment, is to be considered has been the subject of a great deal of comment in the last four or five years, but here again the former government and the former Treasurer said only this: ‘The government accepts this recommendation in part.’ Even this, regrettably, was an empty pretence because the former government and the former Treasurer, the do-nothing member for Higgins, did nothing at all until 2007 and even then did not in any real sense adopt the recommendation that I have just referred to. In 2007, what we instead had produced by the former government and the former Treasurer was the so-called Birdsville amendment. This was some three years after the Senate Economics Reference Committee had reported in 2004. Really, this so-called Birdsville amendment should be called the Costello-Joyce amendment because it was introduced by the member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, apparently after being produced on the back of an envelope by Senator Joyce. The former government and the former Treasurer have never explained why they took so long to do so little in response to the Senate committee’s report and have also never explained why the government failed to consult with industry bodies or with the ACCC before introducing the amendments that they did in 2007. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter interjecting— HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —The 2007 amendments ignored the detailed submissions and recommendations of the ACCC. I can hear from the member for Kennedy’s interjections that he has completely failed to understand the role that the ACCC plays in regulating anticompetitive conduct in this country. What needs to be borne in mind is that the 2007 amendments were resoundingly criticised after their passage through this parliament. I will start with the comment made by Peter Armitage, a very senior solicitor from Blake Dawson Waldron in Sydney. He was the practice head for competition and consumer protection last year when he made these comments. In respect of the Costello-Joyce amendment that those opposite seem keen to defend still, Mr Armitage said: Make no mistake; this law is bad for consumers and bad for competition. This warning will be dismissed no doubt as special pleading by a lawyer who acts routinely for the big end of town. Unfortunately for Australia’s consumers, shooting the messenger will not alter the truth of the message. It is a fundamental requirement of good law that it can be understood by those who must comply with it. This is not the case with the Birdsville amendment. Under this amendment, no company will be able to safely know whether it has a ‘substantial share of the market’, what the ‘relevant cost’ will be for assessing its price-cutting and how long is a ‘sustained period’. Mr Armitage went on: Not only will consumers suffer but a great many businesses across the country, including mini businesses that may think of themselves as small, will be at risk. For example, a pharmacist whose company operates one pharmacy in a remote country town that has only other pharmacy will be at risk of breaching the Birdsville amendment if it engages in repeated loss leading as part of a vigorous attempt to attract customers and get the better of its competitor. To complete Mr Armitage’s comments, he said: These amendments are a fundamental attack on the process of the competition and the benefits it delivers. There were others who commented. Professor Bob Baxt, a former chair of the Trade Practices Commission, had this to say about the Costello-Joyce amendment: Far from protecting small businesses, this amendment is likely to prove unwelcome to them as well as to others, as increased complexity will lead to litigation and lengthy appeals. Not only will the small business sector not enjoy any real success as a result of these amendments but, most importantly, consumers will suffer significantly as companies abandon any attempt to discount in situations where they have any degree of market share. The former chair of the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, was also very critical of the Costello-Joyce amendment, saying that it may drive up consumer prices. The Law Council of Australia was intensely critical of the Costello-Joyce amendment. Indeed, I can say that, looking at the Costello-Joyce amendment, it is apparent on its face that its language is unclear. Most importantly, it uses different concepts to the terms and concepts already used elsewhere in the Trade Practices Act and particularly in section 46. As such, it is wording which is guaranteed to produce extensive legal argument and almost guaranteed to produce judicial disagreement. Certainly the amendments that were produced by the former government did nothing to add any clarity and were— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —I agree with that. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —And we have agreement from the member for Kennedy that they did nothing to add clarity. They also did nothing in any sense to add to consumer protection in this country. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Slipper, I rise on a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The honourable member may well claim to be misrepresented and I will certainly give him the call after the honourable member has finished his speech. But the member for Isaacs is entitled to finish his speech and then I will call the member for Kennedy. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —In the debate on this bill, we have heard members opposite persisting in the defence of the 2007 amendments with absurd statements like that of the member for Fadden, who told the House that there had not been enough time for the amendment to operate and, ‘It needs time to work its way out’—whatever that was meant to mean. The member for Riverina also sought to defend the 2007 amendments. The member for Dickson has moved an amendment calling for recognition of: ... the impact on small business of the Government’s proposed changes to the ‘Birdsville Amendment’ ... To that, I would say that the only impact will be a good one and that is what should be recognised as the force of these amendments. Those opposite have chosen not to engage at all with the cogent criticism that has been expressed by so many business groups, by commentators, by lawyers and by the ACCC of the amendments passed last year. Not only do those opposite fail to meet the criticisms of their muddled and ineffective reform from 2007, but they fail to acknowledge the manner in which the reforms contained in this bill have been welcomed by Australian business, welcomed in particular by small business groups, welcomed by commentators and welcomed by the ACCC. I notice the time, so I might quote simply from the Daily Telegraph—not a noted supporter of the government. In April this year, it stated: The Federal Government’s reforms to the Trade Practices Act might seem basic enough, but they’re long overdue. The proposed changes will be music to the ears of small businesses that now stand a chance against much larger and more powerful companies. Currently it’s too easy for big firms to undercut smaller enterprises and drive them out of business. The government’s reforms will make it easier to investigate and prosecute businesses engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. Strengthening the consumer watchdog, the ACCC, will also provide more protection for consumers, who are disadvantaged by a monopoly in any market. With those words from the Daily Telegraph, I commend the bill to the House. 6722 17:15:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Yes. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —The previous speaker said that I agreed with what he was saying. I agreed with his comment that it was ineffective; I did not agree with his comment about clarity and the fact that the Birdsville amendment was not a move in the right direction. I have specifically said on a number of occasions that I believe it was a move in the right direction. The ineffectiveness part of his comments I agreed with, but only that part. 6722 17:18:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise in support of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I note that there have been a considerable number of contributions from both sides of the House on this bill and the points of difference between the approaches that have been adopted by both sides, I think, are now clear. On the one hand, those on this side of the chamber have sought to place this set of amendments within the broader context of the Australian Labor Party’s long-term commitment to delivering greater competition within markets right across the economy. It was the Labor Party that introduced the Trade Practices Act and the Labor Party have played a significant role in all of the significant competition reforms that have occurred certainly since that time. In relation to the bill before us, a range of measures are proposed and they have been set out by speakers previously. To summarise the items that I wish to comment on, I wish to make some comments in relation to the proposals to clarify the definition of market power, which of its nature involves comment on the so-called Birdsville amendment as it currently exists within the existing legislation. I also will be commenting on the efforts of this bill to clarify and legislate in respect of the issue of recoupment of losses and to make it clear that recoupment of losses should not be necessary in order to make out a case in respect of predatory pricing. Another important element of the bill relates to the provision of more guidance in relation to the definition of ‘take advantage of’, which is something that, in the absence of any legislative detail, the courts have been left to interpret. The parliament now has an opportunity to provide some guidance that might overcome perceived inadequacies in the interpretations that the courts have previously had applied in respect of that definition. I also wish to make some comments in relation to the legislative requirement for a deputy chairperson of the ACCC to be someone with knowledge of or a background in small business. That brings me to the issue of small business generally. Certainly those on the other side have sought to hide behind some belief in the merits of their case being advantageous to small business as being one of the primary arguments that they have mounted in this debate. It is interesting that just about every speaker from the coalition that has spoken on this issue has said, ‘We are the party of small business’—that is, the coalition, and presumably that includes the National Party as well. On that basis, they cannot support these amendments. Sometimes it is just as interesting to reflect on what is not said as on what is said. I reflect upon the fact that the shadow minister for small business, the service economy and tourism has not made a contribution to this debate. I think that is telling. I think it also exposes as a fig leaf the argument that the opposition is opposed to these amendments on the basis of its commitment to small business. I note an article on 29 April 2008 in the Australian: Opposition small business spokesman Steve Ciobo said the coalition would back the amendments “in principle”— 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The honourable member ought to refer to the honourable member for Moncrieff by the title of his electorate and not by his actual name. HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr BRADBURY —I am sorry; I was quoting from the article. The member for Moncrieff, the shadow minister for small business, is on the record in April as saying that the coalition supported the amendments ‘in principle’. We should not be surprised, because the coalition had a position back before the legislation was previously introduced—until Senator Joyce got his hands on it. A recurring theme that seems to be emerging in a number of the debates that I have been involved with in the last little while has been the increasing dominance of the National Party in driving economic policy from the opposition. I think that is a matter of grave concern and I will explore that a little bit further in a few moments. In terms of what small business really thinks of this, I heard a number of people on the other side say, ‘We are standing up for small business on this,’ but there were not all that many comments by people who genuinely represent small business introduced into the debate. I saw a quote in the Australian on 28 April of this year: Tony Steven, chief executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, said the Rudd Government had gone further to protect small business than the previous government, with the changes sending a much clearer message to the courts. I think Mr Steven is well placed to represent small business; certainly, his endorsement of this bill is one that is not lost on those of us on this side of the House, because we are committed to ensuring that the things that we do in this place are going to assist small business and at the very least not hamper their efforts to get on with doing what they do—that is, generating so many jobs throughout our economy. I also noticed that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Peter Anderson, said that the competition reforms were ‘a balanced package’. We see further endorsement of these measures by industry and representatives of business—in particular small business. It really does pose the question: if small business is at least largely supportive of these measures—and certainly, on the basis of those quotes, it is—and if defending small business is the argument that is being presented as the basis upon which those on the other side are opposed to the amendments, what is their reason for opposing them? I turn to the predatory pricing provisions and in particular to the question that clearly emerges in the debate about this bill: whether or not we should retain the very new definition that came in as a result of the so-called Birdsville amendment, which favours this notion of a share of market, as opposed to market power, as being the formulation of words by which we can ascertain whether or not these predatory pricing provisions should apply. Clearly, if the definition is as restrictive as market share then there is a certain possibility, and it has been noted by speakers on all sides that these matters have not yet been tested before the courts. I have to say I find it rather peculiar that those in the opposition are suggesting that there is some benefit in us pursuing this through the courts, that somehow leaving these things to the courts is how really good law emerges. I happen to think that one of the motivations for many of us to come into this place is to make the laws and to do it in a way that is going to provide some certainty to those citizens and businesses within our community, our society and our economy so that they can operate on the basis that they are either complying with those laws or they are not. It is an absolute absurdity to suggest that it is good law to come into this place, to acknowledge that something is unclear and uncertain and to abdicate our responsibility to the courts. If you listen to those on the other side, that is what they would have this place do. On this side we are very much committed to meeting our responsibility as legislators, and that is why we would like to provide greater clarity in the market power definition. On the share of market versus market power debate, we have seen—at least from the example of the Safeway case—that market share, of itself, does not necessarily demonstrate market power or potentially taking advantage of market power. If we look at the Safeway case in 2006, the Federal Court imposed penalties totalling $8.9 million on Safeway with respect to four breaches of section 46(1) and other anticompetitive conduct. This was despite Safeway having only around a 16 to 20 per cent share of the relevant market. Those on the other side have said that one of the great virtues of the market share test is that it is easily ascertainable to those who might be willing to meet their obligations because you can quantify someone’s market share. You can quantify someone’s market share, but what remains a mystery, to me and to all of those citizens out there wanting to meet their obligations under this legislation as it currently stands, is what level of market share gets you over the line. Is it 16 per cent? Is it 20 per cent? Is it 25 per cent? Is it 50 per cent? This is just one of the questions that remains unanswered as a result of the so-called Birdsville amendment. I understand the Birdsville amendment was conceived in a hotel in Birdsville by Senator Joyce. On occasion I have certainly seen some good ideas, some inspired thoughts, emerge over a cleansing beer at the local hotel. But, thankfully, on most occasions those inspired thoughts wash away with a Berocca the next morning—they do not find their way into legislation. The unfortunate reality here is that this proposal, which was ill-conceived, made it through the Senate on the last occasion because the government of the day required the support of Senator Joyce. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Just before I vacate the chair to the relieving Deputy Speaker, I should point out to the honourable member that I hope that he did not intend to cast a reflection on the senator from Queensland. HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr BRADBURY —Certainly not. Thanks, Deputy Speaker; I was merely seeking to— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The previous occupier of the chair made a very light directional invitation to the member to withdraw the comments asserting that Senator Joyce’s development in the Birdsville amendment occurred because he had consumed too much alcohol. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—There is no point of order. A comment was made by the chair which I heard on my entry. It was not a direction. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —With due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were not in chamber to hear what was said. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did hear what was said, and I heard the Deputy Speaker invite the member to consider his statements. It was not a direction to withdraw. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —On the point of order: I simply make the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the shadow minister has just reflected upon the chair in a rather adverse way. It was completely unjustified. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for the intervention, but I think we can proceed with the debate. HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr BRADBURY —Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly was not seeking to make any such implication. What I was merely attempting to draw the House’s attention to was the ill-conceived nature of these proposals. I think it is demonstrative of the fact that the National Party are now increasingly driving the economic policy of the coalition. I can understand why they might have given in to Senator Joyce back in the previous parliament, where they really needed his vote in the Senate, but what absolutely bewilders me is why they continue to pay homage to this amendment, which I note has been criticised roundly in many circles. I note that Australian Industry Group spokesman Peter Burns said of the Birdsville amendments: They were silly. It is sensible to get rid of them. They have created a lot of uncertainty. I note that Professor Alan Fels, who was the previous chairperson of the ACCC, said in the Australian Financial Review on 25 September 2007: The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. These are eminent and respected commentators criticising the outcome of that particular ill-conceived thought, the result of an ill-conceived process which occurred in the Birdsville Hotel. We are all familiar with the term DUI, driving under the influence. It seems to me as though—and I say this without casting any aspersions on Senator Joyce—this is LUI, legislating under the influence of the National Party. We have seen the once-great Liberal Party caving in, when it comes to key economic policy decisions, to the demands of the National Party—in the same way as the then Treasurer, who, when the previous amendments were introduced, was not from the outset prepared to countenance these proposals, ended up having to give in. The shadow minister for small business was not able, unfortunately, to get his policy through the opposition party room, and we can only speculate that that may be the reason he has chosen not to speak on this particular debate, which those on the other side have consistently reminded us is on a critical set of amendments affecting small business. In relation to recoupment, it is critical that these amendments be passed. They ensure that the case law that has developed, which runs counter to the intention of the parliament—or certainly counter to what this parliament believes was the intention of the law at the time—will be rectified and there will be no such requirement to prove recoupment in order to make out a case under these provisions. In relation to the definition of ‘take advantage of’, it is critical that these proposals are adopted. The courts have been left with the expression ‘take advantage of’, and they have interpreted it in a certain way. It is imperative that, if the parliament believes that that is not the correct interpretation or that the courts have not always ended up with the correct interpretation, there be rectification of the statute to ensure that greater guidance is given to the judiciary when these matters come before them. Importantly, these proposals ensure that a very strong voice is always present for small business within the institutional arrangements of the ACCC. I think ensuring that a deputy chairperson of the ACCC is someone that has knowledge and experience from a small business perspective will ensure that, in the continued deliberations of the ACCC, the needs of small business will be taken into account to a greater extent. Once again, it strikes me as strange that the shadow minister for small business has chosen not to make a contribution to this debate. There are a range of other amendments contained within this bill, but, to summarise, what we have seen with this bill is in large part a consolidation of the great commitment of those within the government, the great commitment of the Australian Labor Party, to ensuring greater competition within the marketplace. Greater competition is not something that we pursue as a goal in its own right; it is something we pursue to get a better deal for consumers. There are many consumers, I am certain, within electorates such as mine that will benefit greatly from these amendments when they are passed by the parliament. I commend the bill. 6726 17:37:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —The Labor government is committed to promoting competition and cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour by powerful companies. I am therefore very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The bill will facilitate our objective by improving the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act in protecting competitive processes in the Australian economy. The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the act to clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ and to address problems in relation to predatory pricing in the context of the prohibition on misuse of market power in section 46. In addition, the bill will extend the jurisdiction for section 46 cases to the Federal Magistrates Court. It is the government’s view that a series of court decisions have undermined the operation of the act, section 46 in particular. The government’s amendments strengthen section 46 and crack down on anticompetitive behaviour by: first, ensuring that victims of predatory pricing will not need to prove that the predator has the ability to recoup losses after participating in an anticompetitive below-cost pricing strategy; second, clarifying the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ in section 46 in response to concerns that the present meaning of that term has prevented section 46 from capturing anticompetitive behaviour; and, third, removing the unnecessary uncertainty that has arisen following the two-track process for predatory pricing that developed under the previous government. The ACCC has said that the dual-track process has caused considerable confusion because it focuses on the fundamentally different concepts of market power and market share. The Law Council of Australia stated that this process deters corporations with substantial market share from discounting to low prices for what may be genuine competitive reasons for fear of action from the ACCC. These amendments will deal with predatory pricing while allowing businesses to engage in genuine competition and discounting for the benefit of consumers. The bill forms a key part of the government’s economic reform agenda, giving the ACCC the tools it needs to promote competition and fair trading and to protect consumers. The government will extend the reach of the ACCC by removing the arbitrary monetary threshold currently applicable to allegations of unconscionable conduct, enhancing the protection of small business from transactions involving such things as undue influence. The ACCC will be required to have a deputy chair with knowledge of small business, and the act clarifies the commission’s information-gathering powers, which will strengthen its ability to fully investigate suspected breaches of the law. Giving small business a permanent voice within the ACCC will improve understanding of the special circumstances confronting small businesses and the difficulties that they face in dealing with anticompetitive behaviour by more powerful larger businesses. These reforms will make it easier to prosecute businesses engaging in anticompetitive behaviour, give small business permanent representation on the ACCC and allow small business to access cheaper and more efficient judicial processes. Allowing small and medium businesses in appropriate circumstances to have their cases heard in the Federal Magistrates Court, rather than in the Federal Court, will save considerable costs. The amendments undertaken by this government strengthen the provisions of the Trade Practices Act to curtail misuse of market power by addressing the real impediments that have prevented the law from functioning properly. The Motor Trades Association of Australia have acknowledged that the bill will assist small business operators in seeking redress against predatory behaviour while also ensuring a diversity of competitors and choice for consumers. They have commended the government for recognising the need for these reforms. The Australian Retailers Association has also supported the bill, stating that the amendments distinguish predatory pricing from legitimate competitive discounting, which was previously unclear. This allows retailers to get on with business and provide benefits to consumers without being concerned they are breaching the Trade Practices Act under recent amendments. The ACCC has stated that the reforms by the government to section 46 continue the process of providing the regulator with the tools it needs to vigorously protect competition while not falling into the trap of protecting competitors from the impact of that competition. Small businesses can be at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market. This bill will give them a fair go when in competition with those businesses with considerable market power, providing them with what I believe is the greatest protection in 30 years against predatory pricing and the misuse of market power. Working families will also benefit from the government’s reforms because they will facilitate effective competition, which should result in lower prices, greater choice and better quality products and services. In the tradition of Labor governments, this bill makes a substantial contribution to the legacy of competition reforms—and we can go back to the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974, to tariff reform, to deregulation of the banking sector in the 1980s and the National Competition Policy in the 1990s. This stands in stark contrast to the opposition, who are either economic reform plodders who covet as their own the economic dividend that previous Labor government reforms delivered in the form of low inflationary economic growth, or who are, on the other hand, reform extremists, as was demonstrated with Work Choices and the disadvantage this inflicted on ordinary workers. This government has competition policy as the centrepiece of its economic agenda. This bill is no exception to our intention to make markets work more efficiently, with consumers and small business being the ultimate beneficiary. I want to commend to the House the Small Business Charter of Fairness recently produced by the Fair Trading Coalition. The Fair Trading Coalition comprises an impressive range of small business representatives, including the various motor trades associations around the states, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Newsagents Federation, the Australian Motor Body Repairers Association, the Civil Contractors Federation and many more. There are many things proposed in the Small Business Charter of Fairness which I would commend to the attention of my parliamentary colleagues, but there are two which are particularly relevant in the context of this debate. The first is this: The strengthening of section 51AC (unconscionable conduct) of the Trade Practices Act to proscribe ‘take it or leave it’ contracts and the termination of contracts at will without just cause. Too many small businesses are subjected to unfair business practices, including the use of ‘non-negotiable’ contracts and termination of contracts at will without just cause. Section 51AC should be amended to proscribe these practices. The second is this: Access to justice for small business. To ensure that all businesses have affordable access to the protection and remedies available under the Trade Practices Act: the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court should be extended to deal with contraventions of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act including misuse of market power, contravention of industry codes and unconscionable conduct matters; and the ACCC should be able to seek compensation for victims of breaches of the Trade Practices Act so that individuals don’t have to take their own action and there should also be effective and inexpensive scope for victims of breaches of the Trade Practices Act to use sections 82 and 83 of the Act following successful prosecutions by the ACCC. I think that these are important things for the House to consider. In the time I have been a member of the federal parliament, I have experienced representations from small businesses who have been the victims of rough handling from large businesses. I remember, in particular, cases involving retail tenants who were in dispute with shopping centre landlords and, back in the 1990s, some of the disgraceful ways in which retail tenants were being treated by those landlords. I remember cases involving petrol station franchisees and their dealings with the large oil companies. I remember motor accident repairers and their struggle to get fair value for work done. On each occasion, in seeking to assist them, I would find that the previous federal government, the Howard government, was essentially unsympathetic to small business concerns and was on the side of large corporations. That is typical. On any given issue, whether we are talking about industrial relations laws, Fuelwatch, grocery prices, banks passing on interest rate reductions, the Medicare levy surcharge or the levy on condensate, given an opportunity to support small business, to support workers, to support consumers, the Liberal Party always passes by on the other side. It always supports large corporations. It always supports big business at the expense of small business, at the expense of workers, at the expense of consumers. That is why it has fallen to a Labor government to introduce the legislation before the House here. To return to some of the detail of the bill, part IV of the Trade Practices Act promotes competition by prohibiting anticompetitive conduct. Section 46 in part IV prohibits unilateral anticompetitive conduct, most notably by prohibiting corporations from misusing substantial market power to harm or eliminate competitors or competition generally. Part IVA of the Trade Practices Act promotes fair trading by prohibiting unconscionable conduct. In particular, section 51AC of part IVA prohibits unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply of goods or services to or the acquisition of goods or services from a corporation. Labor in opposition indicated that we would strengthen the Trade Practices Act to restore it to the original 1986 intention. This bill strengthens section 46 and section 51AC as part of our ongoing commitment to improve trade practices laws in Australia. These really do constitute the biggest reform to the Trade Practices Act legislation in over 20 years. I mentioned that the bill amends the Trade Practices Act to require that at least one of the deputy chairpersons of the ACCC have knowledge of or experience in small business matters. I think this is a very important reform. Those opposite say that they support small business, but effectively they get the support of small business on false pretences. They never do anything to help them and they certainly do not do anything to help them in their struggles with big business. Section 46 contains two prohibitions against unilateral anticompetitive conduct. Firstly, subsection 46(1) prohibits a corporation with a substantial degree of market power from taking advantage of that power for a prescribed purpose. This bill amends the prohibition on predatory pricing in subsection 46(1AA) to align it with the prohibition on the misuse of market power in subsection 46(1). Consistent with the findings of the Senate inquiry, a specific prohibition against predatory pricing makes predatory pricing a clear target of section 46. The bill also incorporates four non-exclusive factors into section 46 which may be considered by a court in determining whether a corporation has taken advantage of its substantial market power. Importantly, the amendment ensures that, in addition to considering whether a corporation could have engaged in the relevant conduct in a competitive market, the court may also consider whether that corporation would have been likely to do so. I turn to the question of jurisdiction. Concerns have been expressed about the costs and delays associated with bringing section 46 matters. If the costs associated with privately pursuing section 46 claims are prohibitively high, then it will not be as effective in addressing anticompetitive conduct. The bill addresses these concerns by conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court to hear private matters arising under section 46. By doing so, the bill improves access to justice for businesses in cases arising under this important provision in appropriate circumstances. Schedule 3 repeals the price thresholds that currently limit the protection afforded by section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act against unconscionable conduct in business transactions. In doing so, the bill implements a recommendation of the Senate inquiry. It enhances the protection afforded by section 51AC by focusing the prohibition on the wrongdoing involved, rather than arbitrary monetary thresholds. The ACCC chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, stated on 11 June this year that, as a result of the amendments contained in the bill, small businesses will soon enjoy their greatest protection in 30 years against predatory pricing and the misuse of market power. I also want to comment on the Birdsville amendment, given that the coalition have indicated they will be voting to keep it. I want to point out to the House that the Birdsville amendment is not supported by the ACCC. It is not supported by the former ACCC chairman, Professor Alan Fels—for whom I think there is high regard right around the country in terms of his commitment and expertise in this area—and it is not supported by Bob Baxt, the former chairman of the Trade Practices Commission. The present reference to market share has given rise to uncertainty and may reduce pro-competitive price competition in markets. The ACCC has publicly stated that subsection 46(1AA), as currently drafted, adds considerable confusion to the law and should be amended to clarify the protection it provides. This bill achieves this by aligning the Birdsville amendment with the longstanding prohibition in subsection 46(1). In particular, the bill amends subsection 46(1AA) to focus it on a corporation’s market power as opposed to its market share. The size of a firm, including its market share, will, however, remain a relevant factor in establishing a corporation’s market power for the purposes of the revised prohibition. Subsection 46(1AA) presently operates in relation to firms with ‘a substantial share of a market’. This is inconsistent with the longstanding prohibition in subsection 46(l) which operates in relation to firms with ‘a substantial degree of market power’. The concept of market power allows a court to consider all the relevant characteristics of a market in determining whether a firm has acted in an anticompetitive fashion. Such factors would include the size of a firm, as well as the size and number of its competitors. The concept of market power has been effective in targeting unilateral anticompetitive conduct. I heard this example mentioned in the House previously, but in 2006 the Federal Court imposed penalties totalling $8.9 million on Safeway with respect to four breaches of section 46(1) and other anticompetitive conduct. This was despite Safeway having only around a 16 to 20 per cent share of the relevant market. I think this is a good bill. It is a bill which is good for small business; it is a bill which is good for consumers; it is a bill which continues the Labor tradition of providing assistance to small business and providing assistance to consumers. I commend it to the House. 6730 17:56:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise to speak to the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 before the House today. This bill will amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’. It will also address problems in relation to predatory pricing in the context of the prohibition on misuse of market power in section 46. In addition, the bill will extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court to include section 46 cases. This bill forms part of the Rudd government’s agenda to make the Trade Practices Act 1974 work more effectively. The amendments will promote competition and fair trading in the Australian market, and they reflect the importance that this government places on competition policy and the protection of small business. This competition policy agenda builds on a strong tradition of Labor initiatives and reform in this area. The Labor Party introduced the Trade Practices Act in 1974 to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection. Labor again made improvements to the act in 1986, as well as establishing a National Competition Policy regime in the 1990s. The National Competition Policy put in place many of the policy settings that have resulted in Australia’s strong economic performance over the past decade. The Rudd Labor government has a fundamental belief that competition policy is at the core of the government’s economic agenda. Unlike those opposite, the Rudd Labor government believes that a pro-business and pro-competition approach to small business will bring benefits to business operators and consumers alike. In my own electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales, small business forms the bedrock of the regional economy. In Robertson, there are approximately 4,500 small businesses that employ staff and 11,700 non-employing small businesses. This economically vital and rapidly growing sector makes a huge contribution to our local economy and constitutes one of the mainstays of my area and its job creation. Labor supports reward for effort, risk-taking and entrepreneurship in small business. Above all, I believe it is vital that government allow small businesses an opportunity to grow and prosper. Personally, I have spent most of my life in small business. I know that many of those on the other side believe in the stereotype that Labor people are employees and that all Liberal Party members are employers, but that is just not the case anymore. I think it is about time that those on the other side understood it. I have spent the majority of my life working as a small business person and employing people, with all the joys and risks that that includes. I think we need to take a more mature look at this debate. The opposition needs to understand and accept that there is broad experience and understanding of small business on this side of the chamber and that we can debate these issues in a mature and more complex way. The amendments before us today will ensure that the small business economy of the Central Coast—and, indeed, small businesses across Australia—will continue to grow. There is an increasing trend in the Australian economy, particularly noticeable in the last few decades, in which previously employed people are setting up business entities. This trend also involves the establishment of an increasing number of non-employing small businesses, as well as independent contractors and other microbusinesses. These businesses employ a significant number of Central Coast people, and the number is growing and will continue to grow. I have undertaken quite a lot of work in the small business area in Robertson, particularly in relation to issues of tenancies in major shopping centres, but also a large range of other businesses have consulted with me and spoken to me about their issues. There are increasing pressures on many small businesses in my area, as there are across Australia. This bill offers more effective measures to deal with anticompetitive behaviour and unconscionable conduct that will be welcomed by many business operators in Robertson. It focuses on increasing competition in the Australian business economy and promoting fair trading, which should be welcomed by both business and the public. The Trade Practices Act itself—in particular, part IV of the original Trade Practices Act 1974—promotes competition by prohibiting anticompetitive conduct. Section 46, in part IV, prohibits unilateral anticompetitive conduct, most notably by prohibiting corporations from misusing substantial market power to harm or eliminate competitors or competition generally. Part IVA of the Trade Practices Act promotes fair trading by prohibiting unconscionable conduct. Within that, section 51AC prohibits unconscionable conduct in connection with the supply of goods or services to or the acquisition of goods or services from a corporation. However, it is the government’s belief that a series of court decisions have undermined the operation of the act, in particular section 46. It is not just the government that believes it; the ACCC has made this point for several years. The ACCC has been operating under severe restrictions upon its ability to regulate anticompetitive conduct. So, despite all these attempts at reform, concerns remain that section 46 does not achieve its purpose of prohibiting the misuse of market power. In the bill before the House today, the amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act are aimed at promoting competition and cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour by powerful businesses. The government intends to enhance the legitimate interests of small business by protecting them from predatory pricing and giving them a permanent voice in the competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This package will ensure genuine competition for the benefit of consumers and small business. The bill covers four significant areas of reform. The specific areas to be amended and reformed are set out in the schedules as follows. Schedule 1 of the bill amends section 46, ‘Misuse of market power’, of the Trade Practices Act to promote competition in Australia. This enhances the prohibitions against anticompetitive unilateral conduct in business transactions. The amendments contained in this particular schedule seek to address predatory pricing, clarify the role of recoupment in predatory pricing cases, clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ and confer jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court for section 46 matters. In particular, the schedule amends section 46(1AA) away from the terminology placed in it by the Birdsville amendment, changing it from ‘share of the market’, which was the amendment accepted while the clause was in the Senate in 2007, to ‘degree of power’. I am somewhat concerned that I heard indicated earlier that the opposition intends to oppose the amendment put forward by this government to rectify the dangers created by the Birdsville amendment. I find it somewhat surprising, in the light of some of the commentators’ comments in relation to that. I draw the House’s attention to a number of comments made at the time. These may have been raised previously, but I feel that it provides benefit to the House to draw the attention of the opposition to them again, bearing in mind that it is considering opposing the amendment in this bill. In the Australian Financial Review on 19 September 2007, in relation to the Birdsville amendment to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, Bob Baxt said: What is equally disappointing is the fact that the government on this occasion has not consulted with a significant number of bodies from which it had previously sought views on amendments to trade practices law and in particular the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) (2007) earlier in the year. Also, in the Australian, again on 19 September 2007, in relation to the amendment that the opposition is still intending to try and retain in this bill, Martin Collins said: JOHN Howard has single-handedly destroyed the entire premise of the Trade Practices Act through his predatory pricing amendment, which will have the effect of killing price discounting, to the detriment of small business and consumers. In other words, the Prime Minister’s amendments have the real threat of hurting the very people he misguidedly thought he was helping in accepting the amendment, proposed by Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce and radio shock jock Alan Jones. I guess everyone makes mistakes. But what concerns me is that, some 12 months after the original mistake, the opposition have not seen fit to carry out the consultation that they should have carried out and to reconsider their position. I urge them, on this occasion, to think a little bit more and accept the fact that they may have made a mistake and that they should reconsider and support the government, because this government is doing what they should have done on the first occasion, and that is to enhance competition for the benefit of small business and consumers. Looking further on, schedule 2 of the bill seeks to promote competition by enhancing the prohibitions against anticompetitive unilateral conduct that are contained in the Competition Code. It makes amendments to the version of section 46 found in the Competition Code which applies to all persons in the states and territories by virtue of the application of legislation in those jurisdictions. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Trade Practices Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to extend the protection against unconscionable conduct in business transactions. The amendments contained within this schedule will require that one of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s deputy chairpersons have knowledge of or experience in small business matters—something that I think will provide great benefit. The amendments in this schedule also repeal the thresholds for unconscionable conduct cases under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act and section 12CC of the ASIC Act. There are also some other amendments contained in this bill which clarify the ACCC’s information gathering powers under section 155 to facilitate the effective enforcement by the ACCC. In conclusion, this bill makes the Trade Practices Act significantly more effective in its primary objective, which is to improve the competitive processes in Australian markets. Importantly, it enhances the interests of small business and provides the ACCC with the tools it needs to protect competition, promote fair trading and protect the interests of consumers. The amendments in this bill will clear major impediments that have prevented the law from functioning effectively and have prevented more cases under section 46. The Chairman of the ACCC, Mr Graeme Samuel, stated on 11 June this year that, as a result of the amendments contained in this bill: Small businesses will soon enjoy the greatest protection in 30 years against predatory pricing and misuse of market power ... More cases will now be eligible to proceed and this represents a win for all those who depend upon the Trade Practices Act to protect the competitive process. This bill contains some of the most significant reforms of the Trade Practices Act in a long, long time. I do not say this is the end; I think we still need more protection, particularly for small business, and I am particularly concerned about the power relationship between large shopping centres and the retail sector. But certainly this is a step in the right direction, and I urge the opposition to support the bill. 6733 18:10:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I rise to support the legislation that we have before us, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the role that small business plays. Small business is the largest employer in our communities. Small businesses are also the lifeblood of our nation and a very important part of our economy. The government acknowledge their contribution to our economy and our society. We have the fundamental belief that competition policy is at the core of a government’s economic agenda. The legislation that we have before us today looks at that very issue. The government believe that being pro-business and pro-competition delivers the best results for consumers. Those opposite do not have the same concern for consumers. We on this side of the parliament know that those opposite are the slaves of those who put them in this place and we know that, when it comes to weighing up the issue of whether or not they are concerned about protecting consumers, always they come out on the side of their bosses. The member for Robertson raised a very important issue—the anticompetitive behaviour that exists with shopping centres and those people who are tenants within them. This issue has been of great concern to me for a very long time. It is an issue that I deal with on a regular if not daily basis within my electorate. Wherever there is a redevelopment in a shopping centre or any change within a shopping centre, it is always the tenants who come off second best. These are tenants who have invested their life savings in their businesses and they stand to lose everything. Currently, there is a redevelopment of a shopping centre within my electorate and an added burden has been placed on small business owners of being caught between a franchisor and the business. The franchisor obviously wants to have a good relationship with the shopping centre management because they are reliant on them to be able to get good positions not only in one shopping centre but in shopping centres throughout the nation, so they need to negotiate and stay in favour there. On the other hand you have the franchisee, who needs to have a relationship with both but is often the victim in the power relationship that exists; they are the least powerful. And I hope that, as a government, over time we revisit this. At the moment I am advocating very strongly for a number of businesses within my community and I will not rest until they get a fair deal. It is very hard to sit back and see people who have invested their last cent in a business lose everything. It is something that government needs to address and I, along with the member for Robertson, will be advocating for that in this parliament. Schedules 1 and 2 of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 2008 promote competition in Australian markets by enhancing the prohibitions against anticompetitive unilateral conduct in the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the competition code. Schedule 3 makes additional amendments to the TPA and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Schedule 1 of the bill amends section 46, which relates to the misuse of market power—and I once again relate that back to the issue I have just raised—to address predatory pricing, to clarify the role of recoupment in predatory pricing cases, to clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ and to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Court for section 46 matters. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the TPA and the ASIC Act to require that one of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s deputy chairpersons have a knowledge of or experience in small business matters. I think this is a very important change and one that I would have hoped members on the other side would support, because I do not think that small business has the voice that it deserves. The voice of business is disproportionately vested in larger businesses. As small business plays such a vital role in our economy as an employer, it is absolutely imperative that this change is made. Schedule 3 also repeals the threshold for unconscionable conduct cases under section 51AC of the TPA and section 12CC of the ASIC Act, and it clarifies the ACCC’s information-gathering power under section 155. The government intends to further defend small business from predatory pricing and give it a permanent voice in the competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I have heard members on the other side of this parliament speak very disparagingly of the ACCC and Graeme Samuel. Under the previous government, the ACCC was made, in effect, a toothless tiger. The government of the day did not support the ACCC in any shape or form. The government recognise that the ACCC is a very important body; we are about giving power to it, not making it a toothless tiger. If members on the other side of the parliament had been prepared to stand up when they were in government to try and turn that around in order to give the ACCC the powers it needed to be effective then the criticisms they are now directing at it would not have any veracity whatsoever. There have been many times that I have referred cases to the ACCC and they have been outside of its jurisdiction purely because of what the Howard government did to it. This legislation will be cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour by powerful businesses. The new rules make it easier to prosecute businesses engaging in anticompetitive behaviour. They ensure that victims of predatory pricing will not need to prove that the predator has the ability to recoup losses after participating in an anticompetitive, below-cost pricing strategy. The previous rules made it very, very hard. The legal issues that were involved were quite complex. This legislation will clarify the meaning of the term ‘take advantage’ and remove the unnecessary uncertainty that has arisen following the two-track process for predatory pricing that developed under the previous government. As I have said, the reforms will also strengthen the role of the ACCC by enhancing its information-gathering powers, enabling it to fully investigate suspected breaches of the law—something that the Howard government sought to ensure it did not have. The government will also extend the reach of the ACCC by removing arbitrary monitoring thresholds currently applicable to allegations of unconscionable conduct and by enhancing the protection of small businesses regarding transactions involving such things as undue influence. These amendments will deal with predatory pricing while allowing business to engage in genuine competition and discounting for the benefits of consumers. That is for the mums and dads, the families and the pensioners in our communities; that is what it is about. Those on the other side of parliament should realise that. As I have mentioned, the fact that small business will have a much greater voice on the ACCC is very, very beneficial. One of the things that I find quite interesting is that the legislation that the previous government introduced—in particular, the Birdsville amendment—created significant uncertainty. Birdsville is a great place to visit: it has the Birdsville races, a great little pub and a strong community. But I do not know whether it is really appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day to sit down in the Birdsville pub and—over a couple of beers with a senator who might not support him in everything he needs support for—say, ‘Okay, that sounds like great policy.’ This is the way the previous government did business and, unfortunately, the Birdsville amendment appears to have been quite flawed. We have Graeme Samuel stating that there was enormous uncertainty around the Birdsville amendment. We have Peter Armitage, the practice head of Blake Dawson Waldron’s competition and consumer protection team in Sydney, supporting what I have said. He says that many fine ideas have been conserved in the Birdsville pub, but the predatory pricing amendment to the Trade Practices Act that was accepted by the government of the day—the Howard government—was a mistake. He goes on to show just why it was such a mistake and how it will work against competition. One example he uses is of a pharmacist whose company operates one of the two pharmacies that exist in a remote country town; that pharmacist will be at risk of breaching the Birdsville amendment. Another example I read of, which was even more damning of the Birdsville amendment, is where a newsagent in a small country town sells biros and a service station in that same town also decides to sell biros. If the newsagent then decides to reduce the price of their biros, they breach the current Birdsville amendment. So not all things that happen in the Birdsville pub should be embraced by the parliament. Martin Collins in the Australian points out that the predatory pricing change was made without consultation with the business community. That would suggest that, if the previous government, led by Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello, had really been serious about making changes to support business, it would have consulted with the community and also with consumers. It is the same with every piece of media that I have looked at. The Australian Financial Review states ‘abandon all hope of discount’. Once again, the Australian Financial Review talks of ‘competition changes rile big business’. The Australian Financial Review, which I would see as the Bible of business, reports that ‘suppliers will feel the squeeze’. Finally, we see, again in the Australian Financial Review, ‘pricing reforms go too far with Fels’. The previous government let down business and consumers; but this government, through this legislation, will deliver amendments that will make for a more competitive environment and will make it work for all Australian people. 6736 18:26:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —It gives me great pleasure to sum up debate on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The passing of this bill will be a significant event in the development of trade practices law in Australia. It represents the biggest reforms to the Trade Practices Act in 22 years. I thank all honourable members who have made a contribution to this debate—the member for Shortland and all those who went before her. These reforms put beyond doubt the intention of the parliament, first expressed by Lionel Bowen in the 1986 reforms, for a strong law to deal with predatory pricing. This bill will at last deal with the problems created by the various court decisions, most notably the High Court in the Boral case of 2003. Importantly, this bill strikes the right balance. Competition law is a very nuanced thing. It is very easy to have anticompetitive consequences when you are trying to have pro-competitive results, and getting competition law just a little wrong can have very, very serious impacts throughout the economy—and I will return to this point a little later in my contribution. Importantly, this bill implements a key election commitment outlined by me in the House almost exactly 12 months ago in response to the previous government’s trade practices reform bill. The two most important elements of this bill are the removal of the necessity to prove the ability to recoup losses in predatory pricing cases and the clarification of the ‘take advantage’ element in the abuse of market power cases. In the Boral case, the High Court held that it would be necessary to prove that a firm would be able to recoup its losses when pricing below cost in order to damage a smaller firm. On any objective reading, in my view, the reforms that Attorney-General Bowen pushed in 1986 were designed to show the courts that it was the intention of the parliament that this would not be a relevant evidentiary burden. It is most concerning that the High Court put this evidentiary burden in these cases, although how their Honours interpret the law is up to them. But what is much more concerning is that the previous government allowed that situation to continue and did not clarify the law. As a result of that court case, the ACCC immediately dropped all the predatory pricing cases it had been working on, because it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money to continue them, as the evidentiary burden could never be met. The previous government was prepared to see the neutering of predatory pricing law in this country. The Senate Economics References Committee recommended, in 2004, that the necessity to prove the ability to recoup losses be removed, and the previous government refused to act. By requiring proof that a firm could at some time in the future recoup its losses if successful in driving a smaller firm out of operation, the previous government gave predatory pricing a green light. The ACCC has made it clear that this reform is necessary. In addition, many commentators have made this very clear. For example, Smith and Trindade put it this way:  ... the High Court has introduced what amounts to a threshold dominant test and failed to provide a proper framework for distinguishing between conduct which the act is designed to foster and that which the community expects it to present. It is up to the High Court to interpret the law but it is up to the parliament to make our will clear. This amendment makes our will clear. It is four years after it should have been made clear, but we make it clear tonight. The second important reform contained in this bill is the clarification of the term ‘take advantage’ in relation to taking advantage of substantial market power. On the face of it, this might not seem like such an important thing—but it certainly is important. To be found to be in breach of section 46, a firm must be found to have taken advantage of its market power. ‘Take advantage’ has been defined by courts in different ways, in different cases. But most concerning is that, in the Rural Press case, the High Court defined ‘take advantage’ in a very restrictive way, focusing on whether the firm in question could have undertaken the action in question in the absence of market power. Justice Kirby, in his dissent ruling, described this interpretation as being based on a ‘narrow, formalistic and substantially verbal ground’. The bill clarifies the term ‘take advantage’ in a more expansive way than the High Court defined it, breaking down the other big barrier to the effectiveness of section 46 of the act. Again, this is an overdue reform. There are other less significant but still important components of this bill. It expands the information gathering powers of the ACCC and enshrines the role of the small business deputy chairman in the bill. It also adopts the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics of 2004 to give the Federal Magistrates Court some jurisdiction over section 46 cases. I do not consider it likely that many section 46 cases will be brought in the Federal Magistrates Court; nevertheless, if a small business wishes to bring a section 46 case and not leave it to the ACCC, they should have the ability to do so in a low-cost jurisdiction. The Federal Magistrates Court will retain its ability to refer complex cases to the Federal Court, and the normal limits on damages in the Federal Magistrates Court will apply. Importantly, the conciliation mechanism in the Federal Magistrates Court could be useful in assisting small business. Most small businesses, if subject to predatory pricing, simply want it to stop. They do not necessarily want to run a big, complex and expensive law case; they simply want a mechanism which helps them stop the predatory pricing from occurring. I would now like to turn to the so-called Birdsville amendment. After years of telling the Labor Party and every other commentator that there was no problem with the operation of section 46 of the act, the previous government at five minutes to midnight, with zero consultation, introduced the Birdsville amendment. It is called the Birdsville amendment because it was conceived by Senator Joyce in the Birdsville Hotel. Like the member for Shortland, I have nothing against the Birdsville Hotel—it is a lovely place—but it is not where I would write trade practices law. The amendment was rushed through by the previous government as part of a deal to secure Senator Joyce’s support. There was no consultation on its effects, and it was greeted with amazement and incredulity by the vast majority of experts in competition law. The Birdsville amendment replaced market power as the threshold test in predatory pricing cases. One word can make lot of difference. Given that it was the only change that the previous government was willing to accept, the Labor Party did not oppose the change. However, at the time, we expressed our misgivings and the view that it would be much better to implement the recommendations of the numerous inquiries, implement the recommendations of the ACCC and improve the operation of market power rather than throwing market power out the window and introducing a whole new test. Now that the government is restoring substantial market power to a more appropriate test, a pre-Boral test, there is no good reason to keep the market share test. But the reasons for getting rid of the Birdsville amendment go much deeper. The Birdsville amendment, I accept, is designed to help small business. I accept that is its intention. But it could very well harm small business. There is also contained in it the potential to harm consumers. It puts Australia in breach of the OECD guidelines on the appropriate test of dominance, which is quite concerning. The OECD guidelines state: Market share data continue to be the high priest in assessing whether a firm has substantial market power. Although the limitations of market shares as a proxy of market power are widely acknowledged. Further, they state: Entry barriers are arguably the single most important factor in assessing whether a firm has substantial market power. If other firms can enter or rivals can expand, the firm will not be able to maintain market power in the long run; hence, its market power will not be durable. The market share test was ill-conceived, rushed, poorly drafted, and it creates considerable problems. By introducing a new concept into the act, it creates considerable uncertainty. I can understand the superficial attraction of market share as being a simpler dominant test—but it is far from simple. Who knows what substantial market share is? No-one from the opposition has been able to say in this debate what substantial market share would be. It could be 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 50 per cent or 70 per cent. It would take years of court cases to determine what a substantial market share would be regarded as by Australian courts, and to do that would be to perpetrate a substantial disservice on Australian businesses, both big and small, and on Australian consumers. My second concern is that, by making market share the test, we will potentially be bringing into the purview of section 46 small businesses that are not meant to be in its purview. If the courts define substantial market share at a low level of, say, 20 per cent, then businesses which have a reasonably large market share, for instance, a hardware store in a small country town which has 20 per cent of the market, could be prosecuted for being in breach of the predatory pricing law. Almost every academic and expert commentator in this field agrees with the government that this is an ill-conceived clause. In fact, the only academic I can find in all my research who supports the Birdsville amendment is the one who helped Senator Joyce draft it. Not one other prominent academic in Australia supports the Birdsville amendment. I will share with the House some examples of the views of experts on the Birdsville amendment. Julie Clarke of Deakin University said that, if small business was defined, for example, at 20 per cent, which I referred to before: Small business could thus be exposed to liability was it to challenge a larger rival by aggressive and sustained price cutting. So the opposition say they are trying to help small business but, in fact, the view of a large number of expert commentators is that they could be harming small business. Arlen Duke of the University of Melbourne said: The Birdsville amendments introduced considerable uncertainty into the law by introducing the concepts of ‘substantial market share’, ‘sustained period’ and ‘relevant cost’. Bob Baxt, who I regard as the pre-eminent trade practices commentator in this country, said: Those who support the Birdsville amendment ignore the fundamental basis upon which competition law operates. He went on to say: The Birdsville amendment is apparently based on a simplistic and unprincipled evaluation of how competition law should operate. That is a pretty powerful indictment of the views of the previous government, the current opposition. Professor Stephen Corones, professor of law at the Queensland University of Technology, said of this government: The government is to be congratulated for attempting to fix a significant problem that is working to the detriment of Australian consumers, including small business, every day that it is on the statute books. So we have a consensus of every expert commentator in the country bar one that the Birdsville amendment is erroneous, ill-conceived, poorly drafted and will have adverse consequences on Australian consumers and on Australian small businesses. Not one of the written submissions to the Senate inquiry, which expressed some sympathy for the market share test, recommended that the market share test be retained at this point. When you look through those submissions, whether they be from NARGA or the Consumer Action Law Centre in Victoria, none of them said that it is urgent and important to keep the Birdsville amendment in place but rather called on the government to monitor the situation to ensure that our amendments have the desired effect. So the case for keeping the Birdsville amendment is very thin indeed. The opposition have indicated they will oppose removing the Birdsville amendment—although, I must say, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you would not know it from the shadow minister’s second reading speech. I had to get to the amendment at the end before I found any reference to this bill whatsoever in his contribution. The shadow minister joins us in the House now. I must say, with due respect, that his contribution to the second reading debate was an insult to the House. To talk about the most substantial trade practices reforms in this country in 22 years, in representing the opposition, and not make one reference to those reforms in his opening remarks in this debate was an insult to the House. I gather that the opposition will be opposing the changes to the Birdsville amendment. I gather that because I have had made available to me the coalition joint party submission from the shadow minister. It is a particularly flimsy document. If I took such a submission to my caucus room, I would be laughed out of the building. This submission from the shadow minister, the member for Dickson, makes the case to the coalition joint party room that the changes to the Birdsville amendment will return a level of uncertainty to the Trade Practices Act to the detriment of small business, as the threshold test will change from market share to market power, as the definition of market power that has been defined by the High Court following the Boral case in 2003 is a very high threshold which essentially applies to only monopolists or near monopolists. So the whole basis on which the opposition has decided to oppose the removal of the Birdsville amendment is in error. The shadow minister’s submission to his joint party room ignores the fact that these amendments do not return the market power test to the Boral situation but to the pre-Boral situation and that the government’s amendments return the market power test to the test envisaged by Attorney-General Bowen in 1986. So I fear what we have is the opposition playing cheap politics and attempting to garner the small business lobby when every qualified academic commentator in the nation says that this has the capacity to hurt small business. It certainly has the capacity to chill competition and, over time, reduce discounting, and yet the opposition thinks it is acceptable to oppose the removal of the Birdsville amendment. I understand the politics of this are difficult. I understand there are various views in the opposition shadow cabinet and in the opposition party room. There are various views in my party room on this, but this is a matter on which you have to show leadership. This is a matter on which you have to say the Birdsville amendment, which was rushed through the parliament with zero consultation as part of a cheap deal 12 months ago, simply will not work. We should stand as a parliament and say to the small business lobby, the small business groups in this country, that we are united in restoring the market power test to its proper 1986 test. That is what the opposition indicated they would do when we first announced this policy, but they backflipped. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Why didn’t you vote for Birdsville back in September? DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The shadow minister asks me why I did not vote for it in September. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard me say that we supported this because that was all the previous government was prepared to do and we said at the time it would be better to adopt the recommendations of inquiry after inquiry of the ACCC. All of those submissions and all of those inquiry recommendations were completely ignored, year after year, by the previous government until five minutes to midnight, and then they introduced the Birdsville amendment with zero consultation with small or large business. At the time that was regarded as having considerable adverse impacts on competition in this country, and we still have the view that it has considerable adverse impacts on competition in this country. You do have to show leadership on this issue and that is what the government have done. We have restored the market power test to its pre-Boral position. It is an appropriate test, once those anomalies have been corrected. The opposition can continue to engage in cheap political stunts, but they do so as a disservice to small business. They create so much uncertainty that the only people who will be happy about this are the trade practices lawyers, who will be arguing it in the High Court for years to come. They will be arguing over what substantial market share actually is; whether it is 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 50 per cent or 70 per cent. The opposition are doing the small business community and consumers in Australia a considerable disservice by allowing a position to be the law of this nation which every expert commentator says will chill competition, will reduce discounting and will be a disservice to small business. The shadow minister and the opposition should hang their heads in shame. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm. Debate adjourned. 6741 Committees 6741 6741 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Fielding has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. 6741 Bills R2938 6741 Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Ms Macklin: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Abbott moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House questions the approach reflected in this bill and: calls on the Federal Government to impose a blanket ban on all pornographic material in prescribed areas; calls on the Federal Government to prohibit the transport of pornographic material through any prescribed area; and urges the Federal Government to leave in place the permit system amendments that have enabled access to public land.” 6741 18:46:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise today to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. The amendments proposed by the Rudd Labor government to the bill relate to the viewing of R18+ programs, the transportation of prohibited material, access to Aboriginal land and community stores. The 2007 bill introduced by the coalition government was a result of the outcomes of the Little children are sacred report that followed an inquiry which involved regional mass meetings and extensive submissions. The bill was introduced to ensure the survival and development of children by protecting them from abuse and exploitation—a protection which is part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At no time was the bill introduced as a way of separating rights for different racial groups, as some are alluding. The bill presented to the House in 2007 was about protecting children irrespective of race or creed. The inquiry listened, learned and drew on the knowledge of others to find ways to better support the families and protect the children. I would like to congratulate the board on their handling of the inquiry and the way they created an environment which enabled people to feel safe, enabling the very painful and confronting truth to be exposed. A lot was learnt from 45 community visits, 65 written submissions and over 260 individual meetings. Let me say again that this is about protecting children, children who are powerless to defend or protect themselves. I find it incomprehensible that the Rudd Labor government has made amendments to the 2007 bill which will make it possible for communities in prescribed areas to have access again to R18+ material. The Little children are sacred report clearly stated that subscription based R18+ pornography provided through pay TV suppliers appeared to be easily accessible to minors. An article in the Age on Thursday, 20 September, last year stated that complaints were made by Indigenous women about adult programs on cable and free-to-air television. According to the report, it appears that the availability of pornography is a way to groom children for sex. Having worked with many families, children and adult survivors impacted by sexual abuse, let me make it clear that, if a strong stand is not taken, this is exactly what will continue to happen. The amendments to the bill mean a ban would only be considered at the request of the community and, following that, there must be adequate community consultation. I support community consultation but, when this consultation has the potential to put children and women further at risk and the potential to remove protections, I have concerns. The safety of a child is far more important, and that should be the priority. I have concerns about the term ‘adequate community consultation’ under the proposed new section 127B. What percentage of the community must come forward for a request for a ban to be granted? What happens if key leaders in the community who are enabling children to have access to pornographic material and grooming the children for sex threaten and bully other community members, including children, who want to come forward but cannot for fear of retribution? How long would the consultation take before an outcome regarding the ban request could be determined? Is there an appeals process? How many children will be affected because of the delay in having the ban put in place as a result of the proposed changes by the government? The damage done to these children will be significant. Part of the discussion paper entitled Youth and pornography in Australia looked at the effects on young people of being exposed to pornography. This discussion paper concluded that, when exposed to sexual content, young people had greater acceptance of pre-, extra- and non-marital and recreational sexual relations, greater factual knowledge of sex and increased belief that one’s peers are sexually active. When exposed to pornography, young children showed increased attitudinal support for sexual aggression, particularly in the context of the use of violent pornography; increased likelihood of sexually aggressive, coercive or harassing behaviour, particularly in the context of high-frequency consumption of pornography or exposure to violent pornography; emotional disturbance associated with seeing non-mainstream sexual behaviours; and inappropriate acceptance of non-mainstream sexual practices. Is this what the new Labor government want for the children and young people in Indigenous communities? The next generation in these communities and their potential future will be lost. Not placing value on children and young people will have a generational impact. Also included in this discussion paper is the principle of the obscenity law which was based on the notion of harm to minors, which expressed the idea that young and impressionable minds are vulnerable to harmful thoughts which can lead to harmful acts. What is the Labor government thinking? A ban on X-rated material goes beyond subscription TV. We need to look broader than that. We need to look at future-proofing technological advancements and changes which see many pay-per-view style formats already on mobile phones or access to various X-rated material on mobile phones with internet access. Many studies have been undertaken on the commonality between children exposed to child pornography and the child’s link to being sexually abused. However, there is minimal empirical research which explores the commonality between a child’s exposure to adult pornography and abuse. Research must be conducted in order for us to fully understand the commonality between a child exposed to any type of pornographic material and the link to sexual abuse. It is only when research such as this is done that we as a community can truly understand the long-term effects this has on a vulnerable child and what needs to be done to prevent abuse. I would suggest that such research be supported by the new government, with specific targeted funding. I strongly support the recommendation by the alternative government to amend the bill in line with the original blanket ban on all R+ rated pornography. I also call on the Australian government to support the alternative government’s recommendation to amend the bill in line with the coalition’s original policy, which prohibits the transportation of all pornographic material through prescribed areas. There is nothing to stop a person who does not care about what is in the best interests of children stopping off in a prescribed area and providing prohibited material and then continuing on their way to an area outside the prescribed area. The inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs also found that drugs and alcohol played a major role in the abuse of children. Allowing any type of prohibited material into a prescribed area indeed opens the door for abuse. This is a risk that cannot be taken. I say again: this is about protecting children and if it means a total ban then that is what needs to happen. Over the years I have observed what I call gutless behaviour. Many families have walked through my door with children who have observed behaviour that one could not mention in this place. Other professionals have felt sympathy for the perpetrator, with no understanding of the impact of confronting unacceptable behaviour and of protecting women and children. The government wants to reinstate the permit system for major Indigenous communities and to give power to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to provide certain people with access to Aboriginal land. How will the minister know who is and who is not safe? The minister may think she has a crystal ball or some capacity to be omnipresent. I think not. Warren Mundine, a well-respected Aboriginal leader, was quoted in the Weekend Australian as saying: The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact, if you look at all of the reports that have come out in the last few years, crime has flourished under the permit system, so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems. He further stated, ‘It actually embedded, and will continue to embed, these problems because some powerful people were able to get away with things without being watched.’ This amending legislation will not reduce crime. It will enable criminal behaviour to be hidden. Many isolated communities rely on one central location for all their goods, often referred to as community stores. A number of these communities are located alongside or close to what are commonly known as roadhouses. They provide grocery items, drinks and often petrol. The Australian government has recognised the coalition government’s policy on community stores. I am pleased that this policy, which formed part of the coalition’s initial policy of 2007 and which ensured that a roadhouse which substantially provides a community with groceries and drinks may be licensed as a community store, is to remain. Mr Deputy Speaker, 38 per cent of the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal population is under the age of 15. These children are our future and we cannot neglect them or let them down. As a nation we have a responsibility to protect our children, irrespective of race or creed. I have to question how genuine the Labor government are when it comes to having the best interests of children at heart. This so-called new policy will result in behaviour currently being engaged in flowing through to the next generation. I fear that if the bill proceeds in its current form the women and children of Indigenous communities will experience another decade or longer in pain and their voices will not be heard and their tears will not be seen. The Australian dated Friday, 21 September 2007 focused on the Northern Territory intervention. Former Australian of the Year Galarrwuy Yunupingu, one of the nation’s most prominent Indigenous leaders, was noted as saying that he agreed to support the then government’s approach, following a discussion with the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. During the discussion, it was acknowledged that the aim of the government was to improve people’s lives. I have grave concerns about the proposed amendments. Instead of moving forward to improve people’s lives, behaviour already hindering next generations from reaching their full potential will be systemically entrenched in communities by the failure of this Labor government to take a stand. I would like to state again the amendment put forward by the alternative government: calls on the Federal Government to impose a blanket ban on all pornographic material in prescribed areas; calls on the Federal Government to prohibit the transport of pornographic material through any prescribed area; and urges the Federal Government to leave in place the permit system amendments that have enabled access to public land. The additional recommendations proposed by the opposition need to be included in this bill. The welfare of these children and the future of Indigenous communities depend on doing what is right. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Is a quorum required? NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am afraid, Member for Mallee, there is no provision for calling a quorum between 6.30 pm and 8 pm. 6744 18:58:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am able to sum up for the government at this stage, but I believe that there are a couple of opposition members who are also keen to make some comments. I am not sure how strict the provision is that a quorum is not possible at this time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the minister. I understand the situation. 6744 18:59:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —Having had only a few minutes notice that a government member is now not speaking, we are attempting to summon opposition speakers to attend the chamber. We need to organise a few minutes grace until they arrive. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —May I suggest that the member for Mallee, if he knows something about this bill, might speak to it, and that way we will manage to continue the work of the chamber until the next scheduled speaker arrives. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr FORREST —I thank you for that opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very mindful of the challenges confronting the nation with respect to meeting the very serious needs of our Indigenous communities. Mallee, of course, has a huge number of Indigenous constituents on its roll and there are equal challenges confronting us in meeting their needs. The situation is nowhere near as serious as it is in the remote communities we see in the Northern Territory, in Queensland and in Western Australia, but it very much assists me to be mindful of their needs—particularly in the community of Robinvale. That is a community of around 4,000 people and it has a very cosmopolitan population. Its main economic activity is associated with horticulture. We have a very strong table grape industry associated with Robinvale. I would thank you for any assistance with regard to being relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Mallee can be assured that I will be fairly liberal in my interpretation of relevance at the moment. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr FORREST —Thank you very much. It is a community that I am immensely proud of, but the challenges are immense. Even in a community like Robinvale, which has access to all the support services that a bill like this addresses, the associated difficulties are very much the same. I watched with interest the discussion that the former government had with regard to the intervention and activity, and I am very pleased that the new government has taken it up in a non-partisan way. It was complemented by the very momentous events we saw in this chamber, with the apology to Aboriginal Australians. What that has done for my own communities is to remove what used to be an excuse—that mainstream Australia had not recognised the real root of their many social challenges and they tended to lean on that to some extent. I now say to my Aboriginal communities, whose leadership I do admire, that there is no longer an excuse. We are now in genuine partnership. That particular difficulty we had as a nation is now behind us, and I challenge the Indigenous leadership within my own constituency now to work together and not make excuses. For example, the government recently announced that it would introduce a guest worker program associated with the Polynesian nations. I know that Robinvale and all the other horticultural communities along the Murray Valley strongly support that concept because of their need for labour. It was suggested by Warren Mundine, a very strong Aboriginal leader, on my local radio station that we should include a program similar to this for Indigenous Australians. I immediately agreed with him, live on radio, and invited him to come and see me so that we could work together. There is no better way to lift the esteem of any individual—no matter what their circumstances—than to give them full-time employment. They feel that they are making a contribution, that they are accepting their mutual obligation and, whilst they might still need other measures of support to assist them, there is no better way to lift a person’s self-esteem. I will be looking forward to where this new legislation takes us. I am hoping that all the errors of the past can now be forgiven and put behind us and that we can work in a determined way towards a program to meet these enormous challenges. The Indigenous constituents I represent have my respect and admiration. I remember when I was a local government councillor on the Swan Hill City Council, in my formative political years, I was the portfolio councillor for Aboriginal affairs. At that time Swan Hill’s Indigenous population would have been close to 800. If they are listening now, I hope that I have earned their respect and that they will be willing to work with me as their local member to make sure their needs are met. I do thank you for your considerable indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering whether the member for Mallee has ever visited the Northern Territory and what his impressions were of the Northern Territory when he was there. NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr FORREST —I thank the member for Sydney for that question. Yes, I have. I remember at the election of the coalition into government in 1996 I was nominated as Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. At that time the former government had been conducting an inquiry into Aboriginal health and we as a new government wanted to continue that inquiry. In fact, it continued over another term of government, because it was like a work in progress. I was deeply struck by those visits to those remote communities. I can remember the member for Scullin and I—I think at that stage he may have been deputy chair—were in a remote Aboriginal community in northern South Australia. We had our accommodation organised and early in the morning I went for a walk and I found the member for Scullin, who is now the Speaker of this great debating chamber. We were both deeply moved by what we were seeing and we made a determined effort to do what we could to progress the issues, like health issues that are eminently preventable, based on very simple concepts of hygiene, emotional status and so forth. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have managed to pad out the time. The relevant member to speak is now present in the chamber. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Before I call the member for Flinders, I must say that I am sure that the House is grateful for the contribution that the member for Mallee made on this debate. 6746 19:07:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I extend my congratulations to the member for Mallee. His is a contribution with which I associate myself fully and I commend his words. In rising to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, I wish to start with some of my own experiences in the Northern Territory and in Indigenous communities around Australia. These are communities for which the old Dickensian line ‘these are the best of times and these are the worst of times’ is the prime model. In my former role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, I was fortunate to have had responsibility for Indigenous protected areas. As I visited these Indigenous protected areas, as well as the community surrounding Uluru, which is the Mutitjulu community, I saw Indigenous communities which were successful—albeit imperfect but which were models for community development, models for the way in which we would hope an Indigenous society could progress—and I also saw examples of societies which represented many of the great disappointments which people on both sides of this chamber share in relation to Indigenous communities. Let me start on the positive side. In Arnhem Land, in particular the Gove or Nhulunbuy area, I visited Yirrkala and, near to Yirrkala, the Indigenous protected areas of Dhimurru and Laynhapuy. What I saw in those communities was a model of self-help. In these communities there was a level of discipline and purpose which was in part derived from the Indigenous rangers programs that accompanied Indigenous protected areas. These programs represent the best of what we seek to achieve in working with Indigenous communities in Australia. At the time I wrote pieces for the Australian and other forums where I set out the notion that the Indigenous protected areas model—in particular, the Indigenous ranger model—is a way forward for giving Indigenous communities a sense of purpose, meaningful work through connection with the land, training which is relevant to young children in those communities from an early age and a way forward right from the outset. I think that is a model that must be long term and that accompanies all of the elements which we sought to implement through the intervention in the Northern Territory. On the other hand, at Mutitjulu, for example—and I say this with a heavy heart, not with any condemnation—on the edge of Uluru, the community there has suffered. I say this because the women of that community asked me to speak up at the time and asked me to speak up on subsequent occasions. They said to me that, yes, there were positive examples but, more importantly, there was a systemic flaw in that community. That was the systemic flaw which, in many cases, saw alcohol abuse, petrol sniffing, ganja and other forms of illicit drugs as the staples of day-to-day existence for young people and, in large part, for the adult male community. There were many, many dysfunctional males and the impact on that community and on each of those individual lives was tragic. They talked to me about the problems of not only drugs but also pornography and, most importantly, the sexual abuse of young children, of minors and even of young women of age. This was said with a great and heavy heart. Of course, through the parks authority at the time, all steps were taken for immediate action, but it was an example of the very reason behind the intervention in the Northern Territory. It is why I supported the intervention wholeheartedly and with every fibre of my being. The intervention was not about some sort of heavy-handed colonialism, as some would present it, but about the chance for these communities to break out of a stunningly vicious cycle. It was about the chance for many of these Indigenous communities to move away from a failed and, in my view, catastrophic system. Perhaps most importantly, it was about giving a chance to younger people who, as reported in the Little children are sacred report, had been made vulnerable to the most horrific of circumstances. That situation, of course, has the universal condemnation of everybody within this House and all right-minded and right-thinking people within Australia. There is no question or debate about that. Some will question the approach—and that is their right, their duty and their responsibility—but it is an approach which, having met with the women of Mutitjulu and having met with those in other communities which were more successful, I believe was the right approach. I believe that, to the extent that this bill waters down many of those elements, it is making a mistake. I am not some great moralist in relation to many of these issues. I try to recognise that there are different views within our society and people have a right to take different approaches, even on things with which I personally disagree. But in relation, firstly, to the question of pornographic materials, I think that this bill sadly and misguidedly waters down the protections which were put in place in the initial intervention. That was a careful approach. It was a considered approach. I believe that this bill puts in the hands of those who are most likely to perpetuate the abuse the ability to ride roughshod over a community and to reinforce that abuse. That, I believe, is a fundamental flaw. It is a reason why we must have serious reservations, because it empowers the very people, in my view, who have previously misused that power. It perpetuates a structure within a community which of itself is dangerous and damaging, given the nature and vulnerability of the community, and it perpetuates a power imbalance and reinforces that imbalance within that community. So I respectfully take issue and disagree with some of the changes made there. In my view, they are inappropriate. There are many other elements, but I wanted to speak firstly about the broad concept of the intervention and secondly about a way forward. For me the positive way forward is about the expansion and development of Indigenous protected areas—or, as some have called them, Indigenous national parks—and in addition to that the allied principle of Indigenous ranger programs. I mentioned those at the outset, but for me these programs are a fundamentally important part of the next five, 10, 20 and 30 years within the Indigenous landscape. My view is that the Indigenous ranger program teaches respect for the land and respect for the culture and gives people hard-work skills. Let me give an example. In Dhimurru and Laynhapuy in the Nhulunbuy area, south-west of Yirrkala in the Blue Mud Bay area, there are turtle recovery programs, dugong recovery programs, feral animal eradication programs and landscape protection programs. This is real and meaningful work which begins with junior rangers, moves through those programs, gives people training and certification and ultimately, I believe, gives people the full status and the opportunity to have a lifelong career as practical land managers—as fully equipped, coached, trained and prepared park rangers—but over their own land. That long-term approach is not the answer in and of itself. It is no substitute for law or for health, but it provides a fundamental sense of community development. One of the other areas of discussion and concern is urban communities. Let me deal for a little while, because I have been looking for the opportunity to speak on this, with urban Indigenous communities in Australia. Having spent some time in my own area of Flinders with the Bunurong people, and in particular those folks who have lived on the Mornington Peninsula and in towns such as Hastings and Rosebud, there is a sense that Indigenous identity is lost in these urban communities. Of course, there is an age-old debate with regard to assimilation versus identity. I am one who strongly believes that, where Indigenous people are either forced or caused to lose their identity, there is a great sense of resentment. So we need to twin mainstream education in the urban environment with a sense of pride in Indigenous origin and heritage. On that front, I want to commend two programs to this House. The first is in relation to the developments which are ongoing at Point Nepean on the Mornington Peninsula. I put this in the context of protecting families through the objectives, goals and aspirations within this bill. At Point Nepean on the Mornington Peninsula, we have set up on what was formerly Defence and quarantine land a long-term program to work firstly on marine education but secondly on Indigenous education. The former government funded students, in particular primary and secondary students, to do heritage training on land which it is believed has some of the most significant artefacts in all of Victoria. This land has become an iconic site. It is a unique opportunity to twin the needs of Indigenous communities with those of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria and Australia more generally. I say that because what we have here is a parallel program in which there is an interchange. On the one hand you have the National Centre for Coasts and Climate, which is to be run by the University of Melbourne to engage in the study of the land and the coast. On the other hand you have a long-term objective of an Indigenous studies centre, alongside and in collaboration and cooperation. What does that mean in practice? It means that young people who are from the Indigenous community will come from the Mornington Peninsula to do training and study in Indigenous heritage on their own lands, in their own area, with pride in what they are doing. This bill is primarily about the Indigenous communities of remote and rural Australia, but it is only part of the story. The second part, of course, is the urban communities. The first of the ideas around the urban communities is, as I say, this notion of parallel study and development that we have seen at Point Nepean. Carolyn Briggs of the Bunurong has been an extremely important person in driving forward this project. Why has she been important? She was one of the first to identify the absolutely critical historical artefacts and the relevance of Point Nepean to the Indigenous people not just of the Mornington Peninsula but of Victoria and Australia more generally. I commend her work. She drove the establishment of an Indigenous studies centre as part of the work at Point Nepean. I say to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Glyn Davis: if you take the work that Melbourne university is doing and provide specific places for Indigenous primary and secondary students, in conjunction with the tertiary students, so as to help train and teach and use the honour that has been given to the university, if you give that same opportunity to the primary and secondary Indigenous students of the Mornington Peninsula, that will be a great service in terms of training and also in building identity and pride. I also mentioned that there is a second urban element in my own area on the Mornington Peninsula that is providing a way forward by giving Indigenous students a sense of pride in their culture through what they do with their communities. We have to move away from the situation that I have seen in Hastings, Rosebud and Tootgarook, where, in some circumstances, there is a downwards spiral of alienation and disenfranchisement which comes about from a lack of work. This lack of work for the parents has been perpetuated through the generations. We need to focus very closely on the idea of targeted work and education programs over two generations simultaneously. For the parents, we have to focus on the work now in the Indigenous urban environment, and we have to give the children a sense of culture. I want to give an example that I have seen of the training of young kids on the New South Wales coast. They are going through an urban junior rangers program, giving them Indigenous education coupled with a sense of pride and a sense that they could have lifelong work. I thank the House for this opportunity to talk about what I have been working on for a reasonable period now—the urban work, which is the corollary to the rural work. I commend the communities of the Bunurong people on the Mornington Peninsula. I recognise the challenge. They have made great strides, and I am delighted that they will be able to participate in the Point Nepean program. But I do know that we need to help with work opportunities and with the sense, for young people still at primary and secondary school, that they cannot be caught in a cycle of lifelong unemployment. 6750 19:24:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —It is obvious in 2008 that, regardless of one’s ethnic origin, one ought to be entitled to certain basic rights. The LNP, when in office prior to the last election, took a very important step forward with respect to intervening in the Northern Territory to guarantee Indigenous Australians who live in the Territory rights that other Australians regularly have. I am pleased tonight to have the opportunity of joining in the debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. This bill makes amendments to two pieces of legislation that were introduced last year for the purpose of affording improved protection for Indigenous children in the Northern Territory of Australia. The Liberal-National Party government introduced restrictions and tougher guidelines to act as an improved safety barrier against the exploitation of Indigenous people and, specifically, Indigenous children. These measures were designed to assist the communities of the Northern Territory, but, sadly, the changes in this bill proposed by the government tend to undermine those very important reforms. The bill suggests a watering down of the strict conditions proposed by the Liberal-National Party government in relation to the broadcasting into these communities of pay TV programming that has an R18+ classification. The LNP team introduced legislation that banned pay TV pornography—an important restriction that aimed to help to prevent situations that we have read about in the media in which young children are exposed to sexually explicit programming in order to desensitise them and to groom them for sexual abuse. No-one on any side of the parliament would support such action. It is well known that those who are mistreated in this way when they are young are highly likely to have problems when they are older and quite often become abusers themselves. The widespread ban on pornographic programming has a sensible and long-reaching benefit, a benefit that would actually reach through time and offer protection to potential victims who may not even have been born yet by helping to break the chain of abuse that is often handed down from one generation to the next, often through explicit videos and TV programs. However, this bill which we are debating tonight—the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008—modifies that ban so that it becomes only a partial ban. The changes in this bill mean that pornographic pay TV programming will only be restricted to the community at its request. Unfortunately, this opens the doors for communities to allow pornography, with decisions on this issue quite possibly to be made by those who have little regard for the safety and health of the children. The Liberal-National Party is concerned that there is little detail about any appeals processes that are available to those members of the community who are opposed to any decision to allow the R18+ programming. The bill goes further, sadly, in that it removes a total ban on the transporting of banned material through certain prescribed areas. This is a ban that could be regarded as the ultimate of safeguards against pornography and other banned products in that it helps prevent such items falling off the back of a truck in an area in which they are deemed to be unwanted and unhelpful. I would argue strongly that that would be in all areas. The provisions of this bill allow certain items to be transported through a restricted area if they are proven to have as their final destination a location that is not within the restricted, prescribed area. The change is akin to introducing a physical loophole that may result in restricted and banned material in fact finding its way into communities that would otherwise have bans in place. These two changes outlined above do not assist in the overall aim of affording protection to the most vulnerable in Indigenous communities. Thirdly, this bill reintroduces a requirement for permits to be acquired before access can be gained for certain areas of significant land. The previous Liberal-National Party government had reduced the restrictions for access for some 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land, or about 1/500th of that land. Permits were no longer required for larger public townships, connecting road corridors and common land in the community. The list of people who were allowed into and allowed to remain on Aboriginal land was increased, and the Liberal-National Party government introduced a ministerial power to allow authority to be given to a specified person. The legislation also ensured that sacred sites and those covered by leases remained protected and that cultural ceremonies were afforded appropriate restrictions and safeguards. Sadly, the changes provided for in the bill before the chamber repeal that permit system and reintroduce the restrictions for access to the land. This comes in the light of a discussion paper released by Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs that suggests that the restricted access supported by the permit system has not prevented abuse, violence and drug trafficking in these communities. There are suggestions that the permit system helped to close the communities to certain levels of outside scrutiny. Finally, the bill enacts an initiative that mirrors exactly a policy initiative of the LNP government of last year, in which roadhouses could be recognised as community stores in those areas in which local community members rely substantially on the roadhouse for groceries, drinks and other essential items. This is a sensible initiative in that it improves the convenience for those who live in remote regions and do not have the same ready access to shopping centres and grocery stores that is taken for granted in other parts of Australia. The LNP suggest a second reading amendment to this bill to maintain the blanket ban on pornographic pay TV programming, keep the blanket ban on the transport of prohibited items through restricted areas and maintain the LNP initiative regarding permits. We do, however, support the provisions to recognise roadhouses as community stores. We cannot support the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams—as you yourself would understand—unless this amendment is accepted. 6751 19:32:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I will be speaking on a matter similar to this later on tonight in the Main Committee, but in a wider context. As many of you will know, I have 8,000 Indigenous people on the electoral roll in my electorate, and I have moved very widely in the Indigenous community. I have Palm Island, which is in the Guinness book of records as the world’s most dangerous place, in my electorate. It does not deserve that title, but it has it nevertheless. Over the years I have come to despair about Indigenous Australia. I applaud what the Howard government has done and what the Rudd government is continuing on with as an effort to make a difference, because, if we do not make a difference, we will come back here in 100 years time and find that nothing has changed in Indigenous Australia. That would be a crying shame. I was somewhat distressed by some comments made yesterday by the retiring Governor-General, because I do not quite agree with what he has said in relation to the status of Indigenous communities. I do not agree that we are doing enough, and I do not agree that Indigenous Australia is doing enough to help itself. I will outline my views on that later this evening. I support the opposition’s second reading amendment on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. It is made for the right reasons. It is made in the interests of Indigenous Australia. I would hope that the government would find its way to be able to support that amendment as well. 6752 19:34:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I am here representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, summing up the debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. I would comment that, in the contributions that I have listened to this evening, I am very happy with the generally bipartisan attitude that most speakers have taken. I would particularly like to reassure the member for Flinders, who mentioned Indigenous rangers, that in fact there is a $90 million measure in the May budget for employing 300 additional Indigenous rangers to protect and manage the environment as part of the $2.2 billion Caring for our Country initiative. There has also been a tripling of funding for Indigenous protected areas, investing $50 million over the next five years, also through the Caring for our Country initiative. I thought I had also better reassure the members for Greenway and Fisher that their concerns are unwarranted when it comes to rolling back protections against R18+ material. In fact, this legislation strengthens protections in those communities. This consolidation bill makes changes to the legislative framework of the Northern Territory emergency response. In particular, it implements the government’s election commitment in relation to the permit system for major communities in the Northern Territory and extends the pornography measure. Whereas the previous government enacted provisions to abolish the requirement for people to obtain permits before they visited Aboriginal communities, the Rudd government believes that these provisions do not in fact contribute to the emergency response. Those provisions would actually make it easier for drugs and alcohol to enter communities, a view supported by the Northern Territory Police Association. The government believes that Indigenous people, like other Australians, should be able to decide who can enter their land. We made an election commitment to revoke the public access permit changes legislated by the previous government, and this bill gives effect to that commitment. The power of the minister to authorise people to enter Aboriginal land will also be clarified by this bill. After the bill is passed, the government will, through a ministerial authorisation, ensure that journalists can access communities for the purpose of reporting on events in local communities. We have been liaising with land councils and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance on the conditions which will apply. The government has tabled two further amendments to the permit scheme. Following a suggestion by the minor parties in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the bill, the government has agreed to make explicit in the legislation that the minister may not authorise entry to a sacred site under the ministerial authorisation power. The government has also agreed with a request from the Northern Territory government to extend the existing exemption from permit requirements for candidates for federal and Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections to include candidates for local government elections. This amendment will facilitate the upcoming elections for the new shire arrangements in the Northern Territory. The 2007 legislation included prohibitions on the possession, control and supply of certain pornographic material in prescribed areas. The Little children are sacred report mentioned a further area of concern expressed by Aboriginal people in this area. This related to R-rated material that is available through pay television subscriptions. This bill now amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 to address that concern. A new class licence condition will be established to prevent subscription television narrowcasting service licensees from providing subscribers in a community declared by the Indigenous affairs minister with access to a subscription television narrowcasting service declared by the communications minister. Only services that transmit more than 35 per cent of R18+ program-hours over a seven-day period can be declared for this purpose. Communities cannot have their access to the television service restricted unless they are in prescribed areas under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 and the Indigenous affairs minister is satisfied, following proper consultation, that it would be appropriate for the service to be restricted. Consistent with the 2007 pornography amendments, this arrangement will include a five-year sunset provision. The government has tabled amendments to the banning of R-rated pay television to make minor workability improvements recommended by the industry and raised by the Senate community affairs committee. The amendments cut red tape by allowing industry to self-declare an R-rated service and improve the record-keeping requirements. A further measure in the bill will amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to permit the transportation of prohibited pornographic material through a prescribed area to a destination outside the prescribed area. These amendments ensure greater consistency with the alcohol bans and are intended to allow industry members to transport goods lawfully in the conduct of their business to areas that are not prescribed. An offence for possession or supply would not apply if the person proves that the material was brought into the prescribed area for the sole purpose of transporting it to a place outside the prescribed area. Consequential amendments are also made to the seizure provisions in the pornography prohibition legislation. These amendments will provide that prohibited material will not be seized if the material is only being transported through a prescribed area. However, if the material is seized, it can be returned to the owner if the material is not prohibited material or is only being transported through the prescribed area. The last measure in the bill refines the new community stores and licensing regime which is designed to ensure that community stores meet minimum standards and to provide assurance that stores have the capacity to participate in income management. If a community substantially relies on a roadhouse in a remote area for grocery items and drinks, the roadhouse should be able to be part of the scheme applying to community stores. This will enable the roadhouse to be properly treated as a community store in having to meet the new licensing standards. Otherwise, roadhouses will continue not to be regarded as community stores. Finally, I make some observations about aspects of the 2007 legislation. As has been made clear, notably by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the new parliament, the government is committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities. The government is keen to work in partnership with Indigenous communities and the Northern Territory government to tackle the problems of child abuse and improve the prospects of Indigenous children and their families. We are also committed to evidence based policy. We have commissioned an independent review of the Northern Territory emergency response for completion by the end of September 2008, to determine whether the response is improving education, health and employment outcomes. The existing legislation for the Northern Territory emergency response contains provisions for income management, changes to land and housing arrangements, improving law and order and improving the safety and wellbeing of children and their families. The legislation also contains provisions which deem the measures to be special measures and exclude them from the operation of part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Given our commitment to maintaining the overall direction of the emergency response until the completion of the review, and to focus on effective implementation, the bill contains some amendments to existing measures which continue to be covered by the operation of the racial discrimination provisions in the legislation for the Northern Territory emergency response. Importantly, the bill contains no new provisions which exclude the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act. The new R18+ measures have been designed as special measures and do not have a provision excluding the operation of part II of the Racial Discrimination Act. We will give further consideration to the racial discrimination provisions in the legislation enacted by the previous government following the independent and transparent review of the Northern Territory emergency response. The opposition’s decision to oppose the legislation is further evidence of their continuing subjugation to ideology over clear-headed analysis. In contrast, we are committed to evidence based policy which focuses clearly on what works. We are committed to the fundamental objective of the emergency response, which is improving the life chances of residents in remote communities, particularly women and children. This bill is designed to advance those objectives. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Warringah has moved as an amendment that the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm. Debate adjourned. 6755 Bills R2944 Cognate bills: 6755 Bills R2931 6755 Bills R2932 6755 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Mr Burke: That this bill be now read a second time. 6755 19:45:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 seeks to include the horse industry as a party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, of 2002. It proposes a mechanism for collecting a levy from the horse industry so that industry can participate in the emergency animal disease response arrangements and contribute financially as its obligations may arise. The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement was put in place in 2002 as an agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories, and peak livestock industry councils. EADRA replaced the old Commonwealth-states cost-sharing agreement and it provided a role for industry in disease eradication responses  not only in a financial capacity—by sharing the costs of that work—but also by giving them a seat around the table when important decisions were being made about the nature of a response to any kind of disease outbreak. The negotiations to put in place this agreement were very extensive. I happened to have the privilege of being the minister at the time, and I can vouch for the fact that those negotiations were conducted in good spirit, with a consciousness right around the nation that there needed to be improvements to the way in which state, territory and Commonwealth governments responded to disease outbreaks and the way in which the industry was involved in that process. We needed a better way to address the diseases which also recognised the shared responsibilities that industry and governments had for these kinds of incidents. The real purpose of the discussions and the negotiations was to concentrate less on who was to blame for an outbreak and more on how we could respond promptly and appropriately to deliver the best possible outcomes. Of course, the decisions that need to be made about a disease outbreak vary. Sometimes it is possible to intervene early and eradicate a disease or pest which has entered the country, and that is clearly the best possible outcome in the event of such an incident. But in some cases it is very difficult indeed to combat a disease once it has entered the country, and a decision might be made that the economic benefits do not justify a large-scale—or even, for that matter, a small-scale—intervention. We have had some remarkable success stories in Australia in relation to the elimination of diseases, both in the plant sector and in the animal industry. There have been occasions when the experts have suggested it could not be done, but there was a sufficient determination to do it and we have been successful. An obvious example of that is the papaya fruit fly outbreak in North Queensland. I think few would have believed it was possible to eradicate a fruit fly once it had entered the country but, with some of the new technology that was available, that effort was successful. It is a real credit to the industry and to the science in Australia that that objective was achieved. More recently and freshest in people’s memories is the equine influenza outbreak. Again, many thought that it would be impossible to eliminate this disease, but, in a time much shorter than most of those with expertise in the field thought possible, that disease has in fact been eradicated. From time to time we will have diseases come into this country, and we will need to respond and decide the best way in which to deal with the issues. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes it will not be practical for one reason or another to eradicate the disease or a decision will be made that the economic benefits do not justify the effort. But, in other cases, our pest- and disease-free status, wherever it exists, is a precious asset and we want to maintain it wherever we can. I will always be an advocate of having a go at getting rid of a pest or disease if there is a modicum of scientific evidence that it is achievable. We should try, put in a maximum effort and endeavour to achieve the objective. Perhaps one example of a pest that has been more difficult than anticipated to eradicate is the fire ant in Queensland. In fact, I suspect that if the other states and even the Commonwealth knew how difficult and costly that exercise would end up becoming, we may not have started it in the first place. But the Queensland minister of the day was very persuasive; he was on television very regularly telling everybody what he was achieving. As the minister at the time, he copped a fair bit of criticism from his state colleagues because they were bearing a share of that cost. But, in the end, the decision was made that we would proceed and, whilst the fire ant has not yet been eradicated, substantial progress has been made. I think most believe now that it is at least possible and that the investment made to date needs to be extended. There are examples of Australia leading the world in successfully eradicating disease. We should be proud of that. There are occasions when we have been successful where others have failed. Part of our capacity to deal with some of these issues is to do with the quality of our science, but I think, particularly over recent years, there has also been a much better spirit of cooperation between the states, the Commonwealth and industry to achieve that objective. Often there had been an unwillingness by various states—particularly as you go back over past decades, when a lot of these issues were wholly state responsibilities—to work constructively together; therefore, these eradication campaigns would inevitably fail. Frankly, pests and diseases do not know state boundaries. If they are carried in the wind, they can be across a couple of states in a relatively short period of time. For that reason, there does need to be a national focus and a national effort to address these issues. The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement was negotiated with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate rapid responses for the control and eradication of or the containment of certain animal diseases, with the costs for the response then shared between governments and industries according to a formula based on economic and other benefits from the eradication. These formulae have often also been the subject of some degree of criticism and controversy; that is not surprising. Indeed, there will be ongoing debate about how the cost should be weighted in particular instances. Clearly, in some instances, the major beneficiary of the elimination of a disease is the industry itself. But, in some instances, the industry has little to lose from the introduction of a disease and the real impact falls on other sectors of our biological diversity or, for that matter, the national economy. In those cases, it is reasonable that governments bear a bigger share of the eradication costs. I think the principle behind both the animal disease eradication program and the plant eradication program is very worthwhile. Both of these programs depend upon a mechanism being in place, in the event there is a cost to be met, to collect the industry’s share through some kind of levy arrangement. In fact, again, if I may revert to my time as minister, I always encouraged industries in good times to put aside a bit of money—kick their levy into place—so that they would have a little bit of a fighting fund for when an outbreak of a disease occurred. Once a disease outbreak occurs, particularly if it is a large-scale event, the industry will be in a weakened state financially at the very time it is expected to collect levies to pay off its share of the costs. So I think the idea of developing reserve funds is a sound one. I regret the fact that more industries have not taken up the opportunity that is provided under both of these programs to have in place some kind of funding that they can use in the event there is an outbreak of disease. This particular bill is about the way in which the horse industry should be involved in the disease eradication program. The Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board are the peak horse industry representative bodies; they are the horse industry bodies that are eligible to become signatories to EADRA. Upon commencement of EADRA in 2002, the Australian Horse Industry Council was unable to secure a suitable mechanism to raise funds to cover potential liabilities; thus, it is not currently a party to the agreement. So, whilst there was a degree of support for the industry to be involved, those organisations were not able to agree on an appropriate mechanism. I think it is beyond doubt that the horse industry should be in EADRA; I think the industry itself recognises that it should be there. The EI outbreak is a demonstration of how it is important for this sector to be a part of a disease eradication program. But this bill is not about whether the horse industry should be in EADRA; it is about the way in which its levy should be collected—and that is what is controversial. The mechanism proposed by this bill for collecting the horse levy has not been warmly received by the industry, and the coalition will be opposing the bill for that reason. We support the involvement of the horse industry in disease eradication programs, but there must be a levy collection system which is fair and equitable and has the overwhelming support of the horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy. The bill gives no weighting to the potential risk of outbreak of disease applicable to each sector of the Australian horse industry or, for that matter, their capacity to pay. There is potentially a higher risk associated with the thoroughbred sector. This is associated with imported racehorses and shuttle stallions with the mandatory requirement for live joining as opposed to domestic-use-only horses. Despite the potential risk of exotic disease introduction and spreading being higher with the number of movements, both internationally and domestically, associated with the racing industries, the bill proposes that all registered horses be subject to an equal levy. The RIRDC did some research on horse numbers in Australia and concluded that there are about 1.2 million. Of those, around 300,000 are feral horses. I am not sure who should be responsible for paying the levy on feral horses, but I suggest that it would be rather difficult to collect, as the responsibility, if it were to belong to anyone, would rest with state governments, who generally pasture these horses on national parks or state reserves and the like. We should not overlook, however, the significance of feral horses in any disease eradication program—and that applies not just to the horse industry; it is equally true of wild pigs or other wild animals, which can, indeed, be significant conveyers of disease across the country. Had EI, for instance, escaped into the feral horse population, we would have had an uncontrollable problem. I wonder why, therefore, we do not make a greater effort to eradicate many of these feral animals—feral horses and, in particular, feral pigs. They are destructive to our environment and are often enemies of our native wildlife. For that reason, they have little value in the order of things in our environment. I think that, whilst it is a totally separate issue from the bill we are debating today, there does need to be a much more enthusiastic effort, at both the state level and the local level, to get rid of some of these feral animals. Of the 1.2 million horses in Australia, the total number of horse registrations a year, including pony club registrations, is estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season, 29,070 thoroughbred mares produced 17,854 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. Considering that there are 1.2 million horses in Australia, the fact that so few were registered demonstrates what a small proportion of the horse population would be covered by the mechanisms proposed in this bill. Something like 20 per cent of the total number of horses registered nationally are coming from the largest commercial group in the Australian horse industry and yet many other parts of the sector would not be picked up at all by the mechanisms proposed in this bill. An analysis of total horse registrations reveals that the majority of horse registrations—approximately 80 per cent—are with breed associations or pleasure performance riding groups, such as pony clubs, cutting, reining and campdrafting et cetera. The unfairness of these bills is demonstrated by the fact that 80 per cent of the levy collected would come not from the upper end of the industry—the thoroughbred producers or breeders—but from pony clubs, pleasure and performance horse owners and families that own just one horse. They would be paying 80 per cent of the total levy collection. I have already mentioned that the levy collection itself would cover only a very small proportion of the horse population. So this bill will place a heavy load on just one small sector of the horse owners of Australia. Let me point out another anomaly in the levy arrangements proposed by the government. The levy would pick up certain thoroughbreds, quarter horses and horses of breed societies et cetera; it would pick up horses that are registered with these groups. However, most of these groups have international registries. So you could simply avoid the levy by registering your Australian born horse in a register somewhere in another part of the world, and there would be economic benefits in so doing. It will be easy for horse owners to get around their levy obligations by registering their animals in another part of the world. The legislation that we have before us is fundamentally defective because it fails to place the burden on the industry equally. It leaves loopholes that will enable most horse owners, except those who own their horse for pleasure purposes, to avoid the arrangements that are proposed to be put in place. It is an ineffective mechanism and, for that reason, it cannot be supported. The government has claimed that the three peak national horse representative bodies support the passage of this bill, but that is not really correct. The president of the thoroughbred breeders association, in a letter to the minister on 13 August 2008, said: TBA supports passage of the bill through the parliament in the spring session on the understanding that the government will consult with industry to establish a fair and equitable registration scheme to ensure the burden of the levy does not fall on too few horse sectors. The reality is that that has not happened, because this bill places the burden on a restricted part of the horse industry. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke —They’re not one of the three bodies GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —I will get to the others. This is conditional support at the very best. It depends upon the government reviewing the collection method—the purpose of the bill—to make it fairer and more equitable. AHIC has written in support of the bill, even though many of their member organisations strongly oppose it. An AHIC survey of their member organisations, reported in July 2008, found that, while the majority of respondents supported the industry becoming a signatory to EADRA, the proposed collection method based on horse registration was not supported. Again, the basic fundamental of the bill was not supported by the peak industry organisations. Individual AHIC members have also expressed strong opposition to the bill. In fact, as little as two out of 16 of their member organisations have indicated support, and both of those have ways in which they can get around paying their fees. They can register their horses internationally and, therefore, avoid their obligations to the Australian levy arrangements. The Queensland Horse Council general meeting on 15 July 2008 passed the following motion: The QHC is not in favour of signing an emergency disease response agreement or committing to any associated levy at this time. The National Campdraft Council of Australia opposes the signing of EADRA due to the financial impost that would be placed upon their members. Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the industry. The industry, in this instance, is those who support them—such as the farriers, the feed suppliers, the vets, the events operators and the track equipment suppliers. They would be the ones who would probably bear the greatest financial burden under any disease outbreak. The recent EI outbreak highlighted that EI caused significant social disruption as well as economic impacts. The EI outbreak also highlighted the inequities inherent in the government’s proposed collection methodology. The Callinan report found that, while the cause of the EI outbreak could not be definitively determined, the most likely cause was a failing within quarantine processes. Under the proposed bill, 80 per cent of the cost to industry of the EI outbreak would have been passed to the pleasure performance and hobby sector, with only 20 per cent to the racing sector, and most horses in Australia would not be covered by the levy collection arrangements at all. The pleasure performance and hobby sector, as the minister would well know, were somewhat critical of the assistance measures that were provided to the industry following the EI outbreak and also of the emphasis that was placed on the racing sector when it came to introducing vaccines to eliminate the disease. So priority for eradicating the disease was given to a sector that will contribute a very small proportion of the levy income. It can also be strongly argued that some sectors of the industry have a greater capacity to pay than others. We would all recognise that people who own a pony for their children often have a much lower capacity to pay than those in the multimillion-dollar horse racing and thoroughbred breeding sector. This is a major industry. I think it employs 80,000 people. So it has substantial substance. It is one of the great Australian industries. Yet it would contribute the same amount per horse as someone who owns a pet pony. I do not think that those sorts of arrangements can be characterised as being fair. We have learnt a lot from the EI outbreak, but I do not think that, with this legislation, the government has learnt from that experience. The legislation was brought in some little time ago and, correctly, the government delayed the debate until after the Callinan report. But there have been no changes to the bill as a result of the Callinan report and, clearly, the issues associated with the way in which the levy is to be collected have not been resolved. The government’s only action was for the minister to write to the horse owners on 11 June, where he directly threatened horse owners by refusing further assistance in the event of a disease outbreak such as EI if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. Let me repeat again: I think the industry should be in the agreement, like all other sectors that may face a disease entry at some time. They should be in there, but the mechanism to collect the levy has got to be seen to be fair and equitable. I do not think that what is being proposed in this legislation enjoys any of those characteristics. It is for that reason that the opposition will not be supporting the bill. Instead, it will be our plan in the Senate to refer this matter for further investigation. We want to look particularly at the level of support for the proposed collection mechanism within industry groups. We need to investigate alternative levy collection methods. I have already pointed out that, in my view, this bill does not pass the test. There are other ideas out there. For instance, the concept of a levy on horseshoes was debated and enjoyed quite a degree of support. I acknowledge that it also had some deficiencies. What we are probably going to need is some kind of multitiered collection which also recognises the capacity of an industry to pay. By using a series of collection mechanisms, it might be possible to introduce a greater degree of fairness and equity in the system. We also need to investigate the suitability of the EADRA collection guidelines as they apply to the unique nature of the Australian horse industry. It is clear that we do need to do a lot more work on devising a system that will be successful for the industry, that will be fair to all and that will collect an appropriate amount of funds in the event of there being a requirement to be involved in a disease eradication program. I do not believe that this bill meets those criteria. So, whilst supporting the involvement of the equine industry in the disease eradication agreement, as we support the involvement of other industries, the levy mechanism must be fair. This bill fails that test. Debate adjourned. 6760 Bills R3043 6760 Debate resumed. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the honourable member for Dickson on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Dutton’s amendment) stand part of the question. 20:14:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DGH Adams) 72 Albanese, A.N. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. 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. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. 55 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. 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. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 6761 Mr MURPHY (Lowe —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade) 20:21:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 6761 Bills R2938 6761 Debate resumed. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Abbott’s amendment) stand part of the question. 20:26:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DGH Adams) 72 Albanese, A.N. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. 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. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. 57 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. 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. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. 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. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. Question agreed to. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams) —It being past 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 6762 Petitions 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: 83Z Mrs Irwin 1050 6763 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned people resident in the Australian Electoral Divisions in South Australia, comprising of Western and Greater Adelaide, the Adelaide Hills and Regional South Australia, draws attention to the House of the value of the King Street Bridge, King Street, Glenelg North, South Australia, Australia to: Retaining a vital link for the elderly to the surrounding services and community, in surrounding metropolitan councils, Provide greater scenic access to the sea West of Adelaide, in the Gulf of St Vincent, and the area immediately North of Glenelg, including the Patawalonga River, which is home to numerous public spectacular events, especially those on water, An important South-North Adelaide coastal corridor, facilitating interstate and intrastate trade and commerce, and family travel, The King Street Bridge is in grave and urgent need of funding for its replacement or repair: Your petitioners therefore requests the House to fund the replacement cost, or full and complete repairs, of the King Street Bridge in Glenelg North at your earliest convenience, for the present and posterity of all South Australians, and Australians, decades to come. 1050 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1,050 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 441 6763 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia resident in the City of Tamworth area of New South Wales and elsewhere draws to the attention of the House: the lack of an Australia Post retail outlet in the shopping centre complex undergoing redevelopment and nearing completion in North Tamworth, known as the “Northgate Shopping Centre”. We therefore ask the House to respectfully request Australia Post to establish a new, full retail outlet in the newly renovated Northgate Shopping Centre at North Tamworth in view of the large, existing residential population in close proximity to the Centre as well as the nearby St. Andrew’s Retirement Village, two private schools and new residential subdivisions already established or being established in the local area. 441 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 441 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 53 6763 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there are plans to build a 3 kilometre wide and 1 kilometre deep open uranium mine at the Olympic Dam site near Roxby Downs, 500 kilometres north of Adelaide. If built, radon gas will affect all our cities and country towns. If the government allows the building of this mine we will have problems for thousands of years. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to step in and halt the expansion of the Olympic Dam site. 53 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 53 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 2 6763 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. REASONS FOR PETITIONING THE HOUSE: The Sri Lankan government, ignoring pleas by the United Nations and its Agencies, the International Community, Human Rights and other Organizations to solve the ethnic problem by negotiation, continues to resort to and encourage acts of Genocide, War Crimes and Human Rights Violations. Such acts include: Murder, including those of Tamil Parliamentarians & journalists, extrajudicial killing & abduction Aerial bombing of civilians Virtual imprisonment and starvation of Jaffna residents by closing the only trunk road preventing movement of food and medicine Attacks on places of worship These acts are contrary to International Law and Conventions and are crimes under Chapter 8, Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act (1995) of the Commonwealth of Australia. Peaceful resistance by Tamils over 35 years met with violent reprisals by the government, including State sponsored riots against Tamils causing death and destruction, and several pacts between the government and Tamils for minimal devolution of power were later unilaterally abrogated by the government, giving rise to Tamil militancy and demand for self- determination. REQUEST FOR ACTION BY THE HOUSE: Stop all aid and supply of arms to Sri Lanka, refuse entry visas to officers of the Sri Lankan government and armed forces concerned with crimes against humanity and human rights violations, and Assist in the establishment of an appropriate constitutional structure, recognizing the principles of equal rights and self-determination of the Tamil People, in accordance with international law. 2 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 2 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 20 6764 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of the Canberra and Queanbeyan regions draws to the attention of the House that: Our community will pay a high price if Canberra International Airport is allowed to develop a 24 hour freight hub, and to become Sydney’s second airport (as outlined in its draft Master Plan 2008). The cost to our quality of life will be unacceptable because of a massive increase in Canberra’s noise and carbon footprints, as well as the associated planning and infrastructure nightmares. Your petitioners therefore request the House: To introduce a night time curfew to protect our sleep; To not allow Canberra International Airport to be developed as a 24 hour freight hub and the second Sydney airport; To not allow the proposed construction of a parallel runway. 20 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 20 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 3226 6764 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of the Canberra and Queanbeyan region draws to the attention of the House that: The Canberra Airport’s draft Master Plan 2008 proposes that Canberra Airport become Sydney’s second airport and a 24 hour international freight hub. It also proposes a parallel runway and in excess of 280,000 flight movements per annum. This equates to more than one aircraft arriving or departing every 2 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will place an unconscionable burden on the residents of Canberra and Queanbeyan. Your petitioners request the House to introduce an 11:00pm to 6:00am night time curfew at Canberra Airport. 3226 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 3,226 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 2188 6764 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of the family members, friends, associates and neighbours of the late Renerio Arrogante III and other concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the matter of the brutal murder and alleged political assassination on 9th March 2008 of Renerio Arrogante III, commonly known as “Jun” or “Gogong”, an Australian citizen and former resident of Miranda NSW 2228, who was shot by a gunman at point blank range in front of his wife and son, at Daanbantayan, Cebu, Philippines. We therefore ask the House to: call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to request the government of the Republic of the Philippines to investigate the murder of Renerio Arrogante III, with the purpose of determining the perpetrators of the crime and subjecting them to legal action as deemed appropriate by Philippine law. In support of this request, it is our opinion that the perpetrators of this crime are officials of the Local Municipal Government in Daanbantayan and their family members, who collectively have considerable control of the local police and the local legal system, and using this control have “covered up” their involvement in this crime. We therefore feel that any investigations and prosecution carried out by local Daanbantayan or Cebu City based police authorities or legal systems will be compromised. For these reasons we ask the House to call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to request high level intervention by the Philippine Government in Manila, in order to bring about a just conclusion. 2188 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 2,188 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 2 6765 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of RICHARD MANTHORPE, citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, presently residing in Australia under terms of the subclass 410 visa (for retirees) Draws to the attention of The House, that, under the rules governing this visa, my wife and myself are barred from becoming permanent residents and citizens of Australia. We therefore ask The House, giving due regard to our unbroken residence in Australia since May 1994, although not meeting the “balance of family” test demanded of some migrants, we are members of a larger family group, including our son, twin grandsons, my wife’s sister and family, my wife’s brother and family, and other, more senior, citizens, all of whom are permanent residents of Australia, our intention to continue to live in Australia, our “self funded retiree” status resulting in no call on centrelink benefits, during my career in the public service occasional duties alongside A.D.F. personnel, to grant myself and my wife leave to apply for permanent residence and, subsequently, citizenship of this country. 2 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 2 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 696 6765 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that The slaughter of whales for any reason is totally unacceptable We the undersigned therefore request the House To ban all whaling vessels and weapons from entering Australian Waters; refuse any requests for help to all whaling vessels; stop the hunting and slaughter of whales in Australian waters and in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary by the Japanese Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will Take immediate action to protect rare and endangered whales and take whaling countries to the International Court. 696 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 696 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 37 6765 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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. I) 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 37 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 37 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 23 6766 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the many well-known public figures of this country who have publicly rejected the actions of the current Federal Government in its Northern Territory Intervention Strategy and Legislation and expresses our deep concern about it because: the Government’s strategy has been implemented with no consultation with Indigenous community leaders; the bulk of the $587 million allocated is to be spent on administration and bureaucrats rather than directly assisting Indigenous Communities; quarantining of welfare payments will result in many families, who are already struggling, being worse off; removal of the entry permit system exposes communities and children to further risk. We call on the incoming Federal Government to revisit the Northern Territory strategy and legislation in consultation with Indigenous leaders as a matter of urgency and to review its appropriateness for the goal of protecting Indigenous women and children in the Northern Territory or any other part of Australia. 23 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 23 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 37 6766 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of the Naval Association of Australia Maroochy Waters Sub-Section draws to the attention of the House: a lack of palliative care and hospice facilities on the Sunshine Coast. We therefore ask the House to: consider providing such a facility or funding to provide palliative care and hospice accommodation for citizens and in particular war veterans. 37 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 37 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 1 6766 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of hyperhidrosis sufferers of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the fact that botox treatment into the armpits of sufferers of hyperhidrosis is a proven and the most preferable treatment for hyperhidrosis sufferers. Hyperhidrosis is a mentally and physically debilitating condition which affects 1-2% of the population, it involves hyperactive sweat glands which cause the sufferer to sweat extreme amounts, usually under the armpits, for no apparent reason. The cost of the botox itself for the treatment is around $600, the procedure then costs about $200. It is not currently covered by the PBS scheme or Medicare rebate. The treatment lasts from 6 - 18 months, so it has to be repeated. Other treatments include invasive surgery which has risks and undesirable side affects. We therefore ask the House to: take action to bring this treatment for hyperhidrosis sufferers under the PBS scheme and the Medicare rebate scheme. 1 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1 citizen) 83Z Mrs Irwin 19 6766 To the Honorable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: WHEREAS the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion: “That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.” WE, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion. AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray. 19 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 19 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 15 6767 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of the certificated Personal Care Assistants (PCA’s) working at Belmont Community Nursing Home draws to the attention of the House: Nursing homes operating on an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) should receive such additional Federal funding as is commensurate with the PCA’s pay rise contained in a new EBA and for the release of this additional funding to coincide with the commencement of the new EBA. We therefore ask the House to: Arrange for nursing homes operating on an EBA to receive such additional funding as is commensurate with the PCA’s pay rise contained in a new EBA and for the release of this additional funding to coincide with the commencement of the new EBA. 15 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 15 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 15 6767 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of the certificated Personal Care Assistants (PCA’s) working at Belmont Community Nursing Home (Belmont) draws to the attention of the House: Nursing homes should have a recognised benchmark to indicate the minimum ratio of PCA’s to residents to achieve clinical governance best practice. We therefore ask the House to: Recognise the Belmont benchmark to indicate the minimum ratio of PCA’s to residents to achieve clinical governance best practice is: Morning shift - Five (5) residents to one (1) PCA in a seven (7) hours shift period. Afternoon shift - Ten (10) residents to one (1) PCA in a six (6) hours shift period. Night shift - Seventeen (17) residents to one (1) PCA in a ten (10) hours shift period. 15 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 15 citizens) Petitions received. 6767 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: 6767 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 8 May 2008 regarding a recently submitted petition about Australia’s involvement in Iraq. The Australian Government is fulfilling its longstanding policy to withdraw Australian combat troops from Iraq. Australia’s 550 combat troops from Overwatch Battle Group-West based in Tallil will be withdrawn at the end of their current rotation in mid-2008. Other elements of Australia’s military participation will remain—including maritime, air, logistics and the detachments guarding the Australian Embassy. The withdrawal is being undertaken in close consultation with the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Iraq. The Government remains committed to supporting Iraq, and in the 2008-2009 Budget allocated A$165 million for an expanded capacity building and humanitarian program for Iraq over the next three years. Measures in this program will focus on three principal areas: responding to the basic humanitarian needs of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis; supporting international efforts to provide reconstruction assistance; and strengthening government capacity, especially in public financial management, agriculture and police forensics and leadership. The Australian Government is concerned about the level of violence in Iraq. Australian officials have raised and continue to raise this and other human rights concerns, such as reports of persecution of members of religious and other minorities, with the Government of Iraq. The Australian Government has underlined to the Government of Iraq the need for progress on reconciliation and population security for all religious and ethnic groups, in order to build a stable, prosperous and unified Iraq. In recognition of the critical resettlement needs of Iraqi refugees, in 2008-09 the Humanitarian Visa Program is being increased to 13,500 places, with 500 places in 2008-09 specifically set aside to assist Iraqi refugees. Australia has also recently announced a visa program for locally engaged employees and their families at risk because of their engagement with the Australian Government. Iraqis who have worked with Australian troops in southern Iraq will be eligible for humanitarian resettlement in Australia, subject to health, character and national security checks. I would be grateful if you could inform the petitioners accordingly. from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 17 March by The Speaker (from 1034 citizens) 6768 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 enclosing a petition in relation to the re-establishment of the Commonwealth Dental Health Scheme and Commonwealth funding for dental care. The Commonwealth and the State and Territory Governments are working together to improve the standard of oral health in Australia. I am pleased to be able to advise you that the Commonwealth Government will be re-introducing this scheme as the Commonwealth Dental Health Program from July 2008. Through this Program, the Commonwealth will provide funding to assist the States and Territories to deliver public dental services in their jurisdictions and help to clear the backlog of people waiting for public dental treatment. The Commonwealth Government will fund up to one million additional public dental consultations by providing $290 million over three years to the States and Territories. The increased funding for public dental care under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program will assist eligible patients to access timely dental care. This is part of a significant Commonwealth Government commitment to dental health with a total of$780 million over five years for dental services. This includes $290 million for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $490 million for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. On 2 March 2008, this Government announced that it will also deliver its election commitment to introduce a new Medicare Teen Dental Plan. This program will provide up to $150 per person towards an annual preventative check. Around 1.1 million teenagers 12-17 years of age in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A, and teenagers in the same age group receiving Youth Allowance or Abstudy, will be eligible under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. The program is expected to commence on 1 July 2008, subject to the passage of legislation. I trust that the above information is of use. Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2008 enclosing a petition in relation to re-introducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme, reducing waiting times and training more public dentists. The Commonwealth and the State and Territory Governments are working together to improve the standard of oral health in Australia. I am pleased to be able to advise you that the Commonwealth Government will be re-introducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as the Commonwealth Dental Health Program from July 2008. Through this Program, the Commonwealth will provide funding to assist the States and Territories to deliver public dental services in their jurisdictions and help to clear the backlog of people waiting for public dental treatment. The Commonwealth Government will fund up to one million additional public dental consultations by providing $290 million over three years to the States and Territories. The increased funding for public dental care under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program will assist eligible patients to access timely dental care. This is part of a significant Commonwealth Government commitment to dental health with a total of $780 million over five years for dental services. This includes $290 million for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $490 million for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. On 2 March 2008, this Government announced that it would also deliver its election commitment to introduce a new Medicare Teen Dental Plan. This program will provide up to $150 per person towards an annual preventative check. Around 1.1 million teenagers 12-17 years of age in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A, and teenagers in the same age group receiving Youth Allowance or Abstudy, will be eligible under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. The program is expected to commence on 1 July 2008, subject to the passage of legislation. A total of $65.4 million over five years has been committed to establish the new regional dental school of Charles Sturt University. Funding will be provided to construct pre-clinical and clinical facilities in Orange and Wagga Wagga and three dental education clinics in Albury, Bathurst and Dubbo. A total of 240 new training places for dental and oral health students are being made available over five years by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The measure will expand dental training and public dental service provision in regional Australia. The new dental training program will include the delivery of services to public patients at several regional locations. Through the 2008-09 Budget, the Government will provide total funding of$49.5 million over five years to James Cook University for the establishment of a new dental school in Cairns. The University will receive $33 million in funding for capital infrastructure, funding for 60 new Commonwealth supported places in dentistry each year and funding for a clinical outreach program. The new dental school will help address skills shortages in dentistry, particularly in northern Australia. Funding of $12.3 million in total over four years has been allocated to the Dental Training Expanding Rural Placements Program. Under this Program, universities will provide extended rural clinical placements in established rural training settings for each of the six current dental faculties based at metropolitan universities. The Program commenced operation in 2007-08 and is designed to help address the shortage and maldistribution of dentists, especially in rural and remote areas. The participating universities are Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, Western Australia, Queensland and Griffith University. I trust that the above information is of use. Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 enclosing a petition in relation to re-introducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. The Commonwealth and the State and Territory Governments are working together to improve the standard of oral health in Australia. I am pleased to be able to advise you that the Commonwealth Government will be re-introducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as the Commonwealth Dental Health Program from July 2008. Through this Program, the Commonwealth will provide funding to assist the States and Territories to deliver public dental services in their jurisdictions and help to clear the backlog of people waiting for public dental treatment. The Commonwealth Government will fund up to one million additional public dental consultations by providing $290 million over three years to the States and Territories. The increased funding for public dental care under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program will assist eligible patients to access timely dental care. This is part of a significant Commonwealth Government commitment to dental health with a total of $780 million over five years for dental services. This includes $290 million for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $490 million for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. On 2 March 2008, this Government announced that it will also deliver its election commitment to introduce a new Medicare Teen Dental Plan. This program will provide up to $150 per person towards an annual preventative check. Around 1.1 million teenagers 12-17 years of age in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A, and teenagers in the same age group receiving Youth Allowance or Abstudy, will be eligible under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. The program is expected to commence on 1 July 2008, subject to the passage of legislation. I trust that the above information is of use. from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 3053 citizens) 6770 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 28 May 2008 referring a petition regarding the Ipswich Motorway and the Goodna Bypass. As you will be aware, the Australian Government is committed to the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway, from Dinmore to Rock1ea. We have already allocated nearly $1 billion to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway between Goodna and Darra, and $1.14 billion to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway between Dinmore and Goodna. The section from Darra to Rocklea will be upgraded in the future, potentially funded from the new $20 billion Building Australia Fund, following assessment by the new advisory body, Infrastructure Australia. An infrastructure project of this size is generally undertaken in stages. The construction schedule is determined in consultation with the Queensland Department of Main Roads to minimise the impact on commuters while construction takes place. In this case the Dinmore to Darra upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway is being undertaken in three stages. Construction commenced on the Ipswich Mot01’way/Logan Motorway Interchange in February 2007. The Australian Government is providing $255 million to ensure the upgrading of this two kilometre stretch of the Motorway between Goodna and Gailes. This project is expected to be completed in early 2009 and will provide improved traffic flow between the Ipswich and Logan Motorways. Site work has also recently commenced on the Wacol to Dana section of the Motorway. The Australian Government will provide $700 million to increase this five kilometre stretch from four to six lanes. Stage one of this project will upgrade from Dana to Sandy Creek, including the Centenary Highway Interchange, and stage two from Sandy Creek to Waco1. Planning is currently underway for the upgrade of the Dinmore to Goodna section to upgrade to six lanes. The Australian Government allocated $5 million in the 2008-09 Budget to accelerate the planning process. Construction is expected to commence in early 2009 with project completion anticipated by late 2012. These works will result in improved safety on the Ipswich Motorway through increased capacity and improved design. The upgrades will also allow free-flowing access for inter-regional freight movements to the Brisbane Markets, the Port of Brisbane and the export industries hub being developed at the mouth of the Brisbane River. Regarding the Goodna Bypass, within weeks of being appointed, I met with the Hon Warren Pitt MP, Queensland Minister for Main Roads and we agreed that work on this project would cease. Thank you again for referring this matter to me and I trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 184 citizens) 6771 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 about a petition presented by the Speaker of the House on 26 May 2008 about access to pension entitlements from Latvia. I am pleased to inform you that Australian and Latvian officials are negotiating a proposed Social Security Agreement between Australia and Latvia (the Agreement). The proposed Agreement will coordinate the two countries’ social security schemes to provide improved social security coverage for people who have lived and worked in Australia and Latvia. The Agreement will, among other things, seek to ensure people living in Australia can access any Latvian pension entitlements they may have. Officials in Australia and Latvia are continuing to work collaboratively to finalise negotiations. Once finalised the proposed Agreement must be submitted to both Governments for approval. I am hopeful that this will occur in 2008-09. Thank you again for writing. Dear Julia Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 27 May 2008 about the petition submitted to the Committee regarding pension entitlements from Latvia. Australian and Latvian officials are negotiating a proposed bilateral Social Security Agreement that will coordinate the two countries’ social security schemes. Negotiation of such agreements is the responsibility of the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to whom I understand you have also written. In view of this, I ask that you refer to the written response being provided by the Hon Ms Macklin. Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 34 citizens) 6771 Dear Mrs Irwin Australia Post-petition request for post office at Jewells NSW Thank you for your letters dated 27 May 2008 and 2 June 2008 concerning petitions submitted for the Committee’s consideration requesting a post office at Jewells, NSW. Under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 Australia Post is responsible for the day to day running of the organisation, including all operational matters. As far as practicable it is required to perform its functions in a manner consistent with sound commercial practice. Australia Post has advised that senior management from its NSW administration met with the petition sponsor, Ms Jill Hall MP, in late March to discuss her interest in the establishment of a postal outlet within the Jewellstown shopping centre redevelopment. I understand a further meeting has taken place with Ms Hall, as well as ongoing discussions between Australia Post and the owner/developer and leasing agent. Another on-site meeting with the owner/developer and leasing agent is scheduled for 25 July. Australia Post has also advised that it has received few direct approaches, including from the local business community, requesting a postal outlet at Jewellstown. Australia Post has also informed me that, at this stage, no decision has been reached. I trust this information will be of assistance. from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to a petition presented on 27 May and 3 June by The Speaker (from 1530 citizens) 6772 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, enclosing a petition about the shortage of residential aged care beds and Community Aged Care Packages (CACPs) in the Hunter and Central Coast aged care planning regions of New South Wales. Your letter has been referred to me as the Minister for Ageing. The Australian Government is delivering a number of election commitments directed at improving the provision of aged care services, particularly in areas of high need. The New Directions for Older Australians: Improving the transition between hospital and aged care package committed to provide up to $300 million in zero real interest loans to residential aged care providers to build or expand residential aged care and respite facilities in areas of high need. The aim of the commitment is to find new ways to get proven providers through low cost finance to establish aged care services in which they were previously unlikely to invest. On 22 March 2008, I released details of the plan to give effect to the commitment and the areas of high need. These high need areas include the Central Coast aged care planning region. Applications for the 2008 Loans Round closed on 6 June 2008 and the results of the Round are expected to be announced in August 2008. The aged care planning region of Hunter was not identified as an area of high need for the 2008 Loans Round because this region is already highly contested during the course of the annual Aged Care Approvals Rounds. In the 2007 Aged Care Approvals Round, all 165 residential aged care places that were available for allocation in the Hunter aged care planning region were allocated, together with 100 CACPs. Some 420 residential aged care places and 110 community aged care places are estimated to be released to the Hunter region over the next two years. The petition also raises the issue of the sufficiency of capital and recurrent funding. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to the long-term viability of the aged care sector by increasing the level of the Conditional Adjustment Payment (CAP) by 1.75 per cent from 7.0 per cent to 8.75 per cent of the basic aged care subsidy, meaning an additional $407.6 million over four years for the aged care sector and bringing total CAP payments over the next four years to $2 billion. Over the next four years, funding for aged and community care will reach a record level of more than $40 billion; with total Commonwealth investment in residential aged care subsidies up to $28.6 billion. This includes the $1.13 billion (over four years) in additional funding flowing from the reforms to the residential aged care system introduced on 20 March 2008. Under these changes, aged care homes that provide high care will receive more money in accommodation payments from the Government, some residents, or from a combination of both. Homes use this money to provide buildings and amenities for high care and other residents. The introduction on 20 March 2008 of the new Aged Care Funding Instrument, which replaces the Resident Classification Scale, will also streamline the ongoing assessment of residents, thereby allowing the delivery of better care and significantly reduce red tape. The petition also raises the issue of wages within the aged care sector. The Government is not responsible for determining wages and conditions for staff in the aged care sector. In general these are agreed between employers and employees under a variety of industrial instruments. This means that the pay rates of aged care nurses and other staff can vary from employer to employer in aged care homes. In addition, the base pay levels for nurses in aged care homes can vary between States and Territories. These variations across different States and Territories are not due to differences in Australian Government funding for aged care, as aged care payments do not vary according to State or Territory. I trust that the above information is of use in responding to the petition. from the Minister for Ageing, Mrs Elliot, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 16 citizens) 6773 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 27 May 2008, regarding a petition recently submitted for consideration by the Standing Committee on Petitions. This letter responds to the petition, as required by Standing Order 209(b). Regarding the three specific requests made by the petitioners, I am advised that the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act), which is administered under the portfolio of Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, requires all free-to-air commercial broadcasters ensure that 55 per cent of their content broadcast between 6am and midnight is Australian programming. The Act also provides for the identification and resolution of inappropriate content. There is no provision in the Act to specify content beyond this and no scope for the Government to insist on broadcasters running programs or advertisements on specific matters. The broadcasting of . specific programs or advertisements is a commercial matter. More generally, the Australian Government shares the petitioners’ concerns about the plight of child soldiers in Uganda, Sudan, Somalia and Algeria, and is committed to promoting and protecting children’s rights through international forums such as the United Nations. Australia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention), and its two Optional Protocols, as well as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. These treaties have benefited children by establishing standards against which international behaviour can be measured and scrutinised. Australia continues actively to encourage all States to commit to children’s rights and to ratify the Convention and its Optional Protocols. Most recently, Australia co-sponsored resolutions on the rights of the child at the seventh session of the Human Rights Council, in March 2008, and at the United Nations General Assembly, in December 2007. On 12 February 2008, Australia’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Ambassador Robert Hill, delivered a strong country statement indicating broad support for the United Nations Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict, at a United Nations Security Council open debate. In his statement, Ambassador Hill encouraged Member States that had not yet done so to ratify both the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, without delay. Australia’s international development program (managed through the Australian Agency for International Development) supports a number of programs to mitigate the impact of conflict on children, and these practical efforts complement our advocacy work in the United Nations. For example, Australia provides aid to Uganda -one of nine African countries targeted for Australian assistance -to help ease the burden of conflict and to mitigate its appalling effects on civilians. The over AUD$6 million of Australian aid provided to Uganda in 2006-07 included AUD$1.5 million funding for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), for the protection of women and children displaced by conflict and to prevent and respond to gender based violence in northern Uganda. In addition to the work being undertaken in Uganda, Australia also actively funds programs to counter the problem of child soldiers in the Asia-Pacific region. Current programs are active in the Philippines (through UNICEF), East Timor, and Nepal. We will continue to look for opportunities to counter the use of child soldiers in Uganda, Sudan, Somalia and Algeria. from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 127 citizens) 6773 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 2 June 2008 in relation to a petition about funding for Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) services, emergency accommodation and public housing. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the petition. I received a copy of the petition from Ms Cathy Crawford of North Queensland Combined Women’s Services on 4 March 2008 and I responded to her directly. As you are aware, many Australians are struggling with the high cost of housing. Recent NATSEM research on housing affordability commissioned by the Australian Government showed that levels of housing stress are critically high in northern NSW and throughout QLD. This research is supported by the number of signatories on the petition sent to me by Ms Crawford. The Government is very concerned about the effect of rising rents on low and moderate income. households across Australia. Rents are increasing because there are not enough rental homes available, with vacancy rates at or below 2 per cent in all capital cities. To increase the supply of affordable rental accommodation the Government is investing $623 million over four years in a new National Rental Affordability Scheme. The new Scheme will provide institutional investors with the incentive they need to build more affordable rental accommodation. The Australian Government will provide annual tax credits of $6,000 on 50,000 new rental properties to be offered to low and moderate income earners. State and Territory Governments have agreed to contribute a further $2,000 per property, either as cash or in kind each year. Rent for these properties will be 20 per cent below market rates, and tenants will still be eligible for Rent Assistance -making it even more affordable for individuals and families. If demand for rental properties is still strong, a further 50,000 properties will be built from 2012 onwards. Addressing homelessness is also a major priority for the Australian Government. We have already announced an additional $1 SO million to build new homes for homeless Australians. As you know the Australian Government released a Green Paper on Homelessness, Which Way Home? A new Approach to Homelessness in May to promote discussion about how to reduce homelessness. We are now developing a White Paper to set the agenda for tackling homelessness to 2020. The White Paper, to be released in September 2008, will include a comprehensive, national action plan to reduce the number of homeless Australians. I strongly believe these initiatives, over time, will reduce homelessness and address the housing affordability crisis. I trust this information is of assistance to the committee. from the Minister for Housing, Ms Plibersek, to a petition presented on 2 June by The Speaker (from 1498 citizens) 6774 Dear Mrs Irwin I refer to your letters of 17 March 2008 to the Hon Penny Wong concerning petitions regarding Green, Dock and Natimuk Lakes. The Minister has passed your letters to me for reply. I apologise for the delay in replying. Under the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline project agreement with the Victorian Government up to 3,000 megalitres per year of water savings are to be allocated for recreational lake use. The allocation of this water to the recreational lakes and weir pools in the region is the responsibility of the Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Authority (GWM). The allocation of water to the lakes has been the subject of ongoing community consultation by GWM. GWM have provided advice that in consultation with the Reservoirs Review Stakeholder Working Group they are undertaking further investigation and modelling in relation to operating scenarios for Dock and Green Lakes. In relation to Natimuk Lake, GWM announced in May 2008 that it would not be supplying water as supplementary water supplies are not practical. However, the decommissioning of water supply channels in the Natimuk Lake catchment will aim to maximise the return of storm water run-off to the catchment. from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to a petition presented on 17 March by The Speaker (from 3754 citizens) 6775 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 concerning a petition regarding nuclear reactors and waste dumps. The Government has no plans to allow the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia. As Australia does not have a nuclear power industry and does not produce high level radioactive waste, no high level radioactive waste facility is planned for Australia. Successive Australian Governments have agreed that Australia should not accept the radioactive wastes of other countries. The Government’s position is based on the clear principle that countries deriving benefits from nuclear power should expect to make their own arrangements to safely dispose of their nuclear waste. The Government has not made any decisions on a site for a low-level or intermediate-level radioactive waste facility. We will not make any decisions on a radioactive waste facility without appropriate consultation, including with relevant state and territory governments and Indigenous and local communities. The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism is currently preparing a submission on these issues for consideration by the Government. from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 11 citizens) 6775 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 2 June 2008 to the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government about a petition submitted for the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the V8 Supercar racetrack in Reid Park, Townsville. The Minister has forwarded your letter to me as I have portfolio responsibility for regional development issues. Funding of $10 million towards the V8 Supercar racetrack in Reid Park, Townsville has been identified as an election commitment made by the Australian Government and will be managed by the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the Department). A set of guidelines to administer the election commitments is currently being developed. The Government is committed to complying with its statutory obligations relating to approval of projects and their funding. The Government has to ensure that when it implements election commitments, its exposure to risk and the efficient and effective use of public money is closely managed in line with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) good practice. The Department will be contacting the Townsville City Council to obtain the information necessary to undertake an analysis of the project. I understand that this project has significant support from the Queensland State Government, which is contributing $14.61 million towards the construction cost and $2.5 million per year for five years towards the cost of running a supercar event. I understand that the petition relates to objections of certain Townsville residents to fund the V8 Supercar racetrack in Reid Park, Townsville and they will be considered as part of the Government’s consideration of this project. Any concerns Townsville residents have about the appropriate use of parklands should be directed to the Townsville City Council and the Queensland Government. from the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, Mr Gray, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 5 citizens) 6775 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 25 June 2008 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning a petition on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fundamental to the Australian Government’s Middle East policy is a commitment to a two-state solution to the conflict, based on Israel’s right to live in peace within secure borders, and in recognition of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state. Australia supports a negotiated solution to the conflict consistent with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The Government calls on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to implement their Roadmap for Peace obligations announced in 2002 and remain focused on the negotiations launched at Annapolis, which offer a path towards a peaceful and just settlement. The important question of Palestinian refugees is formally recognised in the Roadmap for Peace as a key issue in the ongoing negotiations between the parties. Australia and Israel enjoy a strong relationship and dose and vibrant community links, as reflected in the Parliamentary motion on 12 March. Links with the Palestinian authorities are also strong. The humanitarian situation of Palestinians remains of deep concern to the Government. The renewed violence is affecting civilian populations in both Israel and Gaza and undermining the peace process. In December 2007, the Government announced the doubling of aid to the Palestinian Territories to $45 million for 2008. The assistance includes $25 million in assistance to Palestinians affected by the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the West Bank and surrounding countries, and $20 million to support the implementation of the Palestinian Authority’s Reform and Development Plan. Our aid will incorporate assistance to deliver health and education services as well as support for emergency assistance to Palestinian refugees. The Government continues to look for opportunities to provide practical support to the peace process. Thank you for referring this petition to me. from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 23 June by The Speaker (from 4900 citizens) 6776 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008, enclosing a petition on job security and working conditions presented to the House of Representatives on 26 May 2008. I apologise for the delay in responding. I note that the petition is dated 2007 and the intent of the petition is to draw attention to the adverse impact on Australian employees of the previous government’s workplace relations laws, including Work Choices. The petitioners call on the Australian Government to reverse those changes and to produce instead a plan for a fair workplace relations system. The Government understands the concerns of the petitioners and, is addressing the specific issues raised in their petition. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act 2008 came into effect on 28 March 2008. The Government has put in place transitional arrangements to ensure a sensible and measured phasing in of a new workplace relations system based on the Government’s election commitments as set out in Forward with Fairness and the Forward with Fairness Policy Implementation Plan. Later this year, further legislation will be introduced into the Parliament to ensure that a new, fair and balanced workplace relations system is fully operational by 1 January 2010. A number of important Forward with Fairness election commitments, together with key provisions in the Transition to Forward with Fairness Act, cover the specific concerns raised by the petitioners. Rights for Australian workers who are unfairly dismissed The previous government’s Work Choices laws included an exemption from unfair dismissal protection for employees in businesses with 100 or fewer employees. The Government will ensure that all employees have protection from unfair dismissal but will also balance the needs of employers, particularly small business employers, to manage their workforce with a simpler, faster system for making and resolving unfair dismissal claims. A strong safety net of minimum awards and conditions The previous government’s changes to the workplace relations laws allowed individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), to undercut the award safety net. The Government, has already passed the Transition to Forward with Fairness Act, which does not allow any new AWAs to be made and has put in place a genuine no disadvantage test for all workplace agreements to provide better protection for employees. The benchmark for the new no-disadvantage test is the full range of entitlements in an earlier collective agreement or award. In the Government’s new workplace relations system the safety net will be in two parts. All Australian employees will be protected by a legislated safety net of 10 National Employment Standards (NES). On 16 June 2008, together with the Prime Minister, I released the final version of the proposed new NES after a period of extensive consultation. NES will ensure that all employees are protected by a strong safety net of fair minimum conditions that cannot be stripped away. Modern and simple awards will provide additional protection for award covered employees. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has already commenced award modernisation. An independent umpire to ensure fair wages and conditions and to settle disputes The Government has committed to establishing a new independent umpire to be called Fair Work Australia. Fair Work Australia will oversee the new workplace relations system and promote fairness and flexibility in Australian workplaces. It will be established as a one-stop-shop to provide employees and employers with information about their rights and responsibilities and will help them resolve workplace disputes and grievances. The right for employees to bargain collectively for decent wages and conditions Under the previous government’s Work Choices laws, even where a majority of employees at a workplace wanted to collectively bargain, their employer could simply refuse to collectively bargain with them. There is currently no legal obligation for an employer to sit down with employees to have a discussion about the working conditions and arrangements that apply at their workplace. Collective agreements based on bargaining at the level of the enterprise will be at the heart of the Government’s new workplace relations system. Where an employer refuses to bargain collectively with its employees, Fair Work Australia may determine the level of support for collective bargaining amongst employees in the workplace. If a majority of employees at the workplace want to bargain collectively, their employer will be required to bargain collectively with them in good faith. The right for workers to reject individual contracts which cut pay and conditions and undermine collective bargaining and union representation There will be no AWAs or any other statutory individual employment agreements in the new workplace relations system. The Government has already prevented the making of new AWAs during the transition to the Government’s new workplace relations system. Individual Transitional Employment Agreements may be made but are available only in limited circumstances and for a limited time to ensure a smooth transition to the new workplace relations system. The right to join a union and be represented by a union Freedom of association is a basic democratic right for all Australian workers. In the new workplace relations system, all employees will be free to decide whether or not to join a union. It will be unlawful to try to stop a worker from exercising free choice by threats, pressure, discrimination or victimisation. Employees will have the right to seek advice, assistance and representation from their union in the workplace. I trust this information on key aspects of the new workplace relations system is of assistance to the Standing Committee on Petitions. from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Ms Gillard, to a petition presented on 23 June by The Speaker (from 16 citizens) 6777 Dear Mrs Irwin Telecommunications issues Thank you for your representation dated 8 May 2008 regarding the concerns of residents of the Robertson electorate about Next G coverage and payphones. I appreciate the residents’ concerns in relation to this important issue and apologise for the delay in replying. Closure of Telstra’s CDMA network Following my decision in January to postpone the CDMA closure, Telstra responded quickly to put in place a rectification plan to address my concerns. Specific actions arising from Telstra’s rectification plan included: the establishment of a dedicated hotline to assist customers not receiving equivalent handheld coverage; an accreditation program for Telstra shops and other major stores selling Next G products to train staff to better assist customers, provide better customer information and ensure stock availability; the engagement of Telstra Coverage Advocates to contact and/or visit customers at their premises with regard to Next G issues; and proactive mobile health checks to assist Next G customers with high levels of call drop-outs. Telstra reported on 20 March 2008 detailing the effectiveness of the measures contained in its rectification plan and also provided supplementary information. I also considered stakeholder submissions, contacts from consumers and responses from state, territory and local governments. I notified Telstra on 15 April 2008 that I was satisfied it had sufficiently rectified the problems I identified in January. Telstra closed its CDMA network on 28 April 2008. Telstra operated its dedicated Next G hotline until 1 July 2008. The service is now available from Telstra’s complaint line on 12 51 11. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will monitor the Next G network call drop-out rates and congestion levels over the next year and report any problems to me. Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600 I Tel 02 6277 7480 I Fax 02 6273 41541 Email minister@dbcde.gov.au. It is important for customers to understand that different mobile phones have different capabilities and how each phone performs on the network is dependent on both the network coverage and the particular device. Telstra labels Next G handsets that it recommends for rural handheld coverage with a ‘blue tick’, to make it easier for customers to choose the right handset. Sensitivity also varies within the range of ‘blue tick’ handsets. CDMA customers need to do a ‘like for like’ upgrade by ensuring that, if they were using a car kit or external antenna with their CDMA handset, they use a car kit or external antenna with their Next G handset. I encourage consumers with Next G queries or difficulties with their Next G equipment and services to contact Telstra in the first instance. If consumers’ problems are not resolved by contacting Telstra’s hotline, they could contact the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the Department) by phoning freecall1800 883 488. Mobile phone coverage The Australian Government appreciates the importance of mobile telephony to Australians. However, the decision to provide mobile phone coverage is primarily a commercial matter for mobile phone carriers. In making the decision to extend coverage to a particular area, a mobile phone carrier will consider a range of factors, including site availability, cost structures, likely levels of demand from users and overall economic viability of the service. Telstra has advised it has no current plans to extend mobile phone coverage between Mangrove Mountain and Wisemans Ferry. One option for residents of the Robertson electorate may be to discuss their telecommunications needs with other mobile phone carriers, including drawing to carriers’ attention the potential users of the services in the area. Contact details for the major carriers are attached. It should be noted that it is not possible to obtain terrestrial mobile phone reception in all areas of Australia. There are a number of factors that can interfere with mobile reception and therefore affect a user’s ability to obtain or maintain a mobile phone signal at any given time or in any particular place. These factors include mountainous or hilly terrain, road cuttings, buildings, tunnels and electromagnetic energy from other sources. While not all potential sources of interference can be overcome, consumers’ service providers should be able to advise them about ways to minimise interference. One effective way to increase coverage, particularly along country highways and in rural locations, is to use a properly installed in-car kit with an external antenna. The most appropriate antenna may vary between networks, and prices vary according to the quality. An antenna’s performance depends on where it is fitted on a vehicle. To assist with maximising network performance and coverage, the antenna should be installed on the car roof. The roof provides sufficient height and stops the car from blocking the signal. These accessories can be readily obtained from mobile phone shops and dealers. In areas that are sparsely populated or have little passing traffic, the only commercially viable option for mobile phone services is via satellite. Satellite mobile phone services cover the entire Australian landmass and population and are available from a number of providers. Residents of the Robertson electorate may be eligible for assistance under the Government’s Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme (the Scheme) if they are unable to access terrestrial mobile phone networks. The subsidy provides up to $1000 for eligible applicants who live in areas without terrestrial mobile coverage, and up to $700 for eligible applicants who live in areas that have coverage, but spend significant periods in non-coverage areas. Information about the Scheme, along with application forms, is available on the website of the Department at www.dbcde.gov.aulsatphone.Aninformation kit can be obtained by contacting the Scheme administrator on free call 1800 674 058 or via email satphone@dbcde.gov.au. Public payphones The Universal Service Obligation (USO) provides that all people in Australia, wherever they live or work, should have reasonable access, on an equitable basis, to payphone services. Telstra, as the primary universal service provider, is responsible for meeting the USO. The Telstra Standard Marketing Plan (SMP) sets out how Telstra will meet its obligations under the USO in terms of installation, removal and relocation of payphones, as well as service quality and fault rectification standards. The SMP and information on Telstra’s payphones is available at www.telstra.com.aulpayphoneserviceslindex.htm. ACMA is responsible for monitoring Telstra’s compliance with its SMP. The criteria for the provision of payphones are specified in clause 3.8 of Telstra’s SMP. Telstra will provide and maintain payphones on an equitable basis considering all reasonable financial and siting implications. Telstra assesses requests for payphones on a case by case basis. While the siting criteria are flexible, Telstra has an obligation to provide payphones, even if they are unprofitable, within approximately: 1 km of residential communities (including caravan parks and holiday units) in cities and towns with low home phone connection; 40 km of small villages and towns (including holiday areas); 100 km of state or national parks, where there are permanent facilities and regular park staff visits; 250 km of small service centres on highways and major roads in rural and remote areas where there is adequate mobile service; 200 km of small service centres on highways and major roads in rural and remote areas where there is inadequate mobile service; and small remote communities, including Indigenous communities if as a general rule the community has a permanent population of more than 20 adult residents, or 50 people in total. According to Telstra’s payphone locator there are up to ten payphones within 40 km of the Mangrove Mountain region. These are predominantly located on the Pacific Highway and Wisemans Ferry Road. However, four of the payphone locations are directly located within areas of concern to the petitioners at: 1590 Pacific Highway, Peats Ridge; 3468 Wisemans Ferry Road, Somersby; Morgans Road, Marlow; and 10 Wisemans Ferry Road, Spencer. There are a further two locations in Wisemans Ferry itself at 2 Settlers Road and 2 Old Northern Road. Regional telecommunications review The residents of the Robertson electorate may be interested to know that the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee (the Committee) is conducting a review of the adequacy of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia. The outcomes from this review will play an important role in shaping future Government telecommunications policy, particularly for regional Australia. The Committee is due to report to the Government in August 2008, potentially identifying areas that the Government may consider for further action. The Committee held an extensive public meetings program throughout regional Australia to inform it of the views and experiences of consumers, businesses and other organisations in these areas. Contributions from a broad range of stakeholders will help the Committee deliver a report that reflects the views of regional Australia and provides meaningful advice to the Government. More information on this review can be found on the website at www.rtirc.gov.au or by phoning free call 1800 064 851. Thank you for bringing the Robertson electorate residents’ concerns to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance. from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to a petition presented on 19 March by Ms Neal (from 1070 citizens) 6780 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 concerning a petition on uranium mining at Olympic Dam. The proposal to expand the Olympic Dam mine requires my approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. My delegate determined on 8 November 2005 that the impacts of this proposal will need to be assessed by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This means that the potential impacts of the mine, including the impacts of radioactive waste material, will need to be rigorously examined in the EIS and subjected to review through a public comment period. The proposed development also triggers state legislation and requires approval from the South Australian Government. The Australian Government assessment is being undertaken in collaboration with the South Australian Government. Joint guidelines for the EIS were finalised in January 2006. The proponent, BHP Billiton, is responsible for the development of the EIS. Once the EIS has been developed, it will be released for public comment for a period of eight weeks. Its release and the call for public comments will be advertised. I encourage those who have signed the petition to make their views known through the formal review process when it occurs. In the meantime I have asked my Department to note the concerns in the petition for reference during the formal assessment process. from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 70 citizens) 6780 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 27 May 2008 concerning a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding Commonwealth funding for public schools. I apologise for the delay in responding. The Australian Government provides funding to both government and non-government schools as part of a funding partnership involving state and territory governments and parent communities. Under the existing funding arrangements, government schools are primarily resourced by state and territory governments with the Australian Government providing supplementary funding. The Government is the primary source of public funding for non-government schools. The Government will implement its election commitment to continue the existing funding arrangements for all schools for the next funding period (2009-2012) to provide funding certainty to schools. These arrangements will be reviewed with an open and transparent process anticipated to conclude in 2011. This review is intended to ensure that the strongest possible platform is built for long-term investment and improvement in educational outcomes beyond 2012, the year the next funding period concludes. At the same time, the Council of Australian Governments has agreed to develop a new plan for school reform. As part of this plan, governments will work together, and with the Catholic and independent sectors, to identify disadvantaged school communities regardless of the sector in which they operate or where they are located. The aim of this national approach is to focus additional resources to where the greatest impact and the most improvement in outcomes and school quality can be achieved so that every Australian child has access to a first-class education. Through its Education Revolution, the Australian Government has made a commitment to lift educational standards across all schools and provide funding on the basis of need. It aims to ensure that schools, particularly those in greatest need, are resourced so that children can achieve better outcomes and schools are better placed to meet the National Goals for Schooling in Australia. This commitment is made as part of a funding partnership involving state and territory governments, non-government school authorities and parent communities. In addition to the significant amounts of funding provided in general recurrent and capital grants for schools, the provision for broadband connection to all schools and the Education Tax Refund for parents, there are a range of new Australian Government initiatives providing additional resources to both government and non-government schools. In 2008-09 more than $813 million in additional funding will be provided by the Government for computers in secondary schools, trade training centres, investment in new shared school facilities and improvements in literacy and numeracy, languages and a national curriculum. The Government is also investing in a range of measures aimed at improving teacher quality, including prioritising teacher professional development in ICT and its integration into other key learning areas in the Australian Government Quality Teacher Program (AGQTP). In 2009, $11.25 million of AGQTP funds will underpin schools-based activities related to let professional development for teachers and school leaders. I trust this information is of assistance in responding to the terms of the petition. from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, to a petition presented on 23 June by The Speaker (from 162 citizens) 6781 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 17 March 2008 to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Stephen Smith MP, enclosing a petition to the House of Representatives about the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. The Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf. Australia is a strong advocate for human rights and raises human rights issues both bilaterally and through international organisations. The Australian Government works with the international community to encourage Bangladesh to observe internationally accepted standards of human rights. Consistent with this approach, the Australian Government regularly raises such issues with the Government of Bangladesh, through the Australian High Commission in Dhaka. To encourage a more comprehensive approach to human rights in Bangladesh, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Attorney-General’s Department recently hosted a delegation from the Bangladesh’s Law and Justice Ministry to advise on the creation of a national human rights institution in Bangladesh. DFAT has also met representatives of the Bangladesh community in Australia to discuss human rights issues of concern in Bangladesh. In the case of the events referred to in the petition, the Australian Government considers such matters should be dealt with by the Government of Bangladesh and notes that Bangladesh’s Foreign Adviser, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, has recently raised this issue with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. I should be grateful if you would inform the petitioners accordingly. from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephen Smith, to a petition presented on 23 June by The Speaker (from 104 citizens) 6782 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 26 June 2008 to the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, about the two petitions regarding funding approved by the previous government in the electorate of Makin, for the Tilley Reserve Building Refurbishment!Additions project (RP03296) and Harpers Field Development project (RP03256), under the Regional Partnerships program. The Minister has forwarded your letter to me as I have portfolio responsibility for regional development issues. As you may be aware, the Australian Government had to close the Regional Partnerships program in response to the Australian National Audit Office’s three-volume, 1,200-page report, which found that “the manner in which the program had been administered...had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration”. However, it was clear from discussions with various community organisations and local councils that many were led to believe that funding agreements had been finalised with the previous government. This has placed them in a difficult situation. I wrote to all not-for-profit and local government organisations with an approved and uncontracted Regional Partnerships project, which included the Tilley Reserve Building Refurbishment/Additions project and Harpers Field Development project, offering them the opportunity to finalise their contract with the Commonwealth subject to the following conditions: the project still meets the Regional Partnerships program criteria; money had already been spent or commitments entered into in good faith based on the advice from the previous government; the conditions of the original funding offer can be met; finalise contract negotiations and sign a contract by 31 July 2008; and projects that involve construction or require a tender process have until 31 December 2008 to commence the project and/or have the tender process completed. All other projects must commence within six weeks of contract execution. A total of 86 projects were offered the opportunity to meet the conditions. Following advice from the Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that the projects met the relevant conditions I wrote to Mr Murray, General Manager of Infrastructure and Mr Burke, Manager of Property Assets from the City of Tea Tree Gully on 29 May 2008 offering them the opportunity to finalise their contract negotiations with the Commonwealth. Contract negotiations for both these projects have now been completed and funding agreements (contracts) for both projects have been signed. I trust this information addresses the requirements of the committee. from the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, Mr Gray, to a petition presented on 26 May by The Speaker (from 4576 citizens) 6782 6782 20:38:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Tonight marks another step in the evolution of the way in which petitions are dealt with in this place. I am delighted that the House agreed to a sessional order in June providing for petitions to be presented by the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions and also allocating 10 minutes for the presentation of petitions and responses, as well as comments on petitions by the chair and one other member of the committee. Over the coming months I look forward to bringing to the attention of the House a number of aspects of the petitioning process and the petitions we have received. Given the large number of petitions and the significant number of ministerial responses presented, time is at a premium this evening. Therefore, the committee agreed that on this occasion I would use the time to speak about the operations of the new petitions Committee and the work it has been doing. It is our intention on future occasions that all members of the committee will have an opportunity to speak about petition matters of interest to them. Before looking at the work of the Petitions committee over the last six months, I would like to place on record the committee’s appreciation for the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in the previous parliament. That committee took a long hard look at how petitions were being dealt with and made a number of recommendations to try and reinvigorate the petitioning process. One of those recommendations, of course, was the establishment of a committee to respond to petitions on behalf of the House. I would also like to commend the government for supporting the establishment of the petitions committee. As members would be aware, petitioning is a very practical and direct way in which the community brings its concerns to the House. A lot of time and effort goes into collecting signatures and gathering support on particular issues, and we are very keen for petitions to have the maximum impact possible. To this end the committee has been very active in trying to educate not only the public but also our colleagues about the new arrangements for petitions. The committee is happy to provide advice to people on the technical aspects of what is required for a petition to be presented. Information is also available from the committee website, and brochures are available for use in electorate offices. I would like to say a few words about ministerial responses to petitions. In the past all petitions were sent to the relevant minister but there was no formal requirement for a response—and in fact only three ministerial responses to petitions were received over a 10-year period. Now, under the new arrangements, there is an expectation that ministers will respond within 90 days of the petition being presented. As you will see from the list of responses presented to the House this evening, most ministers have been very diligent in meeting that time frame. I commend the way in which ministers have engaged in this process. The responses have been informative and provide valuable feedback to petitioners, even if the response may not always be what the petitioner might have wanted. Today is also significant in that we held our first public hearing in Canberra this morning to discuss a number of petitions in more depth and provide an opportunity for an update on responses. This information will similarly be publicly available and provided to petitioners. The committee will also be holding hearings in the states and territories, speaking to petitioners and again providing a forum for their input into the policy development process. I have been very pleased with the first six months of operations of the committee and thank all of the members for their enthusiasm and hard work. We have embarked on an inquiry into electronic petitions, and that will complete the range of recommendations arising from the Procedure Committee inquiry. I look forward to briefing the House on other work of the committee on future occasions. 6783 Bills R3056 6783 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Nelson. 6784 20:41:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —The Emergency Assistance Fund for the Lower Lakes and Coorong Region of South Australia Bill 2008 seeks to establish the Lower Lakes and Coorong Assistance Scheme, which will provide $50 million in emergency assistance to the Lower Lakes and Coorong region communities. The bill requires the responsible minister to determine written guidelines for operation of the scheme. In order to develop guidelines for the scheme, the minister must consult with the local people, local businesses and local communities of the region. This consultation will determine how to allocate the $50 million, ensuring that this assistance is for local people and driven by local people. The $50 million assistance scheme will provide real and immediate assistance for local people, businesses, communities and wildlife to deal with the ongoing record low levels of water in the region. The local farmers can no longer access water for domestic and stock purposes, let alone irrigation, and many in the viticulture industry have been similarly affected. Boat ramps, jetties and moorings are stranded, posing significant challenges and hardship to the fishing and boating industries. There is a flow-on effect to the businesses dependent on farmers and the boating industry, such as machinery and boat dealerships, boat builders and repairs, to mention but a few. There has been a substantial fall in visitors to the area, and consequently reduced cash flows to small businesses and local communities. Local wildlife is dying due to the associated impacts of the lack of water and declining water quality, such as the Murray turtles, which are being attacked by saltwater tube worms. I have seen all of this firsthand and I, along with the opposition, have been calling for financial assistance for the local communities since my visit to the region in early April. These are communities who have for generation after generation provided the backbone of the region’s economy, who have asked for little to nothing from the Australian people and the Australian taxpayer. It is time to give them something back. This assistance could be used for the carting of water for domestic and stock use; assistance to establish a rescue plan for the Murray turtles; assistance to schoolchildren who have been trying to save the turtles; a boat lift; assistance for small business in the form of rent relief, or in developing new markets or products and services; and assistance for retraining and skills development. It is time for the Prime Minister and his government to stop watching and start acting. They can do this by supporting this bill and supporting $50 million of real and immediate action for the lower lakes and Coorong communities. Unfortunately, wall-to-wall Labor has meant wall-to-wall failure to take decisive action on the Murray-Darling Basin and on the lower lakes and the Coorong. Through a process of committees, reviews and political game-playing, Labor have stalled for nine long months, while the viability of the region slowly ebbs away. The Prime Minister and those opposite need to support this $50 million assistance fund, and the Prime Minister needs to immediately convene an emergency COAG meeting to sign a fresh intergovernmental agreement that refers state and territory power over the Murray-Darling Basin to the Commonwealth, as the coalition first proposed in January 2007. After all of the hot air, after all of the talk, we still in Australia in 2008—nine months into the Rudd government—do not have full Commonwealth control of the Murray-Darling Basin system. There is much else that the Prime Minister and Senator Wong need to do, not least of all to release the urgent advice on options for the lower lakes and Coorong region, which the minister sought on 18 June and yet it has not been released to the Australian community. In the interests of the Murray-Darling Basin communities, the environment and particularly the lower lakes and Coorong region communities, it is time to stop watching; it is time to act. It is time to put $50 million into the lower lakes and Coorong communities. It is time to make real decisions that deliver water, relief and much-needed assistance to these men and women, who are struggling in the midst of an environmental, economic and social disaster. (Time expired) Bill read a first time. 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 6785 Committees 6785 6785 6785 20:46:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports of the committee: Report 411: Progress on equipment acquisition and financial reporting in Defence; and Report 412: Audit reports reviewed during the 41st parliament. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —I will confine my comments to report 411. Defence, the largest of all Australian government departments by budget and personnel volumes, is an immense and complex portfolio. Over the last decade it has been the subject of a great deal of public and parliamentary scrutiny, with good reason. At the same time as it has been the beneficiary of generous funding, Defence has suffered from major deficiencies in its financial reporting and in its capacity to acquire major equipment both on time and on budget. Defence has been under intense pressure to make effective changes. Two significant Defence related reports were published in 2003. The first, a Senate committee report into materiel acquisition and management in Defence, provided a snapshot of progress since the restructure of the Defence Materiel Organisation. The second, the Defence procurement review, or the Kinnaird review, recommended a number of important reforms to processes around developing and maintaining capability. The year 2003 also saw the initiation of a comprehensive financial remediation program to address Defence’s financial management challenges. In March 2006, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit decided it was time to take stock of the progress that has been made by Defence since those important reviews. To that end, it resolved to conduct an inquiry into financial reporting and equipment acquisition at the Department of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation. The committee received 20 written submissions, including from the Department of Defence, Defence industry representatives as well as private individuals with an interest in the inquiry. The committee took evidence at public hearings during 2006 and 2007 and two inspections were conducted at Qantas Airways Ltd to compare stores and procurement management processes. The evidence suggested that Defence has undertaken a substantial amount of work to remediate its financial management practices. Likewise, both Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation have worked hard to implement the recommendations of the Kinnaird review. The committee commends the commitment of Defence’s senior leadership teams to driving these reforms through the department. However, there is more work to be done. The committee found three key areas were still deficient. First, while it is clear the Kinnaird review recommendations have been implemented, it is not clear if the intent of the reforms is adequately reflected in performance outcomes. The intent of the Kinnaird reforms was to make the DMO a more businesslike, outcomes focused organisation so that optimum capability was realised. The extent to which this has occurred can be best determined through careful monitoring of acquisition projects outcomes. Second, given the significant investment Defence has made in reforming its processes and practices, it is imperative that Defence develops techniques to evaluate the outcomes of its reform agenda, including documenting lessons learned. These techniques need to include creating and applying metrics to gauge the impact of the Kinnaird reforms on cultural change across the department. Embedding best practice into ongoing performance remains a major challenge. Linking these first two elements is the final area of concern—that of improving transparency and accountability in capability procurement across Defence— (Time expired) 6786 6786 20:50:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, I present the committee’s report entitled Down Under: greenhouse gas storage—review of the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr ADAMS —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, I have the pleasure of presenting our report entitled Down Under: greenhouse gas storage—review of the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill. This report assesses the proposed legislation introduced into the parliament by the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, the Hon. Martin Ferguson MP, on 18 June 2008. The bill provides for the storage of greenhouse gas substances in offshore Commonwealth waters. Through the titles and rights established by the bill, proponents will set up commercial operations to permanently store captured carbon dioxide, and as such abate a proportion of Australia’s emissions. The committee have reviewed the proposed legislation and largely find in favour of it. With the recommendations we suggest, the committee believe that it will be important, successful legislation. It will provide a much-needed mitigation option for Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions while also allowing for the continued exploitation of our coal reserves—so important to our energy security. The proposed management of interactions between greenhouse gas storage proponents and pre-existing petroleum titleholders was of particular interest to the committee during its deliberations. The potential for conflict between these two parties was identified, especially with regard to the protection afforded pre-existing petroleum titleholders, which could potentially frustrate the establishment of greenhouse gas storage activities in some areas. It was felt that, while the bill largely strikes an appropriate balance between these two key parties, further improvements could be made. As such, the committee recommends in this report that the best solution would be for the legislation to include a clause to provide the responsible Commonwealth minister with the power to direct both parties to come to commercial agreements in good faith. The cost of establishing greenhouse gas storage operations is likely to be vast. It will require new technology, specialist expertise and significant time frames in order to become effective. As such, the committee has recommended financial incentives from the government to both promote investment in and encourage uptake of this important new industry. Also, to encourage the early injection of carbon dioxide, the committee recommends in this report that those proponents who can demonstrate an available carbon dioxide stream be favoured for acreage release. Through its inquiry process the committee also identified the large and possibly vital role the petroleum industry is likely to play in the uptake of greenhouse gas storage in offshore Commonwealth waters. The petroleum companies currently hold most of the technical knowledge and expertise required for the establishment of greenhouse gas storage. They are also current tenement holders in offshore Commonwealth waters. Therefore the committee has recommended that petroleum titleholders be offered a chance to combine a greenhouse gas storage title with their production or exploration permits. The issue of long-term liability was also identified by the committee as highly significant. Due to the extensive time frames over which the carbon dioxide is to be stored, the question of liability is particularly complex. The bill as it stands is silent on liability, leaving it entirely to common law. The committee recommend in our report that long-term liability be transferred from the operator to the government after site closure conditions have been met, as this is likely to act as an incentive for greenhouse gas storage proponents to maintain high management standards as well as create greater investment certainty. The committee congratulates the minister for this pioneering legislation and acknowledges that it sets the scene for Australia to lead the world in this new technology, which has great potential to make deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions while continuing to support our energy security. The committee supports the proposed legislation and believes that it provides an appropriate groundwork for the establishment of a national greenhouse gas storage industry in Australia. I would like to express, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to all those who participated in the inquiry; to the staff of the secretariat who were involved in preparing the report Bill Pender, John Miller and Sophia Nicolle; and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, the member for Braddon, for your involvement and commitment to getting this good work done. To my deputy chair, the member for Hume, I thank you for all the work you did as well, during a difficult time for you. On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House. 6787 20:55:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 0 Mr SCHULTZ —I rise in support of the Chair of the Standing Com-mittee on Primary Industries and Resources to speak on the review of the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008. The committee’s report, entitled Down Under: greenhouse gas storage, has made some recommendations to the draft legislation to promote the legislation’s effectiveness. Recommendations include refinements to: ensure that the extraction of petroleum and the storage of carbon do not preclude other activity occurring nearby; provide the minister with the power to insist that, where respective titles overlap, the parties negotiate in good faith; ensure that all regulations and guidelines under this proposed legislation are released to industry and the public as a matter of urgency well before the legislation is passed; and establish a process for the transfer of long-term liability from a greenhouse gas operator to the government, after strict site closure criteria are met, in order to create business and investment certainty. This bill will establish a new range of offshore titles providing for the transportation by pipeline, and injection and storage in geological formations, of carbon dioxide and potentially other greenhouse gases. The Offshore Petroleum Act 2006, as amended by the bill, will continue to apply only in the Commonwealth offshore jurisdiction. The new titles will therefore be located in the area between the outer limits of the state and Northern Territory coastal waters and the outer limit of the Australian continental shelf. A licence will authorise the injection and storage of a ‘greenhouse gas substance’. This will initially mean carbon dioxide, together with any substances incidentally derived from the capture or injection and storage processes, including added chemical detection agents to assist the tracing of the injected substance. There is a power by regulation to extend the meaning of ‘greenhouse gas substance’ to include other substances. This regulation-making power is not expected to be used until such time as the protocol to the London dumping convention is amended to permit geological storage of those other substances. Under the proposed legislative model, the Australian government will be primarily responsible for administering the regulation in Commonwealth waters, rather than the current joint authority arrangements applying to the petroleum industry. The responsible Commonwealth minister will have ultimate regulatory responsibility. This approach is consistent with industry’s preference for a consistent and harmonised national approach and will improve the efficiency of project approvals and minimise administrative duplication. The bill establishes three categories of ‘storage formation’, with increasingly specific descriptors that correspond to the titleholder’s improving level of knowledge about the formation: (a) a ‘potential greenhouse gas storage formation’, (b) an ‘eligible greenhouse gas storage formation’ and (c) an ‘identified greenhouse gas storage formation’, which is an ‘eligible greenhouse gas storage formation’ that is declared by the minister to be an ‘identified greenhouse gas storage formation’. An injection licence authorises the injection and storage of a substance into an ‘identified greenhouse gas storage formation’. Once injection operations cease permanently in an injection licence area, the licensee must apply for a site-closing certificate. This triggers the commencement of the site-closing period, during which the injection licensee will be required to carry out a work program corresponding to a petroleum decommissioning process, but potentially with additional requirements. The application must be accompanied by a written report setting out the licensee’s modelling of the behaviour of the GHG and relevant information and analysis; the licensee’s assessment of the expected migration pathways and short- and long-term consequences of the migration; and the licensee’s suggestions for post site-closing monitoring and verification. These processes may take months or years. As is the case with petroleum decommissioning, the injection licensee will be required to plug wells, repair damage to the seabed and remove or otherwise deal with property and equipment. The minister may refuse to give a certificate if the substance is not behaving as predicted or there is a significant risk of a significant adverse impact on other potential resources. Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I support this acknowledgement and thank all of the people involved in putting this report together, including your considerable learned contribution. (Time expired) 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—The time allocated for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Lyons wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr ADAMS (Lyons) 21:00:00 —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 and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Does the member for Lyons wish to move a motion to refer the matter to the Main Committee? 6789 6789 Mr ADAMS (Lyons) 21:01:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 6789 6789 6789 21:01:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled The way forward: inquiry into the role of the National Capital Authority, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —The committee, through this inquiry, has examined the current planning arrangements with a view to reducing red tape and confusing duplication but at the same time ensuring that the Commonwealth has a direct and enduring role in the future planning of Canberra, the nation’s capital. The committee focused on the administration of the National Capital Plan, the governance arrangements of the National Capital Authority, the level of oversight required to maintain the highest standards of design in the Australian Capital Territory, opportunities for greater cooperation with ACT government planning authorities, and the promotion of the national capital. The committee believes that the National Capital Authority should continue to exist but is in need of structural renewal. The committee has proposed that the governance arrangements be changed to give more independence to the National Capital Authority board commensurate with its status as a statutory authority. Persons appointed to the board should have qualifications or expertise relevant to a field related to the National Capital Authority’s functions. Transparency and accountability to the parliament would be enhanced through the chairperson of the board appearing twice a year at public hearings before this committee. The most important feature of the report is the future planning framework. The principles and policies that define the Commonwealth’s interest in the national capital can be enhanced by their inclusion in the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act. The National Capital Plan is in need of updating to respond to the modern challenges of climate change and ecological sustainability as well as providing for more effective consideration of future transport needs. In this way, the Commonwealth continues to set the framework for future planning. The committee recommends the development of a single integrated planning document which comprises the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan, with agreed definitions and clear geographic boundaries between the two plans. Where possible, these boundaries should be based on the objective that land administration be aligned with planning jurisdiction. In this way, proponents, stakeholders and the community would deal with just one planning authority. There was a great deal of goodwill expressed by both the National Capital Authority and the ACT government to achieve such an alignment of the respective plans, as contained in their submissions. However, it became clear that there were many important details to be ironed out. Many witnesses and submitters to the inquiry were not able to express a view or contribute to the discussion about the proposals because the inquiry represented the first public exposure of the ideas. The committee recommends a working group comprising the National Capital Authority and the ACT Planning and Land Authority, or ACTPLA, should prepare detailed proposals of an integrated, cooperative approach which would be considered as part of a broader package of updating the National Capital Plan and any legislative amendment. It is envisaged that this process could take around 18 months. The committee, therefore, has proposed that, as an interim measure, in order to resolve planning duplication the Commonwealth consider amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act to permit the National Capital Authority and ACTPLA to negotiate a memorandum of understanding to delegate the planning jurisdiction for territory land which has designated status. The National Capital Authority and ACTPLA will also have the opportunity to receive advice on a range of planning matters through the creation of the National Capital Consultative Council, or NCCC. The NCCC would consist of representatives from the Commonwealth and ACT governments, the community and business and be co-chaired by the responsible Commonwealth minister and the ACT Chief Minister. In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I thank all groups, organisations and individuals who contributed to this inquiry. The interest in, passion for and commitment to their national capital by so many Australians was inspiring and uplifting throughout the course of the inquiry. 6790 21:06:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, in the apparently very short time that I have— 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Yes. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —and I am sorry about that—I just want to note my participation in this inquiry and I want to thank the chair, Senator Lundy, and Senator Gary Humphries, who, along with other members of the committee, put a great deal of effort into coming up with a bipartisan report. There is no doubt that, at the beginning of this process, this inquiry was seen to some degree to be controversial within the ACT. However, Canberra is a very well-planned city, one of very few in the world that were planned from their inception. Of course, the Commonwealth had full planning responsibilities up until 1989. Self-government in 1989 has meant that since then we have had a dual planning process. It was very timely that this inquiry came along at the point that it did because, after 20 years, we really needed to look at dual planning, at duplication, at the removal of red tape and, most importantly, at the governance and administration issues that affect the NCA and their ability to carry out their work. I want to thank the staff from the committee secretariat for the work that they did in pulling this report together and the wonderful work they did in collaborating with the members along the way. And I want to thank the members of the Canberra community who, through organisations or individually, took the time to put in submissions and to appear at public hearings for this very important report. I suggest that anybody who has an interest in the ACT and Canberra as the national capital should read this report to understand as fully as possible the importance of a really good, proficient, proper planning process so that not only Canberra as a community but, more importantly in this regard, Canberra as the national capital has every possibility of continuing to be one of the most highly regarded planned cities and communities in the world. The range of information and advice that the committee was able to take really meant that we could come up with a hard-worked-at but good product in the end. As I said, this is a bipartisan report. Its 22 recommendations go to the thrust of governance and planning work within the NCA, as well as to an understanding of the relationship between the federal role in the NCA and the ACT role through the ACT planning role. As I said, we have made 22 recommendations. One point that needs to be made is that the committee found that the NCA has endured financial cuts that went far too deep, and that this has meant that the NCA did not have the ability to discharge their duties in ways that would assist in reducing red tape or to help make the organisation more effective and more role focused. I want to particularly make that point. That was the finding of the committee after hearing the evidence and listening to a broad range of opinions within the Canberra community that the NCA should be able to do its work. I am pleased that the recommendation is that the NCA will remain. It will have a slightly different focus in the way it is structured. And the Commonwealth is, by this report, suggesting that it has a continuing role in planning as well in the national capital. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for her goodwill. 6791 6791 6791 21:10:00 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, Statutory Oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I want to begin by thanking all the committee members for their hard work and effort in making this report a reality. I also want to welcome the new members to the committee, Senator Helen Coonan, Senator Mark Arbib and Senator Gavin Marshall, and to thank the departing members, Senator Grant Chapman, Senator Andrew Murray, Senator Linda Kirk and Senator Ruth Webber for all of their hard work on the committee over many years. I also want to thank the secretariat, Mr Geoff Dawson, Mr Andrew Bomm and Ms Laurie Cassidy for all their hard work and effort in all the work that the committee does. The report covers a number of issues relating to ASIC’s regulatory responsibilities. These include their regulation of financial markets, ASIC’s recent strategic review, their continuing response to property investment scheme collapses, financial planner issues and banking and credit regulation. In particular in relation to financial market regulation, a topic of some great attention in recent times, share market volatility has brought a lot of attention to short selling and margin lending practices, and whether ASIC is monitoring these issues adequately. ASIC told the committee that they had issued public warnings about false and misleading rumours on share trading, and recommended improved disclosure rules on short selling, which the government has agreed to. The committee has encouraged ASIC to maintain greater cooperation with the ASX to crack down more effectively on insider trading and market manipulation. ASIC is in the process of making some changes to the organisation following its recent strategic review. The committee supports these restructuring plans. They are aimed at making ASIC more responsive to emerging regulatory challenges by better understanding the markets they regulate and taking a more far-sighted and less reactive approach. This is to be achieved by reordering priorities and shifting resources to where they are most needed. ASIC told the committee that they would seek to meet their objectives within the existing budgetary allocation, but may need increased funding if they are given additional regulatory responsibilities. ASIC has also put a number of measures in place to reduce the chances of another Westpoint-style property investment scheme collapse along with a range of others that took place at that time. These include tougher restrictions on debenture advertising, requiring issuers to disclose against eight benchmarks on an ‘if not why not’ basis, and posting issuers’ disclosure documents on their website. It is encouraging to see ASIC giving this issue the serious attention it deserves, though it has been tardy in doing so in the past, and something that I know consumers will be very appreciative to see change. In terms of financial planners, a number of issues relating to financial planners were discussed with ASIC, such as the compulsory professional indemnity insurance for planners which has been introduced, and ASIC told the committee that the availability of insurance cover in the marketplace has so far been adequate. The adequacy of compensation available to investors under the Financial Industry Complaints Service was again raised. ASIC suggested that the limit should be raised from $150,000 to $280,000. ASIC has now also responded to the committee’s requests to conduct another shadow-shopping survey on superannuation advice from financial planners. In our view it should not have taken so long, but will now be conducted in the 2009-10 financial year, and the committee asked ASIC a range of questions around that. In the area of banking and credit regulation, the government’s green paper on financial services and credit regulation posed a number of queries about the effect it will have on ASIC and a number of options. Finally, reverse mortgages were again raised with ASIC. They told the committee that although there had been few complaints to the regulator about them, likely problems with these products have yet to emerge. But the committee believes that any exposure ASIC can give to this issue in the mainstream press would also be beneficial. 6792 21:15:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator, and I rise to speak to the recent ASIC report. ASIC, of course, is an independent Commonwealth government body set up to administer the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, which requires them to improve the performance of the financial system and the entities within it. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services held a public inquiry on 18 June, which included a range of discussions with respect to ASIC’s regulatory responsibilities. Five key areas were covered. The first was the regulation of financial markets, and particularly of issues relating to short selling and margin loans. ASIC informed the committee that it was working with the ASX to hasten action regarding alleged misconduct within and by the ASX. Questions still surround the effectiveness of ASIC, especially regarding margin lending, directors’ compliance in letting the market know about their margin lends, short selling, share loaning, disclosure and, of course, targeted short selling to cover margin calls and the manipulation of the market to cover such calls. Secondly, ASIC shared its strategic review, including the next three to five years. It will focus on better understanding the stock market, looking further ahead to assess risk, better explaining its actions, getting clearer priorities and making a range of changes to ensure this occurs—all of which the committee supports. Thirdly, ASIC explained its response to a recent property investment scheme collapse. It responded by implementing more stringent measures to protect consumers, focusing on better disclosure and improved advertising standards for issuers of unlisted and underrated debentures. Whilst this is applauded, it is important that parliament understands that ASIC has been slow to act. The committee is looking forward to ASIC taking a more strategic role in protecting investors in the future. The fourth area that was covered related to the regulation of financial planners and the introduction of professional indemnity insurance for negligent advice. Compulsory PI insurance for financial planners has been introduced, although concerns remain over the adequacy of cover that will be available in the insurance market. From 1 July this year until 1 July 2010, licensees must hold a minimum standard of cover. This is pleasing, and the committee looks forward to continued ASIC oversight in this area. Lastly, the fifth issue raised by ASIC concerned banking and credit regulation and the implementation of the government’s green paper proposals. The government’s green paper on financial services and credit regulation has outlined options for a federal takeover of consumer credit regulations. The options include a federal takeover of the regulation of all credit products; regulating mortgages and leaving consumer credit to the states; or maintaining the status quo. The transfer of regulatory control will require the states’ agreement. But the fact that this discussion is being had is an indictment of the Labor states; they have failed spectacularly in their oversight task in this area. If this is indicative of what wall-to-wall Labor can produce, I cringe for the future of regulatory and financial oversight in the country. I look forward to the committee’s further oversight of ASIC and especially to ASIC’s oversight to deal with the issues of short selling and margin loans. The committee will continue to provide oversight of ASIC. 6793 Personal Explanations 6793 21:19:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Does the honourable member believe he has been misrepresented? 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I do. 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would recall that earlier in the chamber today, after question time, I made a personal explanation in relation to certain matters included in articles by Mr Glenn Milne in papers of the Murdoch press. I believe that what I said at that time was completely accurate. I understand that Senator Hutchins has made a personal explanation in the other place which tends in some respects to differ from my version of what actually happened during the period in question. History might judge me to have a flawed recollection, but I just want the House to know that the recollection I enunciated earlier was an honest recollection. It was a recollection to the best of my belief. I am certainly regretful if anyone has been upset by my explanation, but I just want to reassure the House that, even though Senator Hutchins has a different recollection—of certain elements, not all elements—of the matter in question, that my recollection as expressed to the House is honest and genuine. Nobody is infallible—I am not the Pope—but the fact is that— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have made your point about where you have been misrepresented. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —The fact is that my recollection as expressed to the House is to the best of my ability. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, you have repeated that. Thank you. 6794 Private Members' Business 6794 6794 21:20:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I move: That the House: recognises the strategic importance of India to 21st century global geo-politics; and encourages the Australian Government to reverse its short-sighted decision to cancel Australia’s uranium sales to India. Tonight I want to speak about the greatness that is India, a country of profound importance to Australia. Before I continue with my contribution in the parliament tonight, I want to acknowledge the Honorary Consul of India in Brisbane, Professor Sarva-Daman Singh, who very kindly invited me to the 61st anniversary celebrations of India’s independence that were held in the Ryan electorate. Professor Sarva-Daman Singh is a constituent of Ryan and a very distinguished Ryan resident. He is very learned and works at the University of Queensland, where his reputation is very significant. I also want to take the opportunity to thank and endorse my friend the member for Mitchell. I know that he has a very large number of constituents of Indian descent in his electorate. I am sure that they will continue to support him for his strong representations on behalf of the Indian community in the Mitchell electorate. India is a country rich in culture and tradition. This is a country of over one billion people. This is a country that is the world’s largest democracy. This is a nuclear power. This is a country strategically located in South Asia. India holds memberships of international councils, including the UN, the Commonwealth, the WTO and the East Asia Summit. This is a country whose economy is growing. Mr Singh, the Prime Minister of India, in 2007 said of his country: Today, India is very different from the India of 1991. It is now a vibrant market-place. Our entrepreneurs are aggressively investing overseas ... We have a US$700 billion economy that is growing at 7–8% ... So, clearly, this is a country that is on the move. This is a country that matters today in global politics, but it will matter even more in the foreign policy decisions of all countries in the decades ahead. Indeed, India is a country that will play its part in shaping the geopolitical landscape and architecture of the 21st century. Therefore, as the federal member for Ryan—having a very good relationship with the hundreds and hundreds of Ryan constituents of Indian descent and certainly having a deep interest in the views of the Indian community—I want to say very clearly on the record here in the House of Representatives that I am certainly for India, and Australia must certainly be for India. The Howard government was certainly for India, with its decision to enter into an agreement last August to sell it Australian uranium. The Rudd government makes much of its international expertise and its vision, but it is the Rudd government that cancelled the agreement forged by the Howard government. The Rudd government must now state clearly and publicly whether it believes that Australia should sell our uranium to India. In a positive move—I want to acknowledge it as a positive move—the Foreign minister, Mr Smith, indicated at the August 21-22 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group that Australia would support the deal. If Australia had opposed India at the IAEA or the NSG—where, because we have the world’s largest reserves of uranium, we are a significant voice—it would have been a savage blow to the Australia-India relationship. But, as we now know, most regrettably, on 24 August, the 45-member NSG refused to lift its 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India. Why is this important? It is important because, under the Nuclear Suppliers Group rules, all nuclear trade with India is banned. Critically, uranium sales to India would allow it to develop its civilian energy capacity. This, of course, would help combat global warming by allowing the world’s largest democracy to develop zero-emissions polluting nuclear energy. Notwithstanding the collective decision of the NSG, the next step for the Rudd government is to reverse its ideological opposition to selling uranium to India, and I call on the Rudd government to do this. Supplying uranium to India and helping it to move more to nuclear energy would be the single greatest course of action that this country could take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world’s largest democracy. It seems, however, that the Rudd government is stubborn and implacable; it remains ideologically opposed to uranium sales to India. (Time expired) 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Is the motion seconded? 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —I second the motion. 6795 21:25:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The rise of Asia, in particular China and India, is one of the defining features of the 21st century. It is an exciting development for Australia, for the region and for the world. India has turned outwards and is engaging at an intensity not seen in the second half of the last century. Although India still faces many challenges, its liberal democracy, free press and independent judiciary as well as vibrant civil society give enormous reassurance that it can overcome the challenges that it faces. What we are seeing is remarkable. The commercial genius of Indian entrepreneurs is being released, with stunning results. India has established rates of economic growth of seven to eight per cent per annum. One can only applaud this incredible transformation that we are watching unfold: the return of India to the centre of global industry and commerce. India’s rise will inevitably make it a strategic power. It has begun to focus on Australia’s area of traditional diplomatic interest, East Asia, as a market and as a key area for its security interests. Australia welcomes India’s rise and its greater interest in East Asia. The government has stated publicly that it supports India’s permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council as part of the United Nations reform. We welcomed India as a founding member of the East Asian Summit and we will support India’s membership of APEC when the moratorium ends in 2010. We are moving to steadily strengthen our defence cooperation with India. Australia has also made as a priority the raising of bilateral relations with India to a new, higher level. Both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have hosted their Indian counterparts. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to visit India later this year, and other senior ministers are likely to visit over the coming months. Australia has also been invited to be an observer in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, SARC, which is a clear indication of our growing standing in India and in its region. The government is committed to taking the relationship to a new, higher level and we are determined to bring it to the front rank of our bilateral partnerships. Perhaps I could say something now about uranium, the second point raised in this motion. The member for Ryan has clearly failed to understand the important responsibility that Australia bears in holding the world’s largest reserve, of uranium. It is incumbent on this nation to act responsibly as a secure supplier of energy resources to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to lead by example in the application of strict nuclear safeguards to uranium exports. This government strongly supports the cause of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In line with this support, it is this government’s policy to supply uranium only to those countries which are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and with which Australia has concluded a bilateral safeguards agreement. This has been a longstanding position of the Australian government. It is worth remembering that, as long ago as 1976, in considering the development of uranium deposits in the Northern Territory, the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry under Justice Fox considered the complex issue of ensuring that adequate safeguards existed against diversion of uranium exports to weapons making. In his report, Justice Fox recommended: No sales of Australian uranium should take place to any country not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Export should be subject to the fullest and most effective safeguards agreements, and be supported by fully adequate back-up agreements applying to the entire civil nuclear industry in the country supplied ... It is worth remembering that this recommendation was accepted by the then Fraser government. India is not a party to the NPT and, on this basis, Australia will not supply uranium to India. This is a policy of principle. It is a longstanding policy. It is not directed specifically at India, but it is important that we approach this issue with consistency. Australia’s influence in the international arena is dependent on our credibility—we must behave in accordance with our stated aims. To do otherwise would undermine our credibility and risk Australia’s standing in the region. 6796 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 6796 6796 21:30:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —Tomorrow, some of our pre-eminent researchers and medical practitioners will come to Parliament House to continue a dialogue about diabetes, which builds on the Futures Forum held in this parliament last year. It is therefore timely to talk about one of the serious complications of diabetes: diabetic foot syndrome. Recently, I had the benefit of visiting Berlin and Hamburg to examine the German government’s plan to trial KCI Medical’s topical negative pressure treatment. This issue is very relevant following a report from Access Economics on 22 August 2008, which revealed that the obesity epidemic is costing Australia $58 billion. We know that obesity is a leading cause of type 2 diabetes. There are many health complications for those diagnosed with diabetes and one of them is diabetic foot syndrome, which can lead to limb amputations. In fact, the International Diabetes Foundation estimates that, every 30 seconds, one person somewhere in the world loses a limb from amputation due to diabetic sores or ulcers. This issue requires urgent attention. Thanks to companies such as KCI, much headway has been made in treating diabetic foot syndrome. This treatment benefits diabetics as well as bedridden patients and others with lesions that will not heal unaided. Diabetic foot syndrome is a risk amongst patients with type 2 diabetes—diabetes mellitus or sugar diabetes as it is commonly known—and that risk increases where they also have peripheral neuropathy and/or peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Such patients have an increased risk of amputation resulting from diabetic foot syndrome. Foot lesions affect more than 10 per cent of patients with diabetes mellitus at some point in their life and are amongst the most dreaded complications of this disease. They can cause prolonged periods of immobility and discomfort. In fact, some never heal and some are life-threatening. Year-after-year in Australia, one in every 200 diabetics loses a leg. The cost of foot ulcerations to the individual and to society is considerable. The aetiology and progression of foot lesions in diabetics requires careful management. During my visit to Berlin and Hamburg, I was able to hear firsthand from experts in the field that a comprehensive disease management program requiring all diabetic patients to undergo a foot examination, including neuropathy and pulse status checks at least once a year, reduces the risk of complications leading to amputation. Patients at risk also have a shoe-wear check on a quarterly basis. Complementing its disease management program for diabetic foot syndrome, the German ministry has agreed to a three-year trial of KCI’s topical negative pressure treatment. This treatment is a vacuum-assisted closure for diabetic wounds. From discussions during my visit to Germany, both in Berlin and Hamburg, there is strong support for the use of topical negative pressure treatment for the treatment of complex chronic wounds, within hospitals, in ambulatory patient care and in multiple settings outside the hospital environment. The German health ministry trials will emphasise the need for appropriate training and quality systems. This is an essential component of success for those who deliver and manage patient care both within and without the hospital environment. I am grateful for the opportunity KCI afforded for me to speak to the health ministry and other specialists in Germany and to hear of the successful operation of these procedures, which can be lifesaving and certainly save people from a long and painful recovery from complications arising from diabetic foot syndrome. The disease management program is preferable to having to implement expensive treatment programs once a lesion occurs. For some time now the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group, a bipartisan group, has called on the government to ensure that people with diabetes have their feet examined regularly. I once again raise this matter in the parliament in the hope that it will become a policy in the future so as to avoid this terrible complication of diabetes in this country. 6798 6798 21:35:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —Recently, in my electorate of Werriwa, I held a forum on homelessness and a number of people, including homeless people, service providers and community organisations across both the Campbelltown and the Liverpool regions attended. They all made a great contribution to the national debate on homelessness. The organisations and agencies represented included the New South Wales Police, Liverpool and Campbelltown city councils, Allawah House, Ingleburn Rotary Club, Macarthur Diversity Services, St Vincent de Paul, Marcia Women’s Refuge, Uniting Care Burnside, Stepping Stone Community, the Parramatta Mission’s Miller Campus and various elements of the local media. The forum identified the challenges faced by both our local people who find themselves homeless and the various providers who are committed to breaking the cycle of homelessness. Of particular relevance to the forum was hearing from two young women, Lynette and Nazhia, both 17 years of age, who for different reasons had found themselves homeless. Both girls spoke very bravely about their circumstances and ended by taking the opportunity to thank the local community for their support and understanding. However, during this forum, the point was made that no single service for homelessness is available in south-west Sydney for young males. Earlier this year, when visiting the crisis accommodation provided at Allawah House, I was fortunate in having the opportunity of spending time talking with the two young women I have mentioned already—this is where they had been accommodated—and some of their colleagues there. These young women described their backgrounds and also expressed their concern for their brothers and male friends who had nowhere to go, even though these young men had found themselves homeless for a reason almost identical to that of the girls, which was domestic violence. Early intervention is critical because the last thing we want to see is the police arresting young boys and then committing them into the juvenile justice system. Quite frankly, increased policing is not the answer for homelessness. Alarmingly, one of the main concerns contributing to homelessness that was raised during the forum was the rate of domestic violence that we are experiencing in the south-west of Sydney. Extraordinary pressures are being placed on our local service providers. The local police readily verify what the New South Wales crime statistics show—that there is an unacceptably high number of apprehended domestic violence orders in Sydney, as they apply in the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney in particular. Of importance to the service providers was the availability of appropriate funding to ensure that there are sufficient qualified social workers, personnel and trained volunteers to assist particularly young women and children in crisis. We need to ensure that victims of domestic violence are not the potential subjects of recurring homelessness. This needs to be done at all levels of government in order to address this issue. Assistance for young people to take part in education, training and employment services was also seen to be a vital component in the strategy to fight the root causes of homelessness for young people. The emphasis on education is critical not only in building and establishing one’s position in the community but also in building self-esteem and broadening the options for young people. Young people facing homelessness need extra support to participate in education and training. As a couple of homeless kids indicated to me, the normal assistance provided by parents, such as helping with homework et cetera, is taken for granted. In their case, when they were living in a refuge, they felt they needed extra support in order to keep up with the rigours of normal education. In respect of that support, I would like to mention Michael and Robin Kidd, who are both members of the Ingleburn Rotary Club. More importantly, they both retired as the principals of two local high schools last year. They now go and visit Allawah House and Harold Lodge and tutor young kids in their homework in order to keep them engaged in the education system. This is an issue of major concern. When I look at the statistics in my immediate area, I see that there are some 200 to 400 young people who are homeless at night. This is something that we must focus on, and we must do it now. (Time expired) 6799 6799 21:40:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I rise this evening to pay tribute to and to honour the work of the football and netball clubs within the electorate of Flinders. I do this on the basis that these clubs are a source of tremendous social support and a great virtue for people from across the electorate with regard to society, exercise, health and discipline. As we approach the grand finals across the various leagues, this is an opportunity to acknowledge the work of the leagues, the executive members who volunteer in the clubs, the members who volunteer to do work for the clubs and, above all else, the mums and dads who help with the junior clubs. I want to speak about the extent of both football and netball clubs within the electorate of Flinders. There are five leagues across Flinders. Firstly, there is the Alberton league, which includes the Dalyston Football and Netball Club, the Kilcunda-Bass Football and Netball Club, the Stony Creek Football and Netball Club, and the Phillip Island football and netball clubs. Secondly, there is the Casey-Cardinia football and netball league, which includes the Devon Meadows football and netball clubs and Tooradin football and netball clubs. Thirdly, there is the Ellinbank and district football and netball league, which includes the Catani football and netball clubs, the Koo Wee Rup football and netball clubs, the Lang Lang football and netball clubs, and the Nyora football and netball clubs. Fourthly, there is the Nepean football league, which includes the Crib Point Football Club, the Dromana Football Club—of which I am the proud holder of the No. 1 ticket—the Pearcedale Football Club, the Red Hill Football Club, the Rosebud Football Club, the Rye Football Club, the Somerville Football Club, the Sorrento Football Club and the Tyabb Football Club. Fifthly, there is the Peninsula football league, of which Hastings is our representative. I add to that list the A-grade RecLink, which helps those who are disadvantaged and down on their luck. In Hastings, the Westernport Warriors are the proud representatives of the Mornington Peninsula. I acknowledge, in particular, the work of the clubs on four fronts. Firstly, in relation to health and exercise, these football and netball clubs are fundamental in helping kids and young adults have an outlet for a healthy attitude, to be engaged in sport, to be engaged in competitive sport and to be engaged with all the rigour, discipline and personal training. Secondly, as I mentioned at the outset, they are a source of great society. We see the community coming together. On Saturday I attended the preliminary final between my club, Dromana, and Frankston, in the Nepean league. There were probably well over 1,000 people in attendance at the game. It was a tremendous example of the community coming together. It was done in good spirit and it was an outstanding result, with Dromana proceeding to the grand final with both the seniors through and the reserves already through. I wish them all the best. Thirdly, it is training for young men and women in leadership. It is the provision of personal discipline, of giving them a sense of resolve, purpose and meaning. It does not substitute for other areas of life, but it is a fundamental outlet and area for personal development. Fourthly, there is the role played by volunteers. These volunteers may be at the level of the league executive, at the executive level of individual clubs or at the organisational level of senior or junior clubs. They could be mums and dads who run the barbecue or the stalls. But in these clubs across the peninsula, across Western Port and across the Bass Coast, you see people of great generosity giving their time to help young people. It is a great way forward. Finally, I wish all of the teams the best as they go into grand finals over the coming two weeks. Most of the grand finals are two weeks from now; however, this weekend the Nepean football league will see Sorrento versus Dromana. Whilst I wish Sorrento well, I hope Dromana prevails in the firsts. In the seconds, we have Dromana versus Frankston, and my allegiances are well known there. Whether they are football or netball clubs, they are great clubs with great people running them. We need to do all we can to provide services and support. There are a series of things that we can do. I congratulate and thank all of those involved in these great volunteer organisations. 6800 6800 21:45:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —In April 2005 I was able to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Manila. On the agenda of that meeting was the issue of global labour markets. There were calls by delegations from countries including India and the Philippines for countries such as Australia to open our labour markets to people from those countries. In speaking to the conference I explained that Australia has a long tradition of accepting migrants to our country rather than guest workers. I did, however, indicate my private view that there would be mutual benefit in allowing seasonal guest workers to come to Australia from South Pacific nations. As it happened, the conference in Manila was followed by a bilateral visit to the Solomon Islands and that gave me the opportunity to see firsthand some of the ways in which the development of South Pacific nations could be assisted by allowing limited guest worker placements in Australia. Apart from providing much-needed remittances to families at home and the potential to save to improve private business opportunities, work in industries such as agriculture, forestry, tourism, hospitality and health care would greatly improve the economic and social development of Pacific states. I have been pleased to see that the Labor government appears keen to trial guest worker arrangements for some Pacific states. I was also pleased to note that during last week’s visit to Australia by the Prime Minister of East Timor, Xanana Gusmao, the topic of guest worker programs was discussed. This came as a particularly pleasing development to me, as an earlier rebuff on the issue had led me to believe that guest worker programs were of less interest to developing states than I had at first thought. As it happened, shortly after the IPU meeting in Manila and the visit to the Solomons, I attended an East Timor Independence Day function in my electorate. The guest of honour at the function was the then foreign minister of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, who is now the President. Having recently discussed the topic of guest workers from developing countries, I took the opportunity of using my speech to extend the idea to East Timor. I told the gathering that such an arrangement with one of our nearest neighbours could have great benefit to both nations. I pointed out that participants would be able to develop a potential tourist industry, learn skills in hospitality and catering, and improve English language skills. To my surprise, when Ramos-Horta rose to speak, he rejected the proposal out of hand, insisting that East Timor look to Portugal and Europe for language and skills and that Australian involvement was not welcome. It seems, therefore, that the government of East Timor has had a change of heart, and there is hope that suitable programs can be developed which will lead to many young East Timorese benefiting from employment opportunities in Australia. As I said at the beginning, Australia has traditionally preferred to supplement its workforce with permanent migration rather than guest workers, and I believe there remains a preference for migration. It follows that guest worker programs should be relatively small in scope and be seen to provide economic and social benefits to the nations providing the guest workers. I have spoken about this issue to young people in my electorate, where there remains a stubborn pool of youth unemployment. The concern of many is that we should be providing employment opportunities for our own before admitting other young, unskilled workers. But, provided the schemes do not disadvantage young Australians, the benefits in promoting growth and stability in our neighbouring countries far outweigh any downside. Through our armed forces, Australia has played a major role in bringing stability to our region. However, the best prospects for future security depend on economic growth and the development of civil society in countries that are our near neighbours. Well-planned and administered guest worker schemes which include training and protect the interests of participants as well as Australian youth can play a major role in the economic and social development of our region. There is much to be gained by all parties involved, and I would hope that trials of guest worker schemes can proceed in the near future. 6801 6801 21:50:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP 0 0 FRAN BAILEY —I rise tonight to speak about an issue which I am sure I share with you, Mr Speaker, with every member of this place who is a parent and with all of the parents listening to this broadcast. The issue is probably one of the most difficult decisions that parents have to make, and that is the choice of education for their children. I count myself extremely fortunate in the sort of education I had—in my primary, secondary and tertiary education—which my parents made sacrifices for. I know that the parliamentary secretary on duty tonight, the member for Bennelong, and I went to the same school in Brisbane and received an excellent education from the Sisters of Mercy. Prior to the last election, parents around Australia were promised an education revolution. I guess if we think of the term ‘revolution’ we think of a change of power, a change in the structural organisation, and when we hear the term ‘revolution’ we think this is change that will happen quickly. Well, there has been no storming of the Bastille, as far as the delivery of the educational changes that were promised goes. I think it is fair to say that, prior to the last election, the only real detail that we had about the education revolution was that every senior student, from year 9 upwards, was promised a computer. I have been on a bit of a hunt across my electorate of McEwen trying to find whether we have any of these computers in any of the hundreds of schools that I have in my electorate. I have identified a couple of schools which have been informed that they will get some computers, but the trek to find the computers has revealed a sparse trail. Since the election we have been told about a little bit more flesh being put on the bones of this education revolution concerning trade training centres. We have found out that there is less than $1 million for these schools. Although these schools were promised the earth, in fact, once again, nothing has been delivered. It would appear that schools will be lucky to get an upgrade of an oven or some extensions or renovations to the woodwork centre—nothing like what is really needed to equip young people with the sorts of skills that they need to work and the sort of environment in which they would want to develop trade skills and certification. The latest thing we have heard about, as another tranche of the education revolution, is school funding based on teacher performance. Once again, as a parent I do not disagree at all with that. But this is where I strike a problem, because I am very concerned about the sorts of schools I have across my electorate. Mr Speaker, you would know a number of these schools. Tonight, I will give a couple of examples. I highlight the Healesville High School and the Alexandra high school, in particular. You probably would find this difficult to believe, Mr Speaker, but in the Alexandra high school there are exposed heating pipes inside classrooms. If this were a factory site, the unions would close it down on OH&S grounds, yet we expect the teachers there to perform at their best and motivate young students. Surely, if we are talking about making payments to highly qualified teachers, we are not talking about an even playing field here. The schools in our rural areas are at an enormous disadvantage. How will this matter be addressed? I want the very best for my daughters and, in turn, what my parents wanted for me. Parents want the very best for their children, and the education revolution is not delivering. (Time expired) 6802 6802 21:55:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the central plank of our government’s efforts to confront the impact of climate change on the Australian economy and on our environment, The scheme, as outlined in our green paper, aims to reform and transform our economy as we move to a more carbon constrained future, bearing in mind Labor’s long-term target of reducing greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050. In the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, ‘the greatest market failure the world has seen’ has come about because there has been, up until now, no cost attached to producing carbon pollution and no limit as to how much we produce. It is true that economic growth has been fuelled by a huge reliance on carbon-producing fossil fuels, but the cost of that is now being realised across the globe. If we are going to effectively tackle climate change we need to harness the power of the market. In essence, our proposed scheme will set limits on how much carbon pollution industry can produce, with the government selling permits up to that limit, thus creating the incentive for business to look for cleaner energy options. Under our scheme, companies can buy and sell permits between themselves and in so doing provide the market mechanism to find the most efficient ways of reducing carbon pollution. We recognise of course that there is no cost-free way to tackle climate change. The effect of putting a price on carbon will be profound and cannot be ignored. That is why it is proposed that moneys raised from the selling of permits will be used to help business and households in moving to a carbon constrained future. Assistance will also be provided to the most heavily emissions intensive trade exposed activities. This is of particular importance to my region, which is heavily reliant for its economic output on coalmining and steelmaking. The green paper recognises that trade exposed industries may not be able to pass on costs, as they face prices set in international markets and currently compete against companies that will not have comparable carbon constraints. The government are very conscious of the risk of industries choosing to relocate elsewhere. Certainly, carbon leakage is counter to our objectives. Our current preferred position is to allocate up to 30 per cent of permits to emissions intensive trade exposed activities. It is proposed to provide transitional assistance in the form of a share of free permits to the most emissions intensive trade exposed activities. BlueScope Steel, located in my electorate of Throsby, will fall within this category. There is, however, a continuing concern of that company about the availability of transitional assistance to cover future expansion and growth in production. Similarly, there are some outstanding issues of concern to the local coal industry. They have raised with me the issue of fugitive emissions and whether they can be objectively accounted for, particularly in our local underground mines which provide coal for our steelmaking. They argue that no current emissions trading scheme incorporates fugitive emissions in the mining sector. They have also raised with me that the formula in the green paper, which uses tonnes of emissions per million dollars of revenue, may not be the best measure, as their recent high revenues are largely the result of the huge hike we have seen in commodity prices. I am confident that these concerns will be further explored in the ongoing discussions between industry and a range of our ministers. In a recent speech, the Minister for Climate Change and Water emphasised: … the precise thresholds, proposed rates of assistance, the structure of assistance and the preliminary list of activities that would be covered are indicative only. Ultimately, we need global action to tackle global climate change. However, developed economies should be showing the way. We need to move to a low-pollution economy in an economically responsible manner and in a way which protects our national interest, our industries and our jobs. However, we all need to accept that the longer we delay action the harder it will be and ultimately the more it will cost. 6803 6803 21:59:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I wish to present to the House a petition from the residents of Nannup in my electorate of Forrest, the principal petitioner being Mrs Valerie Russell. This petition has been lodged with the Petitions Committee and has been approved in accordance with the requirements of standing orders. The residents of Nannup— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 6803 22:00:00 House adjourned at 10.00 pm 2008-09-01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 6.42 pm. 6804 Statements by Members 6804 6804 18:43:00 Hawker, David, MP 8H4 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr HAWKER —Tonight I would like to talk about the threat to one of the great icons of the Victorian racing scene. For 136 years we have had the iconic May Racing Carnival, where one of the highlights is the Grand Annual Steeplechase. This has been run with tremendous support from the local community, yet we now see the Victorian government suddenly and almost without warning putting it under threat and running an inquiry into jumps racing—which just happens to coincide with Racing Victoria being investigated by retired judge Gordon Lewis, who has found that corruption in the industry has been rampant and that money laundering and betting rings have been commonplace. Notwithstanding this, the Minister for Racing, Rob Hulls, has been trying to divert attention from the problems with Racing Victoria under his administration. I have to say it is not acceptable to try and single out things like jumps racing and the Grand Annual Steeplechase in Warrnambool. The CEO of Warrnambool City estimates that the May Racing Carnival attracts between 30,000 and 35,000 people each year, adds $15 million to the local economy and, together with the training of local jumps horses, is worth $20 million. I have to commend the Warrnambool Standard for the work they have done—in just 11 days, nearly 3,000 people have either voted online, signed a petition or shown their total opposition to removing the jumps. (Time expired) 6804 6804 18:44:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —Last week in Fremantle I attended a wreath-laying ceremony for the Allied Merchant Seamen’s Association. Australia has used merchant ships in peacekeeping and wartime operations since 1885, but it was in the Battle for Australia period of the Second World War that the merchant navy played its most extensive and heroic role. Unfortunately it is a role that has gone largely unrecognised and unappreciated in Australia until now. The Rudd government has delivered on an election commitment to promulgate 3 September as Merchant Navy Day, a day that is also commemorated by Canada and the UK. During wartime all mariners, even though not enlisted in the armed services, were expected to serve or continue to serve without question on merchant ships engaged in war activities. They carried weapons, vehicles, munitions and food, they evacuated civilians from threatened areas and they transported troops to and from areas of conflict. Merchant seamen were not provided with uniforms, leave or medical and pension benefits, yet they were directly aiding the war effort and were the target of attacks from enemy ships, submarines and aircraft. Four hundred and thirty-five Australian merchant seamen are known to have lost their lives serving in the merchant navy. It is time to pay tribute to the heroism and sacrifices of the Australian merchant navy. 6804 6804 18:45:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —On Saturday I had the opportunity of meeting a lot of my local constituents. The federal seat of Ryan, in the western suburbs of Brisbane, is a great place to live, work and bring up your family. As a local member, I quite frequently attend booths at shopping centres in my electorate. I was at Kenmore Plaza shopping centre last Saturday and had the opportunity of speaking to a lot of people. Of all the residents who came to see me, one young man, Christian Barron, and his friend Gregory Welsh very much impressed me. They came to see me with an idea. Christian was injured in a four-wheel drive many years ago. He injured his neck when the vehicle overturned. Now that he has recuperated he wants to be heavily involved in ideas, policies, suggestions and solutions to try to address the tragedy of road accidents and, in particular, to try to reduce the number of vehicles that are involved in accidents and kill many young people in particular. He has come up with an idea for a sticker to be placed on vehicles, in particular on heavy vehicles. He asked me to bring this to the attention of authorities, and I am certainly going to do that. He brought to my attention some facts which he would like me to read into the parliamentary record. In particular, he was keen to say that— (Time expired) 6805 6805 18:47:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —On Saturday morning, the people of Bankstown will come together for 24 hours for a very important cause. We will remember all of those who have lost their battle with cancer and march with those who have survived to raise money for a cure for what is an indiscriminate and terrible disease. The Bankstown Relay for Life is now in its seventh year. Last year we raised $82,000 and this year we hope to exceed that. Thanks to the generosity of the Bankstown Sports Club, the M5 Motorway, the Canterbury League Club and others, we have already hit $55,000. This is an event that brings the whole community together. There are teams from every part of the community. This year’s relay will include a huge entertainment program for the kids called Kids Day Out, a prestige car show and salsa dancing for the kids at heart. The night will culminate in a candlelit ceremony of hope, which is a special service to remember those we have lost to cancer. The man behind the Relay for Life is Trent Engisch. Together with his father, John, and his brother, Christian, he makes this happen. Events like the Relay for Life do not happen without people like the Engischs. They are as much a part of the Bankstown community as Steve Waugh or Paul Keating. For the past 88 years they have published the Bankstown Torch, which is one of Sydney’s only family owned newspapers. They love Bankstown and they want to make it a better place to live. It is a cause I join them in. 6805 6805 18:48:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 0 0 Mrs MAY —I rise tonight to offer my congratulations to Helen Oaky, a grand lady who lives in my electorate who last week turned 101 years young. Helen was born in Oakey in Queensland in 1907 and moved to Kirrahaven, an aged-care facility at Kirra on the Gold Coast, when she was 94. It might be worth noting tonight that in the year of Helen’s birth Alfred Deakin was Prime Minister, the First World War was still seven years away and there had only been four modern Olympic Games. Helen has certainly witnessed firsthand some of the truly momentous moments in our history. I know from the time I have spent with Helen that she is still very active and very engaged with her local community and the residents of Kirrahaven. She certainly keeps abreast of issues going on in the world. When I asked about what had kept her young and living so long, she talked about her daily walk. In fact, up until she was 100 years old she used to walk half an hour a day; that has now been cut back a little bit. She also had some other advice that maybe all of us can take note of tonight. She said, ‘You do have to walk every day. You do have to enjoy that glass of scotch every day, but only one glass. Leave it at one. And get out of bed at six o’clock in the morning and have a cold shower.’ To Helen, from me and my office: many hearty congratulations on the celebration of your 101st birthday. 6806 6806 18:50:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I rise this evening to update the House on Bridgewater High School, which is located in my seat of Franklin. Members may recall that I reported to the House on the devastating arson attack back in October last year. I have been an ardent supporter of the re-establishment of a high school on its original site. I have been working closely with the local community since the devastating fire that razed the high school to the ground. I know the grief that the school community and the wider community have endured over the past 11 months since that fire. It was with pleasure that I welcomed Premier David Bartlett’s announcement last Friday accepting the Bridgewater and Southern Midlands Education Renewal Taskforce’s recommendation to build a new facility on the original Bridgewater High site, one that will include grades 9 to 12 as well as an adult learning provision. The community, and in particular the Keep Bridgewater High on its Original Site steering committee, should be congratulated, especially Ronda Cockshutt, for all their hard work to ensure a diverse range of educational opportunities continue to be available for the secondary students of the Bridgewater and wider Southern Midlands community. This new school will be a state-of-the-art education facility, with the state government setting aside up to $40 million for the vital infrastructure. I am aware that there is some community disquiet around the permanent location of the Bridgewater and Green Point primary schools; however, I am sure Premier Bartlett will continue to work collaboratively and closely with the community on all stages of this most important project for the people of Bridgewater. I look forward to the high school being built very soon. 6806 6806 18:51:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise this evening to speak on the recent spate of crime near public transport nodes in my electorate of Swan and the cost of the inertia of the Carpenter Labor government. As many members would have seen on the national news last week, a disabled woman was badly beaten at a bus stop near Curtin University in Bentley, in my electorate. The vulnerable victim was the reason for the widespread publicity of this case. However, the unfortunate truth is that this is just the latest incident in an escalation of crime near the public transport facilities in the area that is threatening to get out of control. The Thornlie train line that runs through the heart of my electorate is well known in the local area for being the ‘crime line’ after a certain time at night. Migrants to Western Australia are warned in an information pamphlet that the line in question is the most dangerous in Perth. Unfortunately, the state Labor government has shown itself incapable of being tough on crime. Despite calls from the local community, Alan Carpenter fails to acknowledge the need to have guards at train stations. How are we expected to believe the rhetoric of Labor when they cannot even provide us with a safe public transport system? Many more will continue to avoid the bus network because of the risk of attack on it as well. Why should the public have to feel unsafe going to and from work? It is arrogance of the Carpenter government to assume that vulnerable people in society should put up with crime just because they have not got a car. There is total disillusionment with the state government. In a recent newspaper article, a senior official at Curtin University is quoted as wanting to meet with the local councils of Victoria Park and South Perth as a last resort to solve this problem but not with the state government, who do not provide the necessary resources for our fantastic police department. 6807 6807 18:53:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —China has arrested a 73-year-old underground bishop of the Catholic Church, Julius Jia Zhiguo, in Heibei province. He was arrested last Sunday, according to the Cardinal Kung Foundation. Jia was consecrated bishop of Zhengding in 1980, mandated by Pope John Paul II, and leads a Catholic community of 110,000 members. This is the 12th time Jia has been arrested since 2004. He has spent 18 years in prison. He is one of approximately 40 underground bishops of the Catholic Church in China, every one of whom is either in prison, missing, under house arrest or under surveillance, the Cardinal Kung Foundation says. The persecution of religious believers is very much alive in China and it is ongoing, regardless of the fact that the Olympic Games have just been held there. I am an adherent of another religious faith, but I find it astonishing that a great country like China would arrest a bishop of one of the world’s greatest religions. In what other major power in the world would we tolerate the arrest of a bishop of the Catholic Church who recognises the authority of Rome—that being the reason for his incarceration by the authorities in Beijing? This parliament and this House should affirm the right of religious freedom in all countries, including in China and including one of the great religions of the world, Roman Catholicism. It is absolutely unjustified for the authorities in Beijing to arrest a Catholic— (Time expired) 6807 6807 18:54:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —Wattle has a great place in Australia’s history and now, 16 years after this day was proclaimed Wattle Day, I would like to take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the Riddiford Arboretum in Broken Hill, in my electorate of Farrer. Established in 1988 on land that was a repair and oil transfer depot for the Silverton Tramway, the arboretum is now one of Broken Hill’s environmental treasures. It is named after Walter Riddiford, a mayor of Broken Hill, and is a tribute to Albert Morris, a self-taught botanist who was responsible for establishing regeneration reserves around Broken Hill. The arboretum received a grant of $23,000 in round 1 of the coalition’s Community Water Grants program, which has enabled the arboretum to build a demonstration site that addresses water efficiency in the garden by the extensive use of mulch, native ground cover and plants to minimise water loss and consumption. An open day will be held in the arboretum in the coming months to welcome the public to the newly revitalised facility. The day will celebrate Wattle Day in conjunction with the start of spring. I would also like to draw special attention to the badge that I am wearing today. It was given to me by members of the arboretum, all local volunteers. It was designed by Simon Bennett, a local student studying information technology at TAFE. It is one of three badges that have been designed for the day, which will raise funds for the Red Cross. Congratulations must also go to Darren O’Connor and Harrison Smith for designing the other two eye-catching badges, which incorporate the Red Cross symbol and the magnificent bright yellow and green of the wattle. 6808 6808 18:56:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —It was my privilege to represent the Minister for Defence at RAAF Base Amberley at Ipswich last Friday and to open the $51 million future home of the Air Force’s five multirole tanker transports at RAAF Base Amberley. The new facility will provide 33 Squadron with a headquarters and maintenance complex. We welcome 33 Squadron to Ipswich, recently moving to RAAF Base Amberley from RAAF Base Richmond in Western Sydney, to begin preparations to operate the MRTT, designated by the RAAF as KC30B for RAAF service. The first KC30B is expected to arrive at Amberley next year. This is a world-class facility. It is part of a comprehensive upgrade of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley and will allow the base to operate heavy airlift aircraft such as the KC30B and the C17. The development of RAAF Base Amberley will ensure the base remains an important economic driver in the Ipswich region and it will significantly enhance the airlift and air-to-air refuelling capacity for Australia. We welcome 33 Squadron to Ipswich and we thank the minister for the investment in Ipswich. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being after 6.55 pm, in accordance with standing order 192A the time for members’ statements has concluded. 6808 Private Members' Business 6808 Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Vamvakinou: That the House: recognises the social, economic and human cost of the current Palestinian‑Israeli conflict; notes the broader implications of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of regional stability as well as diplomatic relations in the Middle East; condemns all forms of violence as an obstacle to peace; supports the renewal of diplomatic efforts to negotiate a just and lasting peace and recognises the efforts of the Quartet-led Road Map to peace in the Middle East; notes the Middle East peace initiative formally announced by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah during a meeting of the Arab League Summit in Beirut in March 2003; acknowledges that a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must necessarily involve both parties reaching agreement on final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, settlements, security, borders and water; supports the Australian Government’s recent decision to increase Australia’s development assistance program to the Palestinian Territories; and believes that Australia has an important role to play as a middle power in encouraging peace initiatives between Palestinians and Israelis that are consistent with Australia’s commitment to multilateral diplomacy, responsible international citizenship and the principles of international law. 6808 18:57:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —In the 60 years that have passed since 1948 the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has continued to shape the outlook, animosities and aspirations of successive generations of both Palestinians and Israelis. For Israelis, 1948 is celebrated as the year in which Israel was established, following a war of independence in which Jewish courage, determination and resilience were to triumph against overwhelming odds. The full significance of 1948 for Israelis is measured against the backdrop of centuries of Jewish persecution in the heartlands of Europe. Israel is not only seen as a return to the Promised Land; it also holds the promise of security. As the founder of modern-day Zionism, Theodore Herzl, argued, only self-determination and statehood can guarantee that past horrors are never repeated. In contrast, Palestinians refer to 1948 as the year of the Nakba, or catastrophe, when the majority of Palestine’s indigenous Arab population lost their land and homes and were forced into exile. It is in this context that Palestinians lay claim to the right of return for Palestinian refugees and it is against the backdrop of their historical claims to Palestine that Palestinians seek the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. These two competing national narratives of Israeli independence and statehood versus Palestinian dispossession and exile are inextricably linked, and I raise them here today because 1948 remains at the very heart of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have spoken about the importance of 1948 before in this chamber, and I would refer those interested to a speech I made on 17 March this year. Suffice to say that, in its support for peace, this motion by definition speaks to both of these histories. The June war of 1967 and Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza were to fundamentally change the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel justifies the occupation as a defensive measure against continuing Palestinian violence. Palestinians see Israel’s refusal to end its occupation as a deliberate attempt to thwart Palestinian aspirations for statehood and self-determination. Whichever of the two you accept, the reality is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has continued to exact an enormous toll in human life on both sides. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in the six months leading up to and including July 2008, 29 Israelis were killed, four of whom were children, and a further 251 Israelis were injured. It is estimated that well over 2,000 rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel since the beginning of 2008 alone, terrorising the civilian population who live within their reach. Israelis still live with the very real threat of suicide bombings, for which Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been largely responsible. The continued indiscriminate targeting of innocent Israeli civilians must and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. For Palestinians the conflict has been much deadlier and far more devastating. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs puts the number of Palestinians killed in the six-month period leading up to and including July 2008 at 435 individuals. This compares with 396 Palestinians killed in the whole of 2007. Of the 435 Palestinians killed, 76 were children. In the same six-month period a further 1,628 Palestinians were injured. Palestinians live with the daily threat of Israeli military incursions and they continue to bear the overwhelming brunt of this conflict in terms of numbers killed and injured. The occupation has also had a devastating effect on Palestinian economic and social life. Between January and July 2008 Palestinians were under curfew for a combined total of 1,050 hours. Continuing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians as a result of Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks, the impact of Israel’s separation wall that cuts through parts of the West Bank, periodic house demolitions and the expansion of Israeli settlements all undermine any possibility of normality or security for Palestinians and severely disrupt Palestinian economic and social life. The looming humanitarian crisis that many warn of in the occupied territories is most acute in Gaza. This is especially the case following Israel’s decision to further restrict cross-border traffic for both goods and people into and out of the Gaza Strip after the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June 2007. The virtual closure of Gaza’s borders has seen the price of imported commodities increase in a region where three-quarters of Gaza’s population depend to some extent on food aid and over half of all households live in poverty. Border closures have also led to severe shortages in fuel, water and medical supplies in Gaza, leading Christian Aid and many other NGOs to warn of an impending humanitarian implosion. The strongest criticism of Israel’s decision to close Gaza’s major crossing points and restrict the movement of humanitarian aid has come from the United Nations. In January this year the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to the border closures as a form of collective punishment, a charge that was again echoed in March by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. It is within this context that the sense of urgency currently underwriting the need for peace and a lasting resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict becomes apparent. Since 1993 and the signing of the Oslo accords, there have been a number of initiatives aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. Whilst a final peace agreement has remained elusive, I believe these initiatives give us cause for hope, if only for the way that they continue to position Palestine and Israel at the forefront of international debate. The Saudi peace plan first announced by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002 and later endorsed by Arab governments during a meeting of the Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2003 is one such initiative. The plan included an offer by all Arab states to normalise their diplomatic relations with Israel, including recognising Israel’s right to exist as well as the integrity of its borders in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from all the territories it seized in 1967. More recently, the Annapolis peace conference hosted by the United States in November 2007 offered the first real sign of a return to negotiations since 2001. During the conference both sides gave a commitment to implement their respective obligations under the 2003 road map and to resolve all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception. Whilst it is important that we continue to support diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is equally important that we learn from those mistakes on which past negotiations have faltered and ultimately failed. If the failure of the Oslo accords has taught us anything, it is that the peace process cannot succeed without both parties reaching agreement on final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, settlement, security, borders and water. And there can be no lasting settlement without both Israel and Palestine recognising each other’s right to exist within mutually agreed upon and secure borders. Despite a succession of new interim agreements, timetables and promises made since the signing of the Oslo accords, the key factors that fuel this conflict remain essentially the same. Since 1993, Israel has continued to expand its settlements in the West Bank, in contravention of both international law and a host of negotiated agreements and accords. The current route taken by Israel’s separation wall cuts through Palestinian towns and farmland, effectively annexing nine per cent of the West Bank and undermining the very idea of land for peace. The daily reality of occupation continues to fragment and frustrate Palestinian life. There has been no measurable improvement in the conditions under which Palestinians live. If anything, life has become worse, creating an environment in which the sense of hope that the Oslo accords once inspired has been replaced by anger and cynicism. On the other hand, the repeated failure of the Palestinian Authority to halt rocket attacks on Israel, the violent rift that now exists between Fatah and Hamas, which has destroyed any semblance of Palestinian unity and greatly weakened the Palestinian position, and the refusal of Hamas to denounce violence or recognise Israel’s right to exist create significant stumbling blocks when it comes to peace. Australia has played an important role in encouraging peace initiatives between Palestinians and Israelis that are consistent with our commitment to upholding the rule of international law, to pursuing multilateral diplomacy as a middle power and to advocating the idea of responsible international citizenship. Recently, the Australian government announced a doubling of Australia’s aid contribution to the occupied territories to $45 million for 2008. I want to take this opportunity to lend my strong support to this decision. Australia’s aid includes $25 million in assistance to Palestinians affected by the worsening situation in Gaza and the West Bank and $20 million to support the implementation of the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan. Few are under any illusion that the road to peace will be anything other than long and arduous, but it is a road that must be travelled and Australia has a significant role to play in that. I welcome and acknowledge the presence of Izzat Abdulhadi, head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia and New Zealand, who is in the chamber this evening. (Time expired) 6811 19:08:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —As the current deputy chair of this parliament’s Friends of Palestine group, it gives me pleasure to support this private member’s motion in the federal parliament. This motion recognises the enormous cost of the current Israel-Palestine conflict, condemns violence as an obstacle to peace and notes the progress and requirements of peace initiatives in the Middle East. It is very important that we who support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people speak up in this place and that we send a message to Palestinians both in the occupied territories and here in Australia that we do care, that we are touched by their plight and that we will work with them and others for a better future in that most troubled part of the world. Peace can never be built on denial; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa proved that. No-one should have to deny their history. Equality between people is about acknowledging your own past and not seeing someone else’s past as a threat to your future. There is pain, humiliation and suffering on both sides; there is a right to a secure future on both sides; there are grievances on both sides that must be set aside. This motion recognises the efforts of the quartet led road map to peace. In exchange for statehood, the road map requires the Palestinian Authority to make democratic reforms and to abandon the use of terrorism. Israel, for its part, must support and accept the emergence of a reformed Palestinian government and end settlement activity. The road map presents an entirely credible framework and plan leading towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, but the reality is a million light years away. The fine diplomatic language could not be further removed from what is happening on the ground. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has just completed her 17th visit to the region in the past two years and is pushing for an agreement by the end of this year, to coincide with the end of President George Bush’s term in January 2009. Amid strong doubts that any deal can be achieved, she admitted the talks were ‘intensive’ but said: God willing, and with the goodwill of the parties ... we have a good chance to succeed. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said, ‘Just because we have not yet succeeded does not mean we have failed,’ but certainly reiterated that the ongoing settlement building was an ever-present spoke in the wheels of peace. Israel has nearly doubled the number of homes under construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank this year. The housing ministry had begun work on 433 new units between January and May, compared with 240 in the same period last year. More than 1,000 buildings, representing 2,600 housing units, were being built in settlements. Condoleezza Rice has criticised the settlement activity, describing it as ‘not helpful’; settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. Recently, Israeli peace group Peace Now reported that the growth of illegal settlements is escalating. A report released by the Israel bar has stated that widespread use of torture and intimidation, especially against Palestinians in Israeli prisons, is ongoing. Settlers in the West Bank inflict cruelty on the local Palestinian population, seemingly without reprimand. An entire network of roads is being built within Jerusalem and within the occupied territories that will keep settler traffic separate from local Arab traffic. Two populations, Israeli and Palestinian, will occupy this two-layered state simultaneously and separately, passing each other, never meeting. For some Palestinians a short 15-minute trip will turn into a one- to two-hour expedition. Israel is creating an Arab-free environment within the Arab West Bank. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel found that 50 per cent of Israelis said they would not live in the same building as Arabs and would not befriend them or have them in their homes. I am sure the same results would be achieved if you asked Arabs these questions about Israelis. There is the controversial barrier Israel is building in and around the West Bank, described as a security measure by Israel and as a land grab by Palestinians: the separation wall, which does not follow the green line separating Israel from the West Bank but loops into Palestinian areas and around Israeli settlements. I ask the obvious question: how can there be a viable Palestinian state with all of these incursions into Palestinian territory? A considerable obstacle to getting things done is the dysfunctional legislative process where governments are multiparty coalitions of mainstream and special interest groups. There are ideologues who are opposed to any concessions at any cost—for example, settler groups are gaining strength in Israel, and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip in conflict with the other Palestinian faction, Fatah. This motion notes the involvement of Saudi Arabia in peace initiatives. I commend that involvement and urge all the Arab countries of the region to become part of a wider peace process that both lends practical and moral support to the Palestinians and advances mutual understanding and respect with Israel. I acknowledge the efforts of both the Saudis and Yemenis in helping broker both talks and agreements between Hamas and Fatah. Australia does have a role in encouraging and supporting peace initiatives. One important thing we must make sure of is that we do not allow those in the region to fall into the habit of preferring a state of war to a state of peace. The dispossession and dislocation of 1948 and 1967 must be recognised and appreciated, as must Israel’s right to exist securely behind secure borders. Being passionately pro Palestinian and passionately pro Israel need not be mutually exclusive. Many are talking about the impossibility of a partitioned state and advocating one country. Is it impossible for the same country to be shared by both Israelis and Palestinians? You cannot have a Jewish state without forcibly removing Palestinians and you cannot have a Palestinian state without forcibly removing Jews. In fact, the British, who created the partition plan of 1947, recognised with the Peel commission in 1937 that you cannot draw a line between these two people. There needs to be a credible peace process to provide hope that all of the misery we are now experiencing is worth it in the end. For Palestinians, the one big idea of a homeland has to stay alive. The pressure that ended apartheid, ended partition in Northern Ireland, ended the Marcos regime in the Philippines and brought down the Berlin Wall did not come from governments. It came primarily from movements within society—from the people, the schools, the churches and the homes. Maybe it is time for Palestinians and Israelis and the world community to imagine a different future and a different relationship. It is important in this context to talk in terms of hope. I was certainly impressed when I read recently in Martin Chulov’s article in the Australian of ‘a crippled old Arab warlord’ sitting ‘reflecting on the future of his one-time sworn enemy’. He is Mohammed Ghawanmeh, interviewed by Martin Chulov. At the end of this article, this person who has dedicated his life to fighting Israel says: All my life I dedicated towards opposing (Israel),” he says, thumbing through photographs of Islamic Jihad members, some of whom fell in battle while others remain in prison. On a wall in his living room is a yellowing black-and-white shot of Khaled Islambouli, the assassin of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who in 1979 became the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. Asked why an image of Islambouli takes pride of place in Ghawanmeh’s inner sanctum, he says: “Sadat should have asked us before doing that. But that was then, it is a different reality. We still see 1948 as the Catastrophe, but they are here to stay now. “That is a reality. It’s time for us to build our futures.” We have just concluded the Olympics, and I would like to note that the Palestinians sent four athletes to the Olympics, two runners and two swimmers. I want to mention Hamse Abdouh, who trained at the YMCA pool in Arab East Jerusalem, an 18-metre pool. The thought of swimming in a 50-metre pool caused him panic. ‘How will I get to the end of the pool?’ were his thoughts. But he did. His best time for the 100-metre butterfly was 10 seconds off the world record, so, to put it politely, his chances of achieving a world medal were slim. But, when interviewed, he said that the idea of walking into the stadium and having people shout ‘Palestine! Palestine!’ was the real medal for him. It is sad that it is only at major sporting events like the Olympics that something called Palestine really exists today. 6813 19:17:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I lived in Gaza for 2½ years, from 2002 to 2004. During that time I worked for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which was established by the General Assembly in 1949 to provide humanitarian relief to the Palestinian refugees who lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of the conflict in 1948. The agency was only ever intended to be temporary, until there was a resolution of the conflict. But, as we are all only too aware, the conflict in Palestine is 60 years old this year and, without a major political breakthrough, there is little prospect of a peaceful settlement in the foreseeable future. During my time in Gaza, my UN colleagues and I were not housed in a high-security compound; we lived in the community alongside the local inhabitants. We were there during aerial bombing campaigns, targeted assassinations and military incursions, and we shared the fear and sense of vulnerability generated by these actions. We witnessed the everyday struggle of people to carry on meaningful and productive lives under conditions of extreme hardship. We also spent time in Israel and we saw the impact of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on communities. We felt the anxiety of driving in the city or eating out at a cafe and wondering if the bus next to our car or the person who had just walked into the cafe wearing a big coat was going to blow up. This conflict has profound global implications, generating flow-on effects within the Middle East and around the world. Militant Islamic groups, including within our own region, continue to refer to the Israel-Palestine conflict as a root cause to incite violence. The issue unites different groups and countries in a way that could never be achieved in its absence. Concomitantly, resolution of the issue would undercut a large part of the cause and focus of radical Islam and would alter the whole balance in the Middle East. It would also deliver millions of human beings from interminable fear and suffering. It is in our national interest and in our interest as good global citizens to concern ourselves. Australia is already providing humanitarian aid and development assistance, as my colleague said, to the amount of $45 million this year. In my view, Australia can also play a constructive supporting role through the United Nations in building international consensus and advocacy for urgent and comprehensive action to achieve a peace settlement. We know that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis support peace efforts and are prepared to accept compromises to achieve this objective. As occurred in Northern Ireland, and as with other seemingly intractable conflicts throughout the world, ultimately the only way out of the quagmire of historical hurts, tit-for-tat violence and present-day suffering will be through a dialogue between the relevant political actors—in this case, Fatah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the neighbouring states—supported by the wider international community and civil society to reach a political settlement backed up by democratic institution building and economic reconstruction. The settlement must be comprehensive—in the style of the unofficial Geneva accords, for example—delivering a two-state solution and dealing finally with the main issues. It must include recognition of each other’s right to exist, as well as resolution of issues such as security, the delineation of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, water and the refugee issue, together with interim confidence-building measures, including the cessation of violence, a halt to the expansion of settlements and the release of political prisoners from both sides, including Gilad Shalit. Last month the well-known Palestinian refugee poet Mahmoud Darwish died. In his last poem, Mr Darwish described Palestinians and Israelis as ‘two men trapped in a hole and bargaining over their share of the common grave’. This is a powerful image and it is a future that we must work to avoid. In reflecting on Darwish’s passing, the Commissioner-General of UNRA, Karen AbuZayd, noted: … the need to recognize the narrative of the other, the transforming power of simple acknowledgement and the lasting good that flows when two historical currents come together, however painful the confluence might be. These words eloquently express the mutual respect, courage and leadership that are needed to fulfil the hopes for peace. 6815 19:21:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to address the motion and I seek to present the case for, and indeed a defence of, Israel. Although it is important to try to solve the issue in its own right, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not actually at the heart of every conflict in the Middle East—the concept of linkage is often overstated. Conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Hezbollah’s miniwar against the government of Lebanon and even the internecine fighting between Palestinian groups have roots that go much deeper than and are often highly unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will not go away even after a two-state solution is realised. With respect to the motion and the Saudi-Arab League peace plan, there is no question that the plan is a good start, but that is what it must be—a start. Israel has said numerous times that it would be happy to sit down with the Arab League states and use their plan as the starting point for negotiations. The Arab League, however, has presented the plan as a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition and refuses to negotiate any of its points. This is unrealistic, since the peace plan contains several positions that Israel cannot accept without negotiation. It uses language which suggests—and which the Arab world understands to mean—that the so-called right of return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel would negate Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. It does not deviate at all from the 4 June 1967 borders, meaning Israel cannot absorb some of its bigger settlements in exchange for swaps of other land to make up the difference. It is generally accepted that such a land swap would be part of any peace settlement. The plan has been presented as a prerequisite for Israel’s negotiations—that is, Israel has been told that, once it carries out all of the Arab League demands, then and only then will the Arab League negotiate the terms of peace. By that stage, of course, Israel would have no more leverage. There is no guarantee that all of the Arab League states would feel themselves bound by a final settlement reached under the plan and thus bound to make peace. Each of the states has reserved for itself the right to determine whether Israel has complied with the requirements of the plan. It would be very easy for a country such as Syria to find a pretext for claiming noncompliance and maintaining its state of war. With respect to the right of return, it may be true to say that that is a final status issue that needs to be resolved, but it must be resolved by the Palestinians accepting that the exercise of this right is incompatible with any two-state solution and therefore incompatible with peace. Whether a so-called right of return exists under international law is debatable, and I am sure the issue will continue to be contested. Importantly, though, it is not claimed by, or for, any other refugee population in the world. It is also notable that, for every other refugee population in the world, only those people who actually left their homes are regarded as refugees. For the Palestinians, however, all descendants of the original refugees are regarded as refugees. So an original exodus of 600,000 to 800,000 people, of which an estimated 200,000 are still alive, may balloon into a population of more than four million. By referring to a right of return for Palestinian refugees, the motion could be said to prejudice an issue that must be negotiated, thereby undermining the core premise of the rest of the motion. It would be preferable, I believe, to refer to this issue as being about the status of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The issue should be resolved by a full right for all the refugees and their descendants to return to a new Palestinian state and some kind of compensation package for actual refugees, with international money to assist in the resettlement. The issue is complex. It is steeped and rooted in history, and only with continued dialogue and good faith on both sides can a suitable settlement and answer come forward. 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. 6816 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Randall: That the House: recognises the severe financial distress and hardship faced by a number of current and former franchisees throughout Australia as a direct result of franchisor conduct; acknowledges that franchisors must be held accountable for their unconscionable conduct, including non‑disclosure, through a more stringent and determined application of existing Trade Practices legislation; notes that there are many franchisees that have no adequate or available means to redress their grievances without recourse or expensive and often unaffordable litigation; and considers the introduction of provisions, similar to those available in industrial relations legislation, for mediation, conciliation and arbitration, at no cost to the franchisee. 6816 19:26:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —Before I begin, I seek leave to table a letter from one of my constituents regarding this issue. Leave granted. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —Rising awareness about what is happening in Australia’s franchising sector is the reason why I brought this motion to the parliament today. The conduct of rogue franchisors has caused great distress and financial hardship to some of my constituents, and improvements to existing franchising arrangements and regulations are now long overdue. This is not an issue limited to my electorate of Canning. As you will hear from the following speakers, this is a widespread issue. I thank my colleagues for speaking on this issue, because it is very important to so many people in Australia. This is not limited to certain states or certain franchisors. This issue does require a strong bipartisan response. Over the past 18 months I have updated the parliament on the plight of my constituents, predominantly from the Lenard’s franchisees. Despite such a lengthy battle, it is disappointing to say that in almost all of the cases brought to my attention these franchisees have not yet received fair compensation for their financial ruin. In fact, their avenues for redress within their financial means are all but exhausted. I bring to the attention of the House once again the case of Leanne McCullagh in my electorate, who has lost her house and is financially destitute as a result of becoming a Lenard’s franchisee. This everyday, average working Australian bought into the franchise with the aim of operating her own business with the support of the franchisor and earning a decent living. In reality, what followed was a financial disaster. There was little if any training provided by the franchisor, and marketing was not as promised. There then followed verbal abuse and intimidating and thuggish behaviour from the master franchisees. The bottom line is that the people involved were forced to walk away from their businesses. They have now lost their homes, as I said, are on the verge of bankruptcy and their personal relationships have suffered. In June of this year I again contacted Lenard’s founder, Mr Lenard Poulter, seeking his assistance in resolving the case of my constituents. I was assured that Lenard’s went to great lengths to assist them to succeed in their businesses and that there is documentary evidence to support this. My constituents have executed disclosure forms so that the supposed documentary evidence can be forwarded to me, and I have yet to receive this response. Interestingly, on 1 August this year Lenard’s announced that they would be expanding their business to include other meat products and confirmed that their 2008-09 revenue would increase by two per cent to $148 million. As an aside, Lenard’s Extra stores will be owned solely by the company, which Lenard’s say is because of the ‘need for the company to have greater control over the stores’. There are so many Lenard’s stores in Western Australia now owned by the parent company rather than by individuals that that speaks for itself. As I advised the parliament last year, the problem is unscrupulous franchisors who are deliberately taking the opportunity to send these people to the wall because there is far more profit in sending a business to the wall, reselling it and starting it up again. It is quick turnover, and they are getting away with it. This motion calls for more stringent application of the franchising code in the existing trade practices legislation. This type of unconscionable conduct by franchisors needs to be stamped out, and they must be held accountable. The necessary provisions are already codified in legislation—section 51 of the Trade Practices Act being the most relevant—but there is a need for proper definition and application. It is the enforcement of suspected breaches by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that gives struggling franchisees the biggest headaches. Enforcement by the ACCC is something I am very concerned about. A recent South Australian inquiry into franchising stated that section 51AC: … has the potential to provide a clear course for redress for franchise disputes and those factors currently obstructing its use should be identified and resolved, even if this requires revisiting the Act. It is promising that the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has its franchising inquiry underway. I understand that its report will be tabled in the parliament in December. But it is vital that its recommendations are acted upon immediately. It is up to this parliament to seek the changes that are required to stamp out this growing epidemic. I have met with ACCC Commissioner John Martin on a number of occasions regarding franchisee issues. I am often at great pains to stress that it appears that the ACCC is powerless to pin down rogue franchisors. Mr Martin always gives me a very good hearing, puts his hand on his cheek and seems very concerned, but there is very seldom follow-up after our meetings. He might be concerned, but there is very little action as a result of our meetings. I have said to Mr Martin that, if the ACCC need financial or legislative support, I am sure this parliament will provide it, because that is what is needed. Between June 2004 and December 2007, 1,916 complaints were made to the ACCC about franchising matters. Since 1998, the ACCC has undertaken 175 investigations, with the vast majority of these cases alleging breaches of the Trade Practices Act. However, 108 of these complaints were not pursued. In the 12 months up to June 2007, there were 525 franchise complaints, and statistics show that this is growing every year as franchising becomes a more popular form of small business operation. In many lucky cases, a resolution is reached when a notice of dispute is issued. However, whilst the Franchising Australia survey found the code of conduct to be adequate, it showed that some 35 per cent of franchisors reported that they had been involved in a substantial dispute with a franchisee over the previous 12 months. The percentage appears to be exceedingly high. The issue is gaining momentum, with the states conducting their own inquiries. For example, there was one in Perth recently. This motion calls for the introduction of compulsory dispute resolution at no cost to the franchisee. Currently, mediation in franchising is provided for under the code. However, both parties can opt out of the system. There are major problems in this regard because there are no penalties for failing to mediate and the parties are required to pay their own costs for mediation, which is often the stumbling block for the franchisees because they have already gone broke. Where the parties do mediate and come up with an agreement, there is no provision made for the enforcement of such an agreement. There is no formal requirement for parties to act in good faith. There are no sanctions for breach of confidentiality, and franchisees are often not represented by counsel, which only reduces their bargaining power. As I have previously mentioned, the cost of litigating is prohibitive for franchisees, who have been pushed to the wall on this issue. An application of the dispute resolution process for industrial relations disputes should be considered for franchisee disputes. The Howard government made provision of financial subsidies for parties who wished to go private. Under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Assistance Scheme, eligible parties can seek up to $1,500 for the provision of ADR services for each eligible dispute, plus travel expenses. But, as you can imagine, that is obviously quite inadequate. In summing up, I wish to see this parliament and the minister take seriously this issue of not only churning but unconscionable conduct towards franchisees. They are out there using their own money in small business to try to make a living for themselves and their families and they have little or no protection. They deserve for this parliament to give them a better outcome. I hope that, as a result of today, we can do that. (Time expired) 6818 19:36:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —Franchising here in Australia is a $128 billion industry that employs over half a million people. From my observation in my electorate, and certainly from my experience practising as a lawyer, a lot of franchisees go into franchising having been in the military, having worked in the Public Service or having engaged in all kinds of areas and they go into this type of work in, say, their 40s or 50s. They pour their life savings into a particular venture; sometimes it is their superannuation. A 2008 Griffith University study found that the average start-up costs for a retail franchise business had risen to $262,500 and up to $1 million for bedding and furniture franchises. Franchisees really are disadvantaged in terms of the power balance with franchisors. Franchising is really an ongoing commercial arrangement in which a party, the franchisor, authorises another, the franchisee, to use their business model, trademark or marketing techniques and strategies in return for an agreed fee and/or a proportion of sales. Here in Australia, franchising is regulated by the Franchising Code of Conduct, established in 1998. It is a mandatory industry code established under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974. In 1993 a voluntary code was established because of the high level of disputation in the franchising sector and the power imbalance in industry, but it proved to be unsuccessful—as a lot of voluntary codes do—and so a mandatory code was established. Mandatory codes have been created in the petroleum and horticulture industries as well. Franchising relationships are governed by other consumer protection provisions in the Trade Practices Act, including: section 51AC, unconscionable conduct; section 52, misleading or deceptive conduct; and section 53, false or misleading representations. The member for Oxley is the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. There is a franchising inquiry which has been touring the country. The committee is approaching its task seriously with a very broad brief and an open mind, according to the member for Oxley. The inquiry has been taking submissions from stakeholders and intends to table its report on 1 December this year. Submissions will be accepted until 12 September 2008. I commend the member for Canning for raising this issue here, because this is an important issue to be discussed in the federal parliament. There are issues of goodwill and good faith. I see that one of the wealthiest men in this country has raised the issue—and it has not just been wealthy people but also others, such as people who were my clients in my old law practice. One of the wealthiest men in Australia, Mr Jack Cowin, raised this issue and has been putting pressure on the federal government since US food giant Yum! Restaurants International refused to renew one of his KFC franchising agreements and was not prepared to recognise goodwill established over 30 years of continuous operation. In my previous life I practised as a family lawyer. There were many cases involving franchise agreements and franchises which, apart from the matrimonial home, were the major matrimonial assets. Getting valuations done was difficult because franchisees were at a great disadvantage compared to franchisors. I hope that the inquiry comes down very much on the side of franchisees because of the financial disadvantage they have. They have almost a ‘take it or leave it’ relationship with franchisors. Anecdotally, and from what constituents have said to me, there is a certain degree of bullying and harassment in the industry. I hope that those people who have experienced that will come forward and make submissions to the inquiry. It will take a lot of courage because a lot of them will continue to be in the industry. Good faith provisions need to be put into this legislation. Goodwill needs to be put into this legislation. I hope that in future franchisees will have the same rights as franchisors. I hope that the trade practices legislation can be toughened and the code of conduct strengthened also. I want to thank the member for Canning for raising this issue. I think there is merit in what he has to say. I think unconscionable conduct is a disgrace. As long as we can help franchises, that is good for business and that is good for individuals in his electorate and in mine. 6819 07:41:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise to support the member for Canning’s motion and acknowledge the four points he has made. But I also acknowledge the member for Blair and his support for the motion. I have spoken previously on the problems franchisees face and, in particular, about the unconscionable conduct by franchisors towards franchisees. In the first point of the member for Canning’s motion he recognises the severe financial distress and hardship faced by a number of current and former franchisees throughout Australia as a direct result of franchisor conduct. This has occurred in my electorate of Swan and in many of my colleagues’ electorates as well. The franchise model, the behaviour and the conduct of some franchisors send the franchisees into bankruptcy. This spiral into bankruptcy does not start well into the commercial relationship but even before the ink is dry on the contract. Anyone without commercial experience who has not been involved in running a business will not understand why. Let me tell you why: it is because the model being sold by some franchisors is flawed and doomed to failure before the franchise starts. Let me use the model being promoted by Michel’s Patisserie as an example, as it directly affected some of my constituents. The first time I saw a contract and the supporting figures provided by Michel’s I advised my constituent that I would not touch it, as it was not what I would call a successful model; I certainly would not pay for that model. The return on investment, without sufficient profits, was not forecast in the model that they provided. The constituent told me his bank agreed that the model was flawed, but Michel’s said their bank would finance it and, under Michel’s very professional guidance, the franchisee’s business would survive and flourish. My constituent has now left the business. He has a huge debt to Michel’s because Michel’s continued to trade with him when his business was clearly insolvent. The purpose of that could only have been to drive him into a position where he would have to sell the franchise back to Michel’s for a ‘walk away’ sum of money and they could then sell the franchise to another potential client. This is known in the business as ‘churning’, an event all franchisors deny happens. The second point in the member for Canning’s motion acknowledges that the franchisors must be held accountable for their unconscionable conduct, including nondisclosure, through a more stringent and determined application of existing trade practices legislation. I fully support this. Evidence shows that this does not happen or cannot occur under the current legislation, as the ACCC has failed to prosecute or pursue any franchisors to the benefit of the franchisees because of the flawed legislation. The current legislation has been around for some time under coalition and Labor governments, and there has been very little willingness to change the legislation to protect franchisees. Some franchisors have been expert in creating a history of evidence that supports their arguments that the franchisee was not performing to their model and therefore the franchisee deserves no protection or compensation from the authorities or the legislation in its current format. The members’ final two points are well stated also, but due to time restraints I will not acknowledge them. In my experiences with franchising and business, the current legislation is flawed because it tries to address the problems from a principle of law and not from a factual situation. I recently spoke with the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy in this very room and suggested that we need to make changes to the franchising laws to protect franchisees from predatory franchisors. The minister’s reply was to say that changes were made in March and he could not foresee that any more changes would be needed or were necessary. I have a copy of a summary of the changes from a Sydney law firm, which concludes: Some of the new provisions are onerous (such as the requirement of disclosures within 14 days). Franchisors may need to review their systems so they can more promptly disclose relevant information to franchisees. I suggest the following, which will take us to the heart of the matter. Firstly, if you are running a business selling franchises, you should make available all disclosures prior to the signing of the contract. To have only a cooling-off period of seven days for the franchisee but then a 14-day window of disclosure by the franchisor does not match up. The franchisee should have seven days after the full disclosure by the franchisor. Secondly, the contract should be made null with a full refund to the franchisee if the model they sell and figures they provide are incorrect. This is normal practice in business, but the franchisors always use the argument that the franchisee is not meeting their model requirements. Thirdly, once the process of mediation has started, the franchisor should not be allowed to close down the business of the franchisee until that mediation is finalised and agreed to by both parties. One of my constituents was in the process of mediation when he was closed down. Fourthly, the ACCC need to be given resources and legislation to pursue unconscionable conduct by franchisors. I would provide them with some live cases to get stuck into, but unfortunately they are not able to assist. To all franchisees of Australia: we have a team of dedicated coalition members and senators who are committed to furthering your cause and making sure we protect your livelihood. (Time expired) 6821 19:46:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I too commend the member for Canning for putting this motion to the House. Any time we find a group of people who have such little power, relative to the other side of the table, or who enter into agreements such as these with such little business skill we do need to make sure we have legislation in place which protects the interests of the weaker party. Once again, I commend him for moving this motion. There are some 72,000-odd franchises in Australia. We would not go through a day without touching one of them either at the coffee shop, the bakery, the news outlet or the decor shop. They are everywhere in my community at the moment. At its best, it is a genuine symbiotic relationship where the franchisee has access to the power of the brand but also protects the power of the brand through the successful operation of the franchise. At its worst, it is exploitative. In Australia we have the full range of franchises. We can all look around and see some incredibly successful ones—we know who they are and I will not name them—and others who have attracted quite considerable media attention because of their behaviour. I want to cover some of the changes that were introduced on 1 March because to some extent they postdate some of the criticisms, particularly those in paragraphs (3) and (4). They do not completely negate them, but I do want to get on the record that there has been some action on franchising. In fact, it began under the previous government in 2006 with the review of the operation of the disclosure provisions in part 2 of the code. There were a number of recommendations—in fact, 27—and 15 were accepted by the former government and six were agreed in principle. They came into effect on 1 March 2008. There were some improvements there. The changes to the disclosure requirements mean that franchisors are now required to disclose such details as the name and contact details of each franchisee who has either transferred, terminated, not renewed, ceased to operate or was bought out in the last three years; the history of the franchise site and territory; and the details about the directors of the franchise and any material relevant facts in writing within 14 days of them becoming known. The ACCC also assists prospective franchisees by making available the Franchisee Manual, which encourages prospective franchisees to understand the risks they face when entering into a franchise. Those changes are still relatively new, and I watch with great interest how they are applied and how successfully the ACCC is able to prosecute franchisors who are in breach of that code. Between the 2006 review and the implementation of the new code in March, two other reviews were undertaken by state governments. One was undertaken by South Australia in response to the accusation that Bakers Delight franchisors were involved in churning at the time. The other, in 2007, was undertaken by the Western Australian government, again in response to a particular circumstance, when Competitive Foods Australia Ltd, which holds some 50 franchising contracts to operate KFC stores in Western Australia, decided not to renew any of those franchises when their terms concluded. Both those reviews put forward recommendations concerning disclosure provisions and churning and also unconscionable conduct, but to date there has been no response to them. Now, of course, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services is inquiring into the Franchising Code of Conduct and has referred to both of those reviews in its background notes. Early next year we should see a report from that committee which incorporates recommendations from those two state governments as well as evidence from the dozens of franchisees that have made submissions to date. So there is movement in this issue. It will never be finished. There will always be someone who finds a way around it and there will always be weaker parties which enter into negotiations without full information. So we must be vigilant, but there is action on it and I look forward to seeing the results of that. (Time expired) 6822 19:52:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I am delighted to speak in support of this motion. The more I and some of my colleagues delve into franchising in Australia, the more we are astounded at the impunity with which many honest people have been driven to the wall without satisfactory remedy. I am also astounded that nothing seems to be being done to redress the injustices incurred, nor are any remedial measures being introduced to prevent or discourage a repetition of these events. It appears to me that there is a purposeful and systematic practice by which some franchisors induce the failure of a sizeable proportion of a franchisee network for the singular purpose of resale at an advantageous price. The practice has been termed ‘churning’. Whether or not you accept the existence of such things, you cannot deny the high incidence of failed franchises that started off on a sound financial basis. The net effect of these practices has caused untold distress to many people who entered into contracts in good faith and with enthusiasm. After considerable effort, the ACCC finally accepted and investigated some of the cases I brought to them, yet not one prosecution has come out of the process. I am told that, if a confidentiality agreement has been signed between the franchisee and the franchisor, the ACCC decline to investigate. If that is the case, should such an instrument be allowed to stand in the way of getting to the truth? I have deep concerns that the ACCC accepted such a position knowing of the potential for possible breaches of the Criminal Code and I have grave doubts that these matters were investigated as thoroughly as they should have been. I can only draw three reasonable conclusions: (1) that the act is inadequate and needs tightening; (2) that the ACCC is not applying the responsibilities given it with the degree of competence these cases need; or (3) that all the affected franchisees are commercially and uniformly incompetent. I believe there is evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of some franchisors but I am not confident the ACCC has properly examined the claims. There seems to be a problem with defining what constitutes ‘unconscionable conduct’ under the act and that of a layperson. In just about every case I have looked at, the franchisor has acted with impunity in the way it shared information with the franchisee and the degree of control it exerted over the franchisee. Information is often withheld or manipulated. I understand there is a practice of inducing a breach, and the franchisees are powerless to defend themselves because the means to do so has been denied them. Certainly, the recent inquiries in Western Australia and South Australia support the supposition that a huge clean-up is long overdue. If the ACCC lacks adequate resources to effectively prosecute its brief then give it the resources it needs. But if the ACCC has the resources and cannot even prosecute one case then I would question the competency of that agency. Indeed, there has even been some suggestion of breaches of the Criminal Code, and I have urged a number of franchisees to take their case to the police. The pattern that has emerged in all of this is to bleed affected franchisees financially, thereby denying them the ability to afford a reasonable legal challenge. There needs to be legislative relief in the form of a tribunal commission where these matters can be adjudicated. We are suggesting that the industrial relations model can be looked at as a guide. Although these matters surround the concept of harsh or unconscionable conduct, it seems a difficult proposition to prove, at least as far as the Trade Practices Act is concerned. Much of this has to do with defining exactly what that means, and at the moment the benefit of the doubt is unwavering slanted towards the franchisor. I think each case should be examined by someone other than the ACCC because, from what I have seen so far, I am not at all heartened. I applaud the fact that there is a Senate investigation underway—not before time—as this is a matter that transcends politics. I am convinced that churning exists and it must be stamped out. If the act does not cater for the discouragement of such an immoral practice then it must be amended. If it does then the watchdog is not doing its job. Either way the government has to act today to restore confidence in this blighted industry. In closing I would like to read into the record three succinct extracts from emails with regard to Bakers Delight, and these can be produced. The first is from Richard Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of Bakers Delight, to Simon Brookhouse, the Victorian and Tasmanian franchise manager for the ANZ Bank, dated 22 February 2005 with regard to Ms Deanne DeLeeuw, who was still an active franchisee at the time. It read: The South Coast bakeries group heads closer and closer to oblivion. Is that not evidence that suggests plans had been conspired to terminate Ms DeLeeuw’s franchise well ahead of time? The second email is from Jurgen Schnabel, Senior Manager of the ANZ Bank, dated 10 March 2005. He wrote: ... we will accept whatever Bakers Delight decides to give us from the sale of Kiama and Vincentia, without question. Does this not constitute some degree of collusion towards the premature but planned demise of this franchisee? And finally: ... we have to consider the greater relationship with Bakers Delight given our overall exposure to this group within PM. That was in an email from Simon Brookhouse of the ANZ Bank dated 10 March 2005. This was when the ANZ agreed to accept a nil return from Bakers Delight for the Shellharbour franchise. (Time expired) 6824 19:57:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I too rise to speak on the franchising resolution tonight and I do so in the context of having a particular dispute in my electorate involving a KFC franchise in Thornlie. I can indicate to the member for Canning that I also recognise the severe financial distress and hardship faced by a number of current and former franchisees throughout Australia as a result of franchisor conduct. Of course, he would acknowledge that the distress often flows onto the people employed in these franchises. I note the inquiries that have been launched and undertaken by both the Western Australian and South Australian governments into franchising and, in particular, the one in Western Australia where the report was handed down in April of this year. The catalyst for the inquiry in Western Australia in large part involved the KFC franchises in Western Australia. Many of them have been run by a company known as Competitive Foods Australia Ltd, or CFAL, that held nearly 50 of those franchises in WA and have operated the brand in Western Australia since 1969. The member for Blair and the member for Parramatta made reference to that. CFAL concerns were indeed the catalyst for the inquiry. Some 40 staff are currently employed at the KFC franchise in Thornlie in my electorate. Their jobs are threatened with the closure of the KFC franchise, which is likely to take place in December this year. This follows the closure of a store in Rockingham last year where some 40 employees lost their jobs, and I understand that there are two other stores in the Perth metropolitan area that face similar circumstances. I must say, if there is one thing on which I think immediate action needs to be taken, it is also the recommendations from the Western Australian government inquiry involving the issue of the nonrenewal of franchising agreements. In particular, I would commend recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 of that inquiry which are to make the necessary changes so that there is an amendment to the franchising code to require franchisors to explicitly specify, in their disclosure documents, what end of agreement arrangements are in place under the franchise and also to indicate what the franchisee’s entitlements are in respect of those and any entitlement to goodwill or other compensation if the agreement is not renewed. Whilst I do not think that unconscionable conduct should be condoned anywhere—I think businesses and individuals should be held accountable for such conduct—it was the case that the Western Australian inquiry indicated that they believed there was not existing protection in current law to provide the desired level of protection for all franchising participants. This is why I largely support the motion brought by the member for Canning. I certainly agree that many franchisees have no adequate or available means to redress their grievances without recourse to expensive or unaffordable litigation. I am pleased to note the current inquiry being undertaken by the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the Franchising Code of Conduct and related matters. The committee’s terms of reference encompass the matters raised in this motion by the member for Canning, and I am sure that within its terms of reference it will be able to encompass the reports and recommendations from both the South Australian government’s inquiry and the Western Australian government’s inquiry. I am confident that it will make sound and considered recommendations to address the shortfalls in the current code. I believe that code will be enhanced by strengthened good faith provisions and by a more effective low-cost dispute resolution procedure. It was with some irony that I read point (4) of the member for Canning’s motion because, as a representative of the party that supports Work Choices, it is interesting that the member can so clearly see the need for decent conciliation and arbitration proceedings at no cost when it comes to small business but perhaps cannot so wholeheartedly endorse that when it comes to the ordinary working person. I certainly would urge the Committee to support changes to the code requiring franchisors to show good cause when refusing, in particular, to renew franchising agreements. I am concerned the inquiry will not be dealt with quickly enough to assist my constituents in Thornlie, so I intend to pursue this matter directly with the minister and assist the staff and management at Thornlie KFC as best I can. 6825 20:02:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I thank the member for Canning for bringing this motion to the chamber. I have to say that I concur with many of the comments that I have heard while sitting in this chamber, particularly those of the member for Gilmore, who spoke very passionately and strongly about this issue. It is an important issue for the future of Australian small business. In many respects, franchising has flourished in Australia since the introduction of the franchising code, and we have had an excellent opportunity to round off the franchise industry regulation by replacing previous poor practice, which has threatened the reputation as well as the future of the sector. The problem is well recognised and acknowledged as that of franchisor opportunism. In May this year, the Small Business Ministerial Council recommended the inclusion of a good faith provision in the code as part of further amendments to give greater certainly to franchises. The Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, the honourable member for Rankin, also made an election promise to introduce a good faith clause. The minister said: ... Labor believes that the Franchise Code should include good faith obligations as long as the scope of this obligation is well defined. It begs the question: what has the member for Rankin done, then, about fulfilling this promise? Recent inquiries into franchising by both the South Australian and Western Australian parliaments have highlighted huge deficiencies in the current franchise code of conduct. Surely this is enough to convince us that something needs to be done and it needs to be done urgently. The most recent and relevant example of these deficiencies is a decision handed down by the High Court in the Ketchell case. Although the franchisee lost on the facts, the High Court confirmed that the courts have the power under the TPA to rewrite franchise agreements that breach the code. The problem is that the code is defective, and until it is fixed franchisees are no better off. Any instance where a franchisor does not renew the franchise agreement and forces the franchisee out of business purely and simply to set up its own business at the same location is something that I consider to be absolutely unconscionable. I concur with the comments made by both the member for Parramatta and the member for Hasluck this evening regarding the matter of KFC in Australia. As Jack Cowin of Competitive Foods Australia has said previously, franchising is a unique form of relationship. At the core of the franchise relationship is a belief that franchisees and franchisors will work together in good faith to build a business for their mutual benefit. It is well recognised that this relationship is more like a commercial partnership than a simple supply of services between two parties. Mr Cowin is right about that, and he probably has more to lose than anyone. We have heard from the members I have previously mentioned about the case of KFC—and I do not propose to go into those details again—which is a very disturbing one indeed. The coalition recognises the importance of having both diversity and balance in the marketplace. While we recognise the importance of promoting and encouraging the growth of small business, this should not be to the detriment of corporate Australia. Finding the balance between the two has always been the strength of the coalition. Competition increases efficiency, lowers prices for consumers, provides greater choice, encourages innovation and the uptake of new technology and lifts productivity. This is the very reason the Trade Practices Act was written: to develop and maintain a free and fair market that benefits consumers as well as business owners, both large and small. The four points raised here by the member for Canning are excellent, and I again thank him for bringing this motion to the House. Adapting franchising regulations in the Trade Practices Act would cover many contentious issues and dubious practices and would ensure a stronger future for the industry. I strongly support this motion and I call on the government to act and to act now. 6826 20:07:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I am very pleased to speak on the motion brought to this House on franchising. Each and every member of this parliament has had problems with people who have been caught up with a franchise. Recently I have been working with some constituents in my electorate who had a double whammy, and I referred to it in a speech that I made in the House earlier. They have been caught up in the renovations of a large shopping centre. The franchisor is very keen to maintain a good relationship with the shopping centre to ensure that they have access to shopping centres throughout Australia. On the other hand, I have some constituents who, because of the renovations to this particular shopping centre, have lost 75 per cent of their takings. These people have been to mediation with the shopping centre management and with the franchisor. The franchisor and the shopping centre can reach an agreement, but my constituents are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are losing all their life savings. These are ordinary Australians that decided that they wanted to invest in small business but, because of the relationship that exists between them and the franchisor and between them and the shopping centre, they are caught in the middle and they are going to be the ones that lose. That is quite a sad situation and one that needs to be addressed. I am really pleased to see the member for Oxley in here because I know he is currently conducting an inquiry into franchising. As chair of that committee he has been going around Australia listening and taking evidence from various people. I know he would be hearing all the problems that people are experiencing. He has told us that, whilst he has been going around with the committee, there has been an extraordinary amount of interest from stakeholders in the franchising community, and I would argue that that would be from both franchisors and franchisees. I would be interested to talk to him a little later and see if he has come across the situation I have been talking about here tonight. He has indicated that it is quite common for franchisees to be caught in the relationship between shopping centres and the franchisor. In the inquiry he has adopted a very broad approach. He is open-minded. He and the committee are keen to get to the core issues in relation to franchising. I commend their efforts and I commend this motion. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 8.11 pm to 8.35 pm 10000 Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)—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. 6827 Grievance Debate Debate resumed from 23 July. 10000 Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)—The question is: That grievances be noted. 6827 6827 20:35:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —Today I want to speak in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia and in this grievance debate on the Rudd Labor government’s policies in relation to climate change, energy and the environment. I especially want to focus on the government’s retrograde policy on solar energy. Solar energy is, of course, part of the energy mix that the world must explore and promote to make our world greener and cleaner. I have said before in this parliament that energy affordability, diversity, reliability and security is one of the greatest 21st century policy and political challenges facing leaders, governments and other business stakeholders. After all, 30 per cent of the world’s 6.5 billion people still do not have access to electricity and only one in six people have access to a quantity and quality of energy comparable to what is enjoyed in the developed world. One billion people use over half the world’s energy whilst the poorest billion people use only four per cent of the world’s energy. This is inequity at its worst. This is untenable in the 21st century. For this reason, in my view, delivering energy to the people of the developing world and, indeed, the underdeveloped world will be crucial for international stability and security. Why? It is because reliable and affordable energy is an absolute precondition for economic prosperity and wealth if you already have such prosperity and wealth, it is an absolute precondition for economic growth and advancement if you are a developing economy and you want to increase the living standards of your people and it is an absolute precondition for giving people simple hope and making life even possible for someone who lives in the poorest of the poor places on our planet. In previous speeches in this place I have remarked on how fundamental it is for those in positions of leadership and influence to ensure that all kinds of energy options are considered and explored as part of a solution to the great economic and energy challenges of our time and in the decades ahead. These include coal, oil, tidal energy and wind power—and, yes, they do include nuclear power. Anyone who thinks this country will not go down the path of nuclear power when we have 40 per cent of the world’s uranium deposits, and especially when we all know that civil nuclear energy is a zero-emission energy source, is going to be terribly disappointed. This was stated recently in Brisbane by the CEO of Macarthur Coal, Ms Nicole Hollows—a significant corporate figure in Queensland. As Ms Hollows stated: Nuclear really is the elephant in the room. With respect to coal, we must do all we can to invest in clean coal technology, and whichever government of whichever colour invests in clean coal technology will have my full support. In Queensland, some 400 to 500 years worth of coal deposits are at our disposal. Clean coal technology will fundamentally change the way the world looks at this fossil fuel. The revenue is simply too great for us to leave fossil fuel in the ground, yet we cannot continue to pollute the environment with brown or black coal. This is why I have faith in the brilliant scientists and engineers who are working on clean coal technology. The whole question of climate change and global warming is clearly one of the most significant of our time. Prime Minister Rudd says it is the greatest moral challenge of our times. First of all, let me say that I am not a scientist. People like me who have no expert basis in such areas should not pretend to be experts. But what we can and must do is listen to the experts and try to be as widely read and informed as we can. In this respect, as someone who comes to this debate without formal academic or scientific training, I accept the evidence that suggests global warming needs to be tackled in our world to secure our environment for the generations to come. Whether global warming is the direct and specific fault of human activity or human industry is probably more contentious in our community. To me this is not the most important point; the most important point must be what we all can and should do about global warming. The more fundamental point is especially what price we can and should pay to tackle climate change. The Rudd government has framed climate change as the biggest moral challenge of our age. Time after time the Prime Minister has warned all of us that our place in history will be assessed on how we solve this problem, that we will be morally bankrupt if we sit idly by and watch the world around us self-destruct, that we will be morally culpable if we do nothing. Yet what does the Rudd Labor government do to tackle this huge moral issue of our times? It tells the people of Australia that they are not entitled to do their bit to save the world, as we all need to do according to Mr Rudd. It tells the people of Ryan, the electorate that I represent in the western suburbs of Brisbane, that they cannot be part of the solution to the greatest moral crisis of our times according to Mr Rudd. This Ruddspeak is just sheer nonsense. The people of Ryan are excellent environmental citizens. I have known this since I was elected to the Parliament of Australia, representing the Ryan electorate, in 2001. Everyone in the western suburbs of Brisbane wants to be active and engaged in this important area of environmental conservation and protection. We all want to install solar panels. I certainly have one. Yet here we have a Labor government punishing the people of Ryan by saying to them that they cannot have access to the $8,000 solar panel rebate if they earn more than a combined household income of $100,000. That is right: the government’s first budget in May introduced the $100,000 household means test for eligibility for the former Howard government solar panel rebate. If mum and dad earn just over $50,000 each, the family home in Taringa, Chapel Hill, Indooroopilly, Kenmore, Pullenvale or Moggill in the Ryan electorate will not have access to a solar panel installed on its rooftop unless mum and dad are able to pay the full cost of installation. These costs are significant. One of the reasons I am so passionate about solar energy in particular and renewable energy generally is the example set by someone whose life story is a compelling one. His name is Dr Shi Zhengrong; he is a Chinese Australian. More recently in the inquiry into the Save our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill, Dr Shi Zhengrong’s representatives and company Suntech Power made a submission on the means test which the Rudd Labor government has introduced. Suntech Power, as I am sure most people will know, and certainly the environmentally minded people of the western suburbs of Brisbane know, is one of the leading corporate players in the solar industry. Suntech Power stated the following in its submission: Solar panel rebate recipients are the pioneers in our renewable energy sector. Be they low, middle or high-income households or businesses, recipients of the rebate are first-time investors that are making a substantial contribution to Australia’s green energy future. In this respect program participants are helping transform the market for solar energy, thereby helping to make solar energy systems more affordable for all Australians. Given the current overall cost of a solar power system, it is not surprising that a high proportion of families and businesses on higher incomes have opted to install a solar power system and apply for the rebate. …            …            … The solar panel rebate was not designed as an income assistance, or social security measure. The purpose of the rebate was to off-set the start-up costs of installing a solar power system, thereby encouraging Australian homeowners to invest in solar technology. Suntech Power Australia believe that, given the fledgling status of Australia’s solar market, income should not be a factor in determining eligibility. The more clean energy megawatts that Australia installs, the better it is for the ... community. Last year I announced, in the western suburbs of Brisbane in the Ryan electorate, the launch of the Ryan Solar Suburbs Vision. This was a bold and exciting environmental and energy policy vision specifically for the Ryan electorate. The Ryan Solar Suburbs Vision sought to achieve solar energy coverage of 25 per cent or one in four households in the Ryan federal electorate by 2010, a vision that will enable local residents not only to make a positive impact on the environment but also to save on their power bills. With the announcement of the solar rebate policy in the Rudd Labor government’s budget, the vision that I foresaw in Ryan is now clearly much more difficult to achieve. The only excuse that the Rudd government can provide us with is that the coalition’s scheme was too popular and that the current Rudd government’s Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, complained that the program had been overheated. As far as I am concerned, and as the people of Ryan will know, this is just absurd. Clearly, one of the consequences of the Rudd government’s budget is the impact on small businesses that are in the solar business. Already solar companies are laying off staff as homeowners rush to cancel their plans to install solar panels. Businesses are reporting that three-quarters of all contracts have been cancelled since the budget was brought down in May and there is little or no sign of new ones being signed. In the recent May budget the Rudd government set a target of 134,000 jobs to be lost over the coming year. This deliberate targeting of job losses is amazing to the people of Ryan, particularly in the era of our mining boom and since only 12 months ago we had the lowest levels of unemployment in more than 33 years. Unfortunately, jobs from the solar industry are the first to go. In fact, unfortunately, with the election of the Rudd government last November it appears that the strong Australian economy of the Howard-Costello era is starting to wobble. People are losing their jobs, consumer and business confidence are at record lows and very few small and medium-sized businesses are planning long term or employing more people. The family budget in Ryan is certainly under great strain. As the federal member for Ryan, I am going to ensure that the people of Ryan are well aware that the Rudd Labor government is not solar friendly. Does anyone really believe that the Labor government, after its track record in the May budget, is going to be the best government for the people of Ryan? This is not a government that is renewable energy friendly, this is not a budget that is solar energy friendly, and I think that the people of Ryan will certainly become aware of the exact credentials of the Rudd government. 6830 6830 20:46:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —This Sunday we celebrate the fathers in our community. This Sunday sons and daughters across the country will turn to their fathers and say thank you. This Sunday I will turn to my mum and dad and say thank you. I am one of the lucky ones. Frank Golding is a Melbourne writer and academic. Frank grew up in an orphanage in Ballarat and he has a very different view of Father’s Day. He says, ‘For children who grew up in institutions, Father’s Day can be an extremely difficult day. They think of the father they never knew, or the one they would like to have had. For some of us, Father’s Day is not a day to celebrate. It’s a day of sad memories and regrets.’ This week is a significant week because it is bookended by two important events. It ends with Father’s Day on Sunday. It began last Saturday, 30 August with the fourth anniversary of the Senate committee report into the forgotten Australians. This report shines a light on a dark chapter in our history, a history which still remains unacknowledged, unmentioned and very much forgotten. It is the history of forgotten Australians—our youngest children, many abandoned by their mothers and fathers, abused and neglected by the state and now forgotten by the history books. Half a million children were placed into institutions in the 20th century. The Senate inquiry suggests that because of the sheer number of children placed in care: ... it is highly likely that every Australian either was, is related to, works with or knows someone who experienced childhood in an institution or out of home care environment. Some had good experiences, but for many the memories of their childhood cast long shadows over the lives that they live now. They bear the scars of years of neglect and abuse. The Senate inquiry received hundreds of submissions detailing the graphic and disturbing accounts of mistreatment—stories of emotional, physical and sexual abuse; accounts of punishment so severe they amounted to torture; recollections of the traumatic effect of continual neglect and humiliation; and deprivation of food, education and health care. This week Louise, a former state ward, wrote to the Premier of Victoria, John Brumby. She told the Premier: ‘Our courage to bring the truth of our past into the public eye depends on you having the courage to face it.’ It depends on the courage of us all to face it. And there is courage in the lives of the children who grew up in care. I have met such a woman; her name is Leonie. A few weeks after I was preselected as the Labor candidate for Blaxland, Leonie asked to meet with me. She told me the story of her childhood, how she entered an orphanage in Geelong at the tender age of three, separated from her two sisters and one younger brother. She offers her heartbreaking story with unflinching honesty and she forces you to go on her journey. She forces you into the shoes of a confused little three-year-old who entered an orphanage in 1957. She forces you to imagine the sense of loss and isolation from her family; to imagine living with a constant sense of fear and dread of every minor indiscretion; to imagine the sense of confusion when, as a 16-year-old, you are taken and dumped in the outside world and told to fend for yourself; to imagine trying to be a parent when you have not been parented yourself; and, above all, to imagine the empty feeling of a childhood deprived of love. As Leonie told me her story and the stories of many like her, tears welled up in her eyes, and they also welled up in mine. She reminded me of my own mother, except Leonie had lived a life less fortunate. Together with Joanna Penglase, Leonie started the Care Leavers Australia Network, CLAN, in July 2000. Leonie affectionately calls the 900 members of the network ‘clannies’. Leonie and Joanna have worked tirelessly to tell the stories of the ‘clannies’: the pain they suffered at being abused, threatened and unloved by those entrusted to care for them. Leonie and Joanna gave Jan Barnacle the courage to tell her story. During her time in five different orphanages, Jan was denied an education. In a letter to CLAN in November 2000, she wrote: I am finding this very hard to write. You will know by this letter that I am uneducated. I only learned how to read I taught my self at the age of 47 I know I can’t spell but I try, there is a book in my head but it will never happen. Jan also wrote another letter. This time she nominated Leonie for an Australia Day honours award, and in 2007 Leonie Sheedy was awarded the Order of Australia medal. In my first speech in this place I repeated the words of Robert Kennedy when he spoke to a group of South African students in 1966: Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. Leonie Sheedy gives proof to the words of Robert Kennedy. Every day she sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. Every day she provides help and support for the forgotten, and she fights for them with all the passion she can muster. For the past eight years she has been a determined and lonely voice crying out for someone to listen. Her lobbying prompted a Senate inquiry, which received in all 614 submissions. Many were deeply personal and very moving. Those who listened to the evidence were forever changed by these stories. One of those was Senator Andrew Murray. In his valedictory speech in June this year he said that the inquiries into child migrants and the forgotten Australians were his biggest achievements. He talked of the burden that we all carry to continue his work. He singled me out and my friend Richard Marles, the member for Corio, where Leonie grew up, to continue this work. We often hear that it takes a village to raise a child; sometimes it takes a government. The responsibility of government is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. By this measure successive governments failed people like Leonie, Frank, Louise, Jan and so many others. Four years after the Senate report was tabled it is time to face up to our collective responsibility to give justice to these people. In 1992 Paul Keating asked us to imagine: … how would I feel if this were done to me? …            …            … It seems to me that if we can imagine the injustice we can imagine its opposite.  And we can have justice. People like Senator Murray and Leonie Sheedy and those who made submissions imagined the opposite: they imagined a government of compassion. In February this year a compassionate government apologised to the stolen generations. The Howard government lacked the courage and the compassion to do this. They also failed to respond to the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report. I think this is pressing business. That is why I am working with the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, to ensure that this new, compassionate government responds to this report. I think we owe it to the 614 people who made submissions. I think we owe it to the half a million people who lived in institutions in Australia in the 20th century. I think we owe it to Vera Fooks. In two weeks Vera Fooks will turn 97. She grew up in the St Vincent’s Orphanage in Nudgee, Queensland. In a self-published book she tells harrowing stories of emotional and physical abuse and the emotional pain of being separated from her sister and her brother at just nine years of age. Vera has cancer, and doctors have told her that she does not have very long to live. That was a couple of months ago. She is determined to hang on to hear her government respond. I think it is time we did. It is time Vera and others like her were no longer forgotten Australians. 6832 6832 20:55:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Tonight in the Main Committee I would like to grieve for the fate of the community of the Chancellor State College on the Sunshine Coast. The principal, John Lockhart, who has guided the school since 2003, under Education Queensland processes was required to reapply for his job as principal. Chancellor State College for many years was in my electorate before it was excised and given, sadly, to the electorate of Fairfax. John Lockhart, as principal and leader of this community, has helped to build the school from having some 980 students to being a three-campus college with 1,920 students enrolled. Education Queensland required him to reapply for his job. I do not know whether John is the sort of person who does not suffer fools lightly, but the result was that someone else was appointed principal. It is not as though John is a bad principal, because the education department in Queensland immediately offered to appoint him principal of another very large secondary school on the Sunshine Coast and, on the evening when a protest meeting was taking place in the area, John was in Brisbane receiving an award for excellence in teaching education. Sadly, under the Education Queensland arrangements there do not appear to be any appeal provisions. The Labor Party claims that it is the party of the worker and the party of fair play, yet in Queensland this has sadly been shown not to be the case. John Lockhart, an absolutely inspirational person who has built what was a small school into one of the most successful colleges in the state, has been treated with contempt by the Queensland state education department. Hundreds of people have contacted the state education department and local media in support of John Lockhart. I have to say how impressed I am with the way the community has been galvanised behind this person. It would be one thing if they decided he ought not to be principal from the beginning of next year. Having guided students who are now approaching the crucial end-of-year examinations and testings of year 12, he has effectively been ejected from the school. He has been told he has to vacate the position of principal by Friday of next week. Karen Shelley, who is the Vice-President of the Parents and Citizens Association of Chancellor State College, wrote the following letter to the Premier of Queensland, the Minister for Education, Training and the Arts and the Director-General of the Department of Education, Training and the Arts: Dear Ms Bligh, Mr Welford and Ms Hunter, …            …            … I am writing to you to express my extreme disappointment and outrage at the way in which the Chancellor State College Community, through our Parents and Citizens Association, have been treated with respect to the dismissal of our Executive Principal, Mr John Lockhart. Firstly, a letter was sent to the Minister outlining our belief that the decision to replace John Lockhart was erroneous and proceeded without due regard to community input or consultation. The Minister has thus far failed to issue a written response to our concerns as raised in that letter. Whilst I understand it may be normal procedure for you to not respond to correspondence for 4 weeks, I would think matters that are time critical would be given appropriate attention. Under the circumstances this time wasting appears to be a diversionary tactic. Frankly, we deserve more respect from our elected representatives. Time is critical, with John Lockhart due to end his term at Chancellor next Friday 5 September. The school has actually performed incredibly well—so much so that many people who would otherwise select independent education have chosen to send their children to Chancellor State College. It is one of those situations which I find absolutely appalling. Senior students have been coming up to the principal crying because he will not be allowed to be there at their graduation events. If Mr Lockhart had done something wrong, if he had not been an outstanding leader in education, if he had not performed satisfactorily to the requirements of Education Queensland, then absolutely no-one would object if Education Queensland were to replace him with someone else. But for him to be forced to finish his tenure at Chancellor State College after five successful years on 5 September, at a time when students are about to finish their final year, I find quite unethical, very unacceptable and personally unsatisfactory. A lot of people complain about the quality of government education. It is my view one has good government schools and good non-government schools. The great thing about Australia is that we have diversity of education and we have choice. You are a parent, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, and I am a parent and we have the opportunity of choosing the schools that are right for our children. What John Lockhart has done at Chancellor State College is to make many people feel that government education is the right opportunity for their children. It is a highly motivated school community, incredibly supported by the community at large. He is a person who has been recognised by his peers as someone who is excellent at educational leadership. He has built the school up to this incredible number, and maybe he is being treated by Education Queensland as a victim of his own success. Perhaps they are now saying that the school is too big for someone who may not be that level of principal. But in education one needs flexibility, and here we have someone who has the support of his teaching colleagues, the support of the parents and the support of the students. He seems to have the support of everyone other than a few educational thugs in the administration area of Education Queensland. I think it is completely unacceptable that we see this sort of high-handed, autocratic, unreasonable, inequitable action being taken with respect to an achiever who is a paragon of educational virtue. I cannot recall when I have actually stood up in the House itself or in this chamber to support someone who has lost a job as a result of an application process. There has to be an ability to appeal. Education Queensland has ridden roughshod over the wishes of the community on the Sunshine Coast but, more particularly, over the wishes of parents and the school community at Chancellor State College. John Lockhart is immensely respected at the school. He has helped to build a wonderful school. He helped to build it almost from its inception. He is a school leader who cares for his students, who cares for their families, who cares for the school and who cares for the community. He has been able to be entirely bipartisan politically. He has never taken a political stand, to my knowledge. Frankly, I would have no idea as to how John Lockhart voted. All I know is he engages with elected representatives at all levels and he has been incredibly successful in obtaining an amazing amount of money from all levels of government. When we were in government we were able to give Chancellor State College quite a lot of money and we were able to achieve much. Education Queensland was so impressed with John Lockhart and Chancellor State College that it also put a lot of money into that particular school. But we have a school that is grieving. We have an educational community that is exceptionally upset. We have someone who has been treated with a complete lack of fairness. He is someone who I believe ought to be put up as an icon of education virtue, and yet we find the Queensland state government is treating him with absolute contempt. I have nothing against the person who has been appointed to Chancellor State College, but I just think it is totally inequitable that someone who has the complete support of his entire school community, someone who has achieved and is continuing to achieve incredible educational outcomes, is forced to reapply for his own job and, all of a sudden, is sent to the scrapheap by the Queensland state Labor government. Is it any wonder that principals are voting with their feet, leaving the government system and moving to the non-government system? It is an enormous tragedy that John Lockhart will not be at Chancellor State College to see the graduation of his senior students this year. It is an even greater tragedy to know that he will not be there to continue to lead this flagship government school into the future. I salute John Lockhart and his wife. I salute the parent body. I salute the community of Chancellor Park and I congratulate them on what they are seeking to achieve. (Time expired) 6834 6834 21:05:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I rise tonight to speak about the challenges facing Australia’s car-manufacturing industry and about the importance of this industry to my electorate of Calwell. I do so in the context of nearly 600 job losses announced by South Pacific Tyres in late June this year and Ford’s announcement some two weeks ago that it would shed a further 350 jobs in its Broadmeadows and Geelong plants. Both South Pacific Tyres and the Ford assembly plant are located in my electorate of Calwell. To say that there is a growing sense of uncertainty over the future of car manufacturing in Australia, especially among those who work in the industry, is an understatement. The challenges faced by Australia’s car industry are well known. They include rising fuel prices; changing consumer preferences as people opt for smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; the appreciation of the Australian dollar; and greater competition from overseas. Since the early 1990s, Australian-made cars have continued to lose ground in their share of domestic car sales in Australia, accounting for just 25 per cent of all domestic car sales in Australia in 2006. Australian car manufacturers, in turn, have increasingly come to rely on export market opportunities. In particular, market opportunities in the Middle East, the United States, New Zealand and Korea have seen the export arm of car manufacturing grow to a $5 billion industry that now underwrites 40 per cent of all local production in Australia. Aggressively pursuing new export opportunities remains absolutely crucial to the industry’s future. Nationwide, car manufacturing still accounts for around 68,000 jobs. These include those who work on the car assembly production line as well as those who are employed in one of the 200 automotive component firms, many of which are concentrated in Melbourne and Adelaide. It is an important industry whose reach extends beyond the big three remaining car manufacturers in Australia—namely, Ford, Holden and Toyota—to include a host of auxiliary industries, from component manufacturers to specialised tooling firms which rely upon car manufacturing for their very survival. Calwell is home not only to the Ford assembly plant in Broadmeadows but also to a number of car component suppliers and specialised tooling firms and, as such, it serves as a barometer of how the industry has fared over the last decade. The industry has not fared well. In late June, South Pacific Tyres announced that it would close its Somerton plant at the end of the year, leaving the plant’s 587 employees with the daunting prospect of having to find work between now and December. Only two weeks ago Ford announced that it would shed a further 350 jobs across its Geelong and Broadmeadows sites. This follows some 650 jobs that Ford shed in December 2006. Such announcements have a ripple effect that, where job losses are concerned, extends through the entire car component supply chain. To give two local examples, at least 500 jobs have been shed at Autoliv over the last few years, along with significant job losses at Kozmo Industries. These and similar examples serve as a warning of what lies in store if we fail to get the policy settings right, especially when it comes to helping the industry meet its future challenges. The question is: where to from here for car manufacturing in this country? This question has recently been front and centre of national debate, following the much anticipated release of the report of the Review of Australia’s Automotive Industry. The review, chaired by the Hon. Steve Bracks, makes a number of important recommendations. They include replacing the current Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme with a new and retargeted Global Automotive Transition Scheme designed to support research, development, design and export, and bringing forward and doubling to $1 billion, if successful, the Rudd Labor government’s Green Car Innovation Fund. The most controversial, however, of the review’s recommendations is for a further reduction in Australia’s passenger motor vehicle tariff from 10 per cent to five per cent by 2010. This is in keeping with the recommendation put forward by the Productivity Commission and is one that has created particular anxiety amongst Australia’s automotive workforce. Opposition to further tariff reduction is being voiced not only by the major car makers themselves but also by those who work in the car industry, including many who live in my electorate of Calwell, and I have to say that I am yet to be convinced by the arguments that are used to support a further five per cent reduction in Australia’s passenger vehicle tariff. In essence, the argument in favour of tariffs goes something along these lines. Opening up Australia’s automotive industry to greater international competition will compel the industry to identify and home in on its competitive advantages more quickly. In the process, those parts of the industry that fail to be competitive or prove to be artificial for the way they rely on government support to keep them afloat are expected to go under, allowing investment to be channelled to where it can be better utilised for industry gains. Tariffs are seen as a disincentive to change, whilst their reduction or removal is believed to have the reverse effect by creating an environment that is more conducive to innovation and greater industry competitiveness. It is those firms that are able to survive and prosper in this environment, whether through new advances in technology or by capitalising on niche markets, that will eventually form the backbone on which the long-term future of automotive manufacturing in Australia will rest. But when advocates of this argument refer to efficiency gains and rationalisation of the industry, they are actually referring to job losses. It is not until you have been at the coalface of the car industry that you are able to appreciate just what effect job losses like those announced by South Pacific Tyres and Ford have on individual workers, their families and the local community in general. All of us—business, government, unions and workers—agree that in order to survive, prosper and grow in a more competitive international environment Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry must transform itself by diversifying its manufacturing base and increasing its investment in research and development and the testing and development of new technologies. But there is another argument around car tariffs that can be made. Tariff reductions by and large benefit those firms and enterprises that are already in a position to outperform the international competition. Tariffs are often used to provide a protective barrier within which fledgling or struggling industries are given the breathing space to build up their competitiveness and maximise their strengths before being fully exposed to international competition. It can be argued that freezing tariffs is one way to provide Australia’s car industry with both the space and the time to undergo the reforms it needs to make in order to be more internationally competitive. I understand that a balance needs to be made between ensuring access to overseas markets for Australian exports and tariff protection, but many have pointed to the failure of the latest round of Doha negotiations in support of the argument that Australia’s car tariffs should be left at 10 per cent. Others point to the high tariffs that other developed countries currently impose on Australian car exports. This is a debate that has yet to run its course. Across a number of industries, manufacturing has helped lay the foundations on which my electorate of Calwell can build for the future, especially in terms of our existing industry infrastructure, our highly skilled local workforce and our capacity to innovate and compete. There is both potential and opportunity out there, especially as attitudes to climate change shift and consumer demand for green technology grows. As policymakers we have a responsibility to help harness that potential. We have a responsibility in particular to get this policy right, because we do not want to be in a position where we may make decisions that lead to the demise of Australia’s car-manufacturing industry. I firmly believe that car manufacturing has a future in this country and I also believe that we in this place must do all that we can to help protect that future. Government has an important role to play both in terms of showing leadership and by developing the right policy settings capable of channelling more investment and energy into those areas where the potential for industry gains are greatest. I also want to put on record that, although people often malign the union movement, I have nothing but praise and admiration for the union movement—in particular, the Australian metal workers union and the vehicle builders union. I know those officials, I know the people who are members of both unions and I know the organisers. I know the people who are involved with the unions are committed to protecting, preserving and supporting Australia’s car-manufacturing industry. They believe in it not only because they want to preserve jobs for Australians now but also because they want to preserve Australia’s car-manufacturing capabilities into the future. If we do anything that leads to the demise of the car industry in Australia, we will lose an entire generation, a critical mass and a capacity that I do not believe we will be able to get back in the next 50 years. So together unions, government and the general community need to support the car-manufacturing industry in order to ensure its survival. (Time expired) 6837 6837 21:15:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —During the winter break I found myself reading theIndependent newspaper, a newspaper published in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Bangladesh is an exceedingly poor country that is facing terrible problems in relation to climate change. My eye was drawn to an article in the paper called ‘Can microcredit defeat poverty?’ by Dhiraj Kumar Nath, and in particular to this paragraph, which bore quite some relationship to what I have been saying for some years now about our own Indigenous communities: Besides, absence of the ownership of the land and farm equipment can create a situation where empowerment of poor becomes well nigh impossible. When such a situation is coupled with the absence of good governance, protection of the rights of the poor turns out to be a far cry. That is not the English that we would write, but that is the English that is in the newspaper. The writer was making the point about the importance of land ownership and good governance in Indigenous communities—and, boy, doesn’t that strike a chord here in Australia. I then found myself reading an article in the Australian newspaper titled ‘Dodson’s reform call’, which started: Indigenous leader Pat Dodson has entered the push for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal identity and culture, arguing for a new “Australian dialogue”. Why is it in Australia that all of the community leaders, including us, cannot actually think about what achieves a result for Indigenous Australians? Why do I worry that in 100 years time the plight of Australia’s Indigenous people will be the same as it is today, with no change? I look at all the good things that we do in land rights, reconciliation, stolen wages, stolen generation—there is always something—but what do they amount to when you go and have a look at people on the ground in an Indigenous community? The kids still do not go to school. The health outcomes are far worse than for white Australians. The alcoholism, domestic violence and corruption that occurs! It is an art form in Indigenous communities. The nepotism that goes on! If you are not part of the controlling family, you are nothing. Why is it that if we look forward to an Australia in 100 years time we will not have changed any of that? The answer is that we have to stop talking in terms of these really high ideals and start talking in terms of things that change the situation. We have to have a new approach to Aboriginality and Indigenous issues in Australia. Yes, the NT intervention is a great start and I thank the Rudd government for taking up where the Howard government left off, but there is much more to be done. I keep saying to my community: ‘Don’t spend time and hundreds of thousands of dollars on court cases on issues that don’t change life in an Aboriginal house. Get on with it. Do things that you can change. Look at all of the current issues that apply and do something.’ I ask the leaders of this country to come with a fresh approach to make sure that we leave a legacy that we can be proud of—not just a lot of spin, a lot of words and a lot of platitudes that result in no change to the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Australians who have that situation to look forward to. I want to also recognise Warrant Officer Class 2 Alan Bungate, who is with us in the Main Committee tonight. Warrant Officer, I want to say some words about the Australian Defence Force, if I may, and you are part of that. You are part of the fine body of men and women who make up the ADF and serve our country so well. Over the past few years much speculation has been thrown around about the war in Iraq. Some of the observers weighing in on the discussion will tell you that the war has probably been a bad idea or maybe Australian troops should not have been ordered in there at all. I do not believe this to be the case, for many reasons which I will now outline to the Main Committee. In late 2005, for the very first time in a very long time, 10 million Iraqi citizens streamed to the polls to determine their future democratically. A new constitution was then enshrined with a popular margin of four to one. The new constitution contained many fundamental human rights, the kinds of human rights which had been denied for many years under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Iraqi elections in November 2005, as well as the introduction of human rights, would not have been possible under Saddam Hussein. Information recently released proves that conditions within Iraq are improving dramatically. The information points towards the efforts of the troops from the coalition of the willing. A recent article in the Sunday Mail suggested that the number of US combat deaths in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level of casualties since the March 2003 invasion. Another example of the progress of the war in Iraq is in the decrease of violence on the streets. It is very significant. In the period 15 May to 3 June 2007, 316 incidents of violence occurred in Iraq. However, this can only be seen as an example of the recent successes of the war, as over the same period this year the number of violent incidents fell dramatically to just 68. The decrease from 316 to 68 violent incidents includes a fall in all types of attacks. Sniper shootings, once a popular method of attack in Iraq, have seen a dramatic downturn. The once continual spree of suicide bombers has also massively decreased. Insurgent attacks have been reduced significantly and even car bombs, which we remember used to explode a number of times a day, have been detonated far fewer times. These are all positive indicators that the war in Iraq has seen some major progress and success. But the progress does not stop there. Dr Kimberly Kagan, the President of the United States based Institute for the Study of War, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that where the US was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, it is just as unequivocally winning today. Dr Kagan then went on to insist that by February 2008 America and its partners, including Australia, had accomplished a series of tasks thought to be impossible. The Sunni Arab insurgency and al-Qaeda in Iraq were defeated in a number of important provinces, with the remaining leaders and fighters clinging to their last urban outpost in Mosul. But it is not just through combat that the Australian troops have contributed to rebuilding Iraq. As we are all aware, the efforts to aid the people of Iraq through the development of infrastructure and agriculture have included vital projects such as the planting of crops and upgrading of agricultural facilities and installing electricity generators, power transformers, water treatment works, graded roads and schools as well as providing other basic services including medical supplies. The help by Australian troops in training the Iraqi army to look after themselves has been very, very successful. Australians currently believe that we have withdrawn from Iraq. That is not so. We currently have about a thousand ADF personnel still in Iraq and the region supporting Iraq. It is just a furphy for people to believe that Australians have not continued to provide help and assistance to that country. All of the abovementioned services have been made available thanks in part to the Australian troops on the ground in Iraq and the former Liberal government back at home. Until late last year Australia had a government that was intent on improving the lives of Iraqis after helping them remove Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship. That help will go on, although the Australian people have been asked to believe that that help has not continued. I thank the men and women of the Australian Defence Force in the Middle East region and in Iraq who have contributed so much to helping the good people of Iraq restore their lives. 6839 6839 21:25:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —This week is National Literacy and Numeracy Week. I think it is titled Partnerships in Learning and it was launched last week here in Canberra by the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. I want to speak today about a very misunderstood learning difficulty—that of dyslexia. There are all sorts of myths and legends about it and most education authorities use this term to define a large group of students who have difficulties learning, which is a bit like speaking about learning disabilities as a sort of catch-all phrase that captures everything. Dyslexia is a specific reading disability due to a defect in the brain’s processing of graphic symbols. It stems from a neurological difference which is shown to cause difficulties in phonological processing, rapid naming, working memory, processing speed and the automatic development of skills that may not match up to an individual’s other cognitive abilities. It affects reading, writing, spelling, grammar and, in a lot of cases, maths. Two commonly held beliefs about dyslexia are that children with it are prone to seeing letters or words backwards and that the problem is linked to intelligence. Both beliefs are incorrect. The problem is a linguistic one, not a visual one, in dyslexia. Dyslexia in no way stems from any lack of intelligence. People with severe dyslexia can be brilliant. The effects of dyslexia in fact vary from person to person. The only shared trait among people with dyslexia is that they read at levels significantly lower than are typical for people of their age. It is a widespread problem, but because the identification of its causes is complex and time consuming there has been little work done on it. Dyslexia is causing many bright young people to fall through the gaps in education and to be left struggling to survive in employment that is often well below their intellectual abilities. Too often, the frustration starts causing other problems in both studies and relationships as the person attempts to communicate. There is a stigma attached to dyslexia and many will just try to hide the problem, become adept at circumventing the need to read or write or find alternative ways of coping. For some reason, some people in Scotland have taken up the challenge and there is some interesting work being done there through their adult literacy research programs. They are looking to develop methods by which somebody with dyslexia can be helped through, first of all, identifying the causes and types of illiteracy and then going on to develop programs and learning plans to help individuals develop their skills in such a way that they can maximise their abilities. An organisation called Dyslexia Scotland have been working on this for a short while. They have recently launched a new initiative following a study, undertaken by Pamela Deponio, of dyslexic children in primary school and year 7, the first year of secondary school, which looked at the parents and the pupils. Examples of good practice from the research have been used to write new professional development material for teachers—and we hope that flows through to us. Deponio pointed out that the main problem is that many teachers assume that dyslexia is a difficulty with reading and writing whereas it is actually much wider than that and it impacts on every subject. Teachers need to be aware of this and understand the implications for their subjects. If we are to address the literacy and numeracy problems facing Australia today, we must now approach the causes before trying to deal with the symptoms. In the education revolution, it is important to go back to basics if we are to get it right. We have to have time and funds to address the causes and to try and tease out a better definition than is presently used in Australia so that we do not hide behind ‘learning difficulties’. We must define dyslexia and not lump all the children together under ‘learning difficulties’. We really have to go back to the teaching of teachers and ensure that we have early intervention programs ready for them to refer to and use when a problem is detected. The work that has been done on this in Scotland is very interesting. I was able to find some figures on their adult population. This research was done some years ago but, according to the survey they did based on international standards, they estimated that 23 per cent of the adult population had low literacy and numeracy skills. Of course, that accords with the general findings that we have right throughout Australia, which are that many people who have low literacy and numeracy skills find it difficult to move forward in the workforce and do not find it easy to find the help that they need. In Scotland in 2001 they identified three factors associated with low literacy and numeracy. These were: leaving education at a very early age, usually before 16—and that made up 10 per cent of the Scottish population; being on a low income, if they were employed; and coming from, in their terms, a ‘manual social class group’. Another survey in Scotland in 2001 found that low literacy and numeracy skills usually meant people were six times more likely to be unemployed, more likely to suffer ill health, less likely to be able to support their children’s learning and less likely to feel able to contribute to community life. That research also found that people with limited initial education, particularly when they became young adults, were likely to be the unemployed, workers facing redundancy, people with English as a second or additional language, people who lived in disadvantaged areas, workers in low-skill jobs, people on low incomes and people with health problems and disabilities. All around the world, people with a lack of education or a disability or dyslexia can be at the bottom end of the scale. But there are many opportunities to improve that standard, so we would certainly hope that Adult Learners Week and National Literacy and Numeracy Week 2008 give many people an opportunity to focus on that. I am very pleased that Scotland now has a university that focuses on dyslexia. I understand there is a chair of dyslexia at one of their universities—the first in the world. I would hope that the research and the work that comes from that university helps to drive some broader understanding of dyslexia and especially, as I said earlier, the training of teachers to have a broader understanding that it is not just about reading and writing but goes to every subject. We need teachers to have that knowledge when they are teaching. And I would like to see what we now call learning difficulties become much better defined. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 6841 21:36:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.36 pm 6842 Questions in Writing 6842 6842 120 6842 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 5 June 2008: Has the Government held discussions with the States and Territories about providing child welfare and school attendance information to Centrelink so that welfare payments can be quarantined, if so: (a) which States and Territories have agreed to provide this information and under what conditions; (b) have any welfare payments been quarantined as a result of information already provided by the States and Territories; (c) when will official systems be implemented to enable the parents of children ‘at risk’ or of truanting children to face welfare quarantine; and (d) when will such quarantining commence 6842 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The 2008-09 Budget measure, Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform, will introduce conditions on the receipt of income support payments whereby parents are obliged to ensure their children of compulsory school age are enrolled in school as well as take reasonable action to ensure children attend school regularly. The measure will initially be implemented in selected locations, including six sites in the NT, namely Hermannsburg, Katherine, Katherine town camps, Wallace Rockhole, Wadeye and Tiwi Islands, and two metropolitan locations outside of the NT. One of these is Cannington WA and the other is being finalised. For enrolment, parents will be required to inform Centrelink directly of the school at which their child is enrolled. For attendance, state school authorities will be able to notify Centrelink where parents have not taken reasonable action to ensure their children attend school regularly. Centrelink will then notify parents of the consequences for non-compliance. Parents who persist in failing to meet their obligations without a reasonable excuse may have their income support payments suspended until they comply. Before suspension is imposed, Centrelink will actively work with parents to assist them comply with their requirements and to determine whether parents have a reasonable excuse for their incapacity to comply. Once parents demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to ensure their children are attending school, income support payments will be restored with back payment. As part of its commitment to improve child welfare the Commonwealth Government is developing a National Child Protection Framework which will include practical measures such as quarantining welfare payments in cases of child neglect to ensure they are spent in the best interests of children. As part of the Framework, the Government will progressively enable state and territory child welfare authorities to notify Centrelink to income manage parents’ income support and family assistance payments where this will help ensure payments are used to benefit children rather than fuel harmful behaviours. Under income management part of a person’s income support and family payments are managed through Centrelink to ensure that income is directed towards priority needs including food, clothing, housing education and medical expenses. The Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments are working in partnership to implement the early roll out of the Child Protection measure in that state from July 2008. The initial roll out will take place in selected areas, the Kimberley region of northern WA and the Cannington District in metropolitan Perth. Both the Australian and WA Governments recognise the importance of this measure and are sensitive of their responsibility to ensure that the approach taken in implementation is right, with the relevant support systems in place and tested appropriately. 6843 6843 122 6843 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 5 June 2008: What is the estimate of the number of Family Tax Benefit recipients who will be affected by including, in their family income, the salary sacrifice fringe benefits of employees of charitable organisations. What is the estimate of the number of workers employed by charitable organisations whose average weekly earnings are below average, and who also receive salary sacrifice fringe benefits. If the Government does not have this information, why did it make this change in the Budget and will the change be postponed until its impact on working families can be better assessed. 6843 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: At the end of May 2008, there were around 85,000 Family tax Benefit recipients who were paid fortnightly who also had a reportable fringe benefit . Around 4,200 of these recipients had an adjustable taxable income of less then $40,000. The number of Family Tax Benefit recipients who are employees of charitable organisations is not known. Centrelink does not collect information on a person’s type of employment as it is not necessary for assessing their eligibility for Family Tax Benefit. In the 2005-06 tax year, around 100,000 employees in the not-for-profit sector received some portion of their remuneration in the form of fringe benefit. That number is about one-seventh of the total population receiving fringe benefits. Its is only the number of those employees who have children and receive Family Tax Benefit who would have affected by a change to the treatment of reportable fringe benefits. This information is not publicly available and falls outside the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio responsibility. The Government’s 2008-09 Budget did not change the treatment of reportable fringe benefits in determining income for Family Tax Benefit purposes. The change in the treatment of reportable fringe benefits was announced as part of the previous Government’s Child Support Reforms and was included in the 2006-07 Budget. On 19 June 2008, the Government announced its decision to reverse those changes so that employees in the charitable and not-for-profit sector will not suffer a loss of family tax or child care benefits after 1 July 2008 if their circumstances have not otherwise changed. Legislation has been passed by the Parliament to restore the use of the net value of reportable fringe benefits in the income definition for family assistance from 1 July 2008. The treatment of fringe benefits is a complex issue, with flow on effects to employees beyond the not-for-profit sector receiving family assistance. The broader policy issues will be considered as part of the comprehensive review of Australia’s Future Tax System being led by Treasury Secretary, Dr Ken Henry. 6843 6843 123 6843 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 5 June 2008: Is she aware of reported comments by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts that elements of the Northern Territory Intervention should be considered for dysfunctional urban indigenous communities, such as La Perouse in his electorate. Has the Government considered new measures such as welfare quarantine, alcohol bans, and better law enforcement for urban indigenous communities; if so, what are the details. Have any such changes been discussed with the States and Territories, and when might any such changes be implemented. 6844 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Australian and Western Australian Governments are working in partnership to implement income management in selected areas of Western Australia, including the Kimberley area and the Cannington region in Perth. From September 2008, the Western Australian Department for Child Protection will be able to notify Centrelink to apply income management where it has been assessed that children are being neglected and where poor use of available financial resources wholly or partially contributes to that neglect. In addition, the Governments have committed to implementing a trial in the Cannington region in Perth linking school enrolment and attendance with welfare payments. Parents receiving income support will be required to inform Centrelink of where their children are enrolled and to take reasonable measures to ensure their children attend school regularly. Parents who fail to enrol their child or take reasonable measures to get their children to school may have their income support payments suspended until the problem is resolved. If parents have met their responsibilities within a 13 week period, full back pay of their suspended payments will be provided. This initiative will also be trialled in six communities in the Northern Territory and an additional metropolitan site which will be announced in the future. In comparison to Indigenous people in remote areas, those in urban areas have much greater access to programs and services. The Government is committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians regardless of where they live. We are working with the States and Territories to develop new approaches and to ensure that non-remote Indigenous people benefit from services designed for all Australians. As part of the reform of Specific Purpose Payments we will leverage better outcomes for Indigenous people in remote, regional and urban areas.